In today’s post, I will present a general theory of liberalism and conservatism that incorporates modern social science research. I will begin with examples of liberal and conservative attitudes in areas of life beyond politics.
Liberalism and conservatism are not limited to politics. Liberal and conservative impulses and sensibilities are present in science and religion, in music and art, in how we raise our children, and in every organization or institution.
Beyond Politics: Language
Liberalism and conservatism are present even in languages. Languages that have few native speakers (and are therefore in danger of becoming extinct) become “conservative” and “xenophobic”—they do not readily admit foreign words into their vocabulary. Words or expressions from foreign languages are perceived as an existential threat—a threat to the survival of the language as a distinct entity.
In contrast, languages spoken by many people (for example, English) commonly make use of words from foreign sources. In English, we have little difficulty admitting foreign words into our lexicon because English is not an endangered language. English speakers will talk about a rendezvous, or a tsunami, or the emotion of schadenfreude. These have become English words. Our existential security allows us to be more open; we can afford to be more liberal. This example can be extended to other aspects of culture and offers an exact parallel to politics.
Preserving Our Identity
This broader perspective on liberal and conservative opinions suggests that liberalism and conservatism represent a fundamental tension in our emotional lives, present in all of us.
At the most general level, liberalism and conservatism reflect an inherent tension in human nature between the instincts of empathy (compassion) and self-preservation (security) and reflect the feelings, concerns, values, and social priorities animated by these different human instincts. This hypothesis preserves a role for both genetics and personal experience, and for both emotion and reason in our political beliefs.
Liberals and conservatives differ in how much openness, change, and assimilation feels right to us and to what extent change is felt as an existential threat. We are often faced with conflicts and dilemmas of this kind in many aspects of our lives, especially as members of institutions and social groups. The specific concerns and issues are different in every case, but the theme is the same, present in many variations: How much can we change and still preserve the distinctiveness of our institutions and our culture? How open can we be to new ideas and practices and still preserve our identity?
The Essence of Liberalism
Liberalism, in all spheres of life, is characterized by openness. In social and political life, liberalism is animated by a particular kind of openness—empathy, our openness to the feelings of others, especially the perception of suffering and injustice. When we are liberal, we allow others into our circle of concern. The larger and more inclusive our circle of concern, the more liberal we become.
The Essence of Conservatism
In contrast, conservatism—in politics, science, and the arts, in religion and in all institutions—is animated by a perceived threat to something valued. We become conservative when we believe that something essential to our way of life—our status, our values, our culture, our identity—is threatened. We are conservative to the extent that we find meaning and security in traditions and existing institutions and believe that these traditions or institutions are endangered.
There is an inherent tension between these two cognitive-emotional systems. We have evolved emotional and cognitive biases for both empathic concern and the perception of danger. The threat we perceive may be imagined, or it may be real, or it may be real but exaggerated. Threat erodes empathy and increases our capacity for cruelty. Empathy softens the harshness of our judgments and our actions. In threatening circumstances, we draw a greater boundary between ourselves and others. We build a wall, emotionally or physically.
This is Emerson’s “primal antagonism”—the conflict that “agitates every man’s [sic] bosom with opposing advantages every hour…[with a] depth of seat in the human constitution…. the appearance in trifles of the two poles of nature.”
