Behavior Politics

The useless meaning of Left or Right

The useless meaning of Left or Right

Today's world is polarized, with angry demonstrations on social networks with a global reach, due to political positions that are divided into two sides: the left and the right. Defining a political position solely by such a generic concept is a trap full of clichés that doesn't reflect the complexity and contradictions of today's society. But, after all, what do these differences mean for someone to be labeled "right" or "left"?

The distinction was created at the time of the national assemblies in France, pre-French Revolution, according to which the right would be against social change, linked to a traditional behavior that sought to maintain the power of the French elite and the left in favor of social change in defense of workers and the poorest population.

This conceptual duality doesn't make any sense nowadays. But the fact is that the way we situate ourselves in relation to a range of issues leads us to be classified as "right-wing" or "left-wing". This ends up inducing people to lean towards a certain position as a result of a classification that has been imposed on them and which will tend to influence their thinking in other areas. It's as if people had to buy the whole package. In other words, if I'm in favor of carrying weapons, I have to be in favor of the death penalty, against the release of drugs and against abortion. This, by stereotypical definition, makes me a right-wing political thinker. And since I'm right-wing, I necessarily adhere to a liberal economic agenda. But, on the other hand, if I'm left-wing, I diverge from all the usual themes above and on the economic agenda I'm a communist, or an advocate of strong state intervention. You see, these precepts don't make much sense together, except under the logic of a pre-defined concept, which tends to induce the individual into Cartesian cause-and-effect thinking and thereby influence their attitudes on other issues.

To reduce the concept to a single word is to trivialize understanding

Therefore, reducing a whole host of situations and conceptual positions to a single word is idiotic. Journalists like to reduce an entire ideology to just one word because of a lack of journalistic objectivity (see more in the article "Objectivity in Journalism " https://www.mauricioferro.com.br/jornalismo-e-a-perda-da-objetividade/ ). But along with this conceptual reductionism go the nuances that make up everyday politics. How can you classify in a single word a person who defends drug use, supports gun ownership, condemns abortion and supports same-sex marriage?

St. Thomas Aquinas discouraged King Louis IX of France (who, together with Robert de Sorbon, founded the Sorbonne University in 1257) from banning prostitution, because such a sudden interference in an age-old custom would cause more problems than solutions. Does this make Thomas Aquinas right-wing or left-wing?

Of course, the ideal is to abandon the notion of left or right and delve into the merits of each issue according to its suitability in the space and time in which it is situated in society. What really matters is our attachment to our intellectual honesty.

So why do we still label individuals today? The explanation seems to come from political propaganda strategies for influencing the masses. Our brains clamor for predefined classifications that allow us to easily identify who we consider to be our allies and who our adversaries are and this, when appropriate, is used to move crowds, as it makes it easier for us to define people by the generic concept.

Thus, if what is favored is the sacredness of life, one should be opposed to issues such as the liberation of drugs, abortion, the death penalty, transgenics and euthanasia. But if what is defended is individual autonomy, then the existence of such actions would naturally be approved.

Political scientists have strongly criticized the terms left-right, saying that they have lost their meaning in the modern world. For Italian political scientist Giovanni Sartori, in his book Parties and the Party System, these terms are empty boxes whose contents can be unloaded with the passage of time. The Italian thinker Norberto Bobbio, in his book Right and Left - reasons and meanings of a political distinction, states that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), lines emerged that pointed to the end of the right-left dichotomy and the loss of influence of this polarity. Bobbio makes us reflect by asking whether: "do right and left still exist? And if they still exist, and are in the field, can it be said that they have completely lost their meaning? And if they still have meaning, what is it?"

The term right-left, however, has not disappeared, it continues to be used as a political marker and has gained in complexity and scope. There is already talk of radical right-left and ultra-right-left. But its meaning is currently irrelevant in the conceptual aspect of political thought.

Nevertheless, it continues to be used as an instrument to foment greater divergence in a society connected by soulless electronic gadgets that support polarized manifestations of hatred. These people end up being easily manipulated by generic concepts that place them in a camp where there is only the tiresome duality of allies and enemies.

About Author

Maurício Ferro

What do soccer, wine, law, politics, and economics have in common? Much more than you can imagine. And contrary to what the popular saying says, they can and should be debated and analyzed, yes. Welcome to Maurício Ferro's site, a channel to create and exchange thoughts and opinions. Maurício Ferro is a lawyer, graduated from PUC university in Rio de Janeiro, with a Master's degree and specializations from universities such as the London School and the University of London. He studied OPM at Harvard Business School. Author of published works in the commercial and capital markets areas, and acting in the Board of Directors of large companies, he based his legal and executive career with a focus on Business Law. But his passion goes beyond the corporate world. A passionate Flamenguista, Mauricio knows the ins and outs of the professional world of soccer and other sports. He is a partner in innovative companies such as 2Blive, a global startup focused on technological solutions to fill the education gap, especially in areas of great need such as Africa. He also invests in the Flow Kana company, based in California, and focused on the scientific production of cannabis for various purposes, such as medicinal, clothing production, or recreational use. To all these ingredients, add a deep knowledge of wine and the delicious ways of winemaking. That is the recipe for what you will find here.

1 Comment

  • Well-written and enlightening text.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *