Political Left and Right: Our Hands-On Logic

Abstract

The origins and immediate vitality of the left/right divide which emerged in French revolutionary politics from 1789 can only be understood against the background of a much older classification dynamic based on the primacy of the right hand, first described by Robert Hertz in 1909. This dynamic infused political thinking first in Versailles and since 1815 in democracies throughout the world. In the process, the classical left/right polarity acquired a new dimension: the complementary notions of ‘accepting’ and ‘questioning’ the existing social order. An essential feature of both the age-old classical polarity and the ensuing political polarity is that they are intimately bound up with local and evolving social contexts: there is no single content-based definition of left and right. As long as the majority of us are predisposed to use our right hand when acting in the world, ‘left versus right’ will remain the most important political antithesis in western-type democracies.

‘The left is right’: Left and right political orientation across Eastern and Western Europe

“…Importantly however, recent large-scale cross-national research using World Value Survey data found that cultural and economic political attitudes on average are weakly related, and that it is more common for them to be negatively rather than positively related (Malka et al, 2019). These findings suggest that the relationship between economic and cultural dimensions may be context-dependent and inevitably emphasize the longstanding problem of the universality of the left-right distinction (Bienfait & van Beek, 2014).…”

“…Yet, Sartre called it an "empty vessel" (Bobbio, 1996), and many others accused it of either oversimplifying complex political phenomena or of being unable to capture newly rising social clashes, for example, recent reactions to issues surrounding climate change and environment conservation (Giddens, 1994). However, the concept is still widely used in social sciences due to its simplicity and versatility (Inglehart, 1990;Bienfait & van Beek, 2014).…”