Social Psychologists Detect Liberal Bias Within.
I find myself at odds with this one here. As a devout Anti-Authoritarian, I find the idea of the state to be repugnant. For that, I have been labeled a Conservative (but not by anyone that *actually* knows me). Yet, the idea of Conservative, or being called one, is at least as repugnant as the idea of the state.
This may seem overtly judgmental, and that would be correct. However, it is not prejudicial, in that I am not making a judgement without knowing what I a judging. I am quite familiar with Conservatism and it’s ilk. Having been reared in Conservative Texas in what could be described as the poster-child of Conservative Churches; having attended Pro-Life rallies and marches, having heard all the arguments for Conservatism, I can only come to the fundamentally defining characteristic of Conservatives – Selfishness.
There are those who define themselves as in the article, “Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative”, yet, I’m hard pressed to come up with a name of anyone who would define themselves as “Fiscally Liberal”. As far as I can tell, a fiscally liberal person doesn’t mind wasting money. Yet, the same can not be said for a “Socially Liberal” person; that is, it does not hold true that a socially liberal person doesn’t mind wasting society. So, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of the populace is “fiscally conservative”. This leaves only the Social element of the definition in play. What makes a “Social Conservative”?
First, the usual attack is on those impoverished – the welfare state recipients. The off-shoots of this are hidden in the anti-healthcare arguments, anti-arts arguments, anti-anything that involves some form of social contribution to those not able to fit into the “private market” society. These are often framed as “anti-government intrusion” arguments, but the clear result is a wider gap between those who have and those who have not. Further, it is a thinly disguised hypocrisy of ensuring that what little government is consented to, is used to protect the wealth of those with more of it. What I find interesting, is that almost all the “Conservatives” I’ve ever discussed appropriate forms of state and authority with, have vehemently agreed on the need for a physical authority, along the lines of Police and Military. This flies in the face of all their arguments – smaller, leaner, even no government, except the enforcement arm. Yet, when asked what the enforcement arm would do, operationally, without something to enforce, we jump right back to “protect the wealth of those who have it.”
If we dig deeper, down to the morality that informs our principles, the socially liberal person can be said to believe that humans have fundamental rights, and that a society made up of humans must endeavor to ensure the general needs of the individuals that make up the society are met at a “reasonable level”. Of course, reasonable level is arguable, however, a common base is the definition of “middle class”. That is, the idea of Social Liberal includes a belief that providing security and safety for every individual, at least financially, is fundamental to a healthy society.
In contrast, the socially conservative person can be said to believe that the only function a society must serve is the protection of “property rights”. There are, of course, those who would add that protections should extend to “moral values”. Apart from these protections, the individual that makes up the society must fend for themselves or, unsuccessful, die off. One could reasonably refer to this as a form of “Social Darwinism” – that is, if you fit into the “private market” environment, you will flourish, but if not, you will become extinct.
So, to build a bridge back to the article, if the “conservative” is essentially opposed to the idea of a “society” – a group of people who collectively support each other, but favors the Individual with property, it makes sense that “Social Psychologists” would tend towards social liberalism. Additionally, a “Conservative Social Psychologist” has, by definition, set rigid lines of “acceptable morals”, without regard to studying the phenomenon in question. Homosexuality is wrong, they would say, therefore the study is not about homosexuality itself, but about what to do to “right” it. That is fundamentally in opposition to the goals of science and academia.
In short, one would be correct to say that there is a bias towards “evolution” among evolutionary scientists, just as there is a bias towards “society” for social scientists.
Next, why does the New York Times cover this, and in this obviously supportive way?