I was speaking to grandpa about running for the presidency of our class and as grandpa usually does he used this as a way in to my mind to prepare me for aduthood.
"I have used the term radical in some of my latest rants or gripes as a way to clarify what I would wish to describe of what I have to say. The first thing I’d like to clear up is the fact that I describe radicalism differently than I would extremism even though some would describe the two words as synonymous.
On the political line of continuum between two extremities, each of us has a place and no two persons occupy the same space. This may appear to contradict reality since we know that there are political groups espousing the same ideas, each different. Yet, upon examination, we know that within these groups are smaller groups espousing political ideas of their own also. By this type of examination we could continue to find smaller and smaller groups until we end up with only the individual espousing to his own beliefs and no other.
We would also be able to declare that as the groups got smaller the extremities (the points that can be used to define the group itself) of the line of continuum also shortened. The extremities of each group would be that point where a person with extreme beliefs would still be allowed to remain within the group. This would recognize that there are core beliefs that each person of the group adheres to and is used to define the group itself.
We can now give the extremities identification too. The extreme position to the left would be called Communism and the extreme to the right would be called anarchy. Every other political theory would then lie between these two extremes. Thus, an extremist would be one who adheres to the extreme position even if it is only within the group he identifies with.
We could also refer to this as a political power line also so as to ascertain where power and authority over the individual lies, whether it be with the government or the individual. This would declare that absolute power be at the extremities.
A radical on the other hand, could be one that is usually identified as one who adheres to extreme positions but I’d have to argue that point. A radical could hold to a political position anywhere along that line by my way of defining him. I define a radical not so much by his extreme political position but by the extremes he is willing to go in order to impose his political beliefs upon others. Thus, we can see that an extremist can be allied politically with a radical but each must be given his own identity. We can also see that they can be foes in spite of their common political beliefs. Tactics believed as allowable would be the separation point.
So, boy, in this political atmosphere of extremism it is even more important then ever to have an understanding of the political system that our fathers has bequeathed us. Furthermore, in this atmosphere it is even more important that we scrutinize those who wish to be called our leaders so that we know who we are voting for once in that voting booth. It is no longer a matter of having belief in the man you vote for now days it requires that you know and understand the beliefs of the man you vote for.
Your freedoms, your liberty, your rights are at stake. There are many persons who no longer consider these attributes as deserving of the highest of priorities in life, far too many as far as I’m concerned. People are afraid of something today and when people are afraid they end up making poor decisions. This is not a time for change. This is not a time for hope. This is a time when leadership is needed to re-instill faith in what they have, what they have been given.
Boy, if you wish to grow up and be a leader of men, hope of leadership will get you nowhere. Faith in yourself will. Run your campaign as one who seeks to be the leader of leaders not the leader of followers”
I just grinned as I said "thank you, grandpa"
WELCOMES YOU to his little home in cyberspace.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
While I agree with your recognition of a political power line, I wish to suggest that there is not one political spectrum (or line), but two; Power (the authoritarian-libertarian axis) and economy (the traditional left-right axis). There are dictators (authoritarians) on the right as well as the left, just as there are anarchists & libertarians on both sides of the economic scale. Stalin & Gandhi were both leftists, but they had very different ideas about who should hold the power.
Looking at it this way, it is too simplistic to say that the opposite of communism is anarchy. While many communist governments have been authoritarian, that has not been true of small communes in Israel & elsewhere, where democracy flourishes & the individual citizen holds the majority of power.
As for your definition of radical, I would be inclined to agree. Unfortunately for us, political science does not, and defines a radical as one who seeks immediate, fundamental change from the status quo. Apparently, the methodology for achieving it isn't important; simply the suggestion of immediate fundamental change is enough to define one as a radical. By this way of looking at it, Martin Luther King Jr & his fellow desegregationists were radicals in their day. (This according to prominent political scientist & author Leon P. Baradat, who defines a radical thusly: American Power: No Enemies on the Left? Progressives for Barack Obama:
"...a radical may defined as a person who is extremely dissastified with the society as it is and therefore is impatient with less than extreme proposals for changing it. Hence, all radicals favor an immediate and fundamental change in the society. In other words, all radicals favor revolutionary change."
Like you, I always thought one had to act in an extreme way (violence, vandalism, massive protest) to be a radical, and was very surprised to discover I was mistaken. My view changed when I realized that virtually every step forward (as well as more than a few steps backward) humanity has taken has been the result of radical thinking. America itself was founded on radicalism. It isn't radicalism itself that's a problem, but some of the specific radical ideas and ways of implementing them that folks put forward... If one admires the founding fathers, one cannot use or hear "radical" as though it is a dirty word, or necessarily a bad thing to be.
If you want more info on the dual axis theory of politics, check out this link: The Political Compass
For the record, my score on the political compass quiz was:
Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05
(I've taken it several times over the last few years... Apparently, I'm moving further right, and getting less authoritarian, at least since 2/07... What'd I Say?: Political Tests & Quizzes: Have you been tested?)
repsaac,
my post already addresses each one of your arguments if you read it in light of the writer's intent. the only thing that might be considered as debatable is how a radical is described. and the description you use leaves out one detail, the intelligence of the person called a radical. it is an insult to his intelligence.
and there is one rule when dealing with an enemy. don't underestimate his inteligence. if you do, you've lost before you start.
Great advice again from the grandpa.... But when you think about it, it makes sense...
he smiles, grandpa tries to make sense. tis why he posts. if what he says and thinks does not make sense then he hopes his readers will point out his flaws.
Griper: Perhaps I'm not as intelligent as I think I am, because I cannot make heads or tails of your reply.
my post already addresses each one of your arguments if you read it in light of the writer's intent.
As you are the writer of the post, are you saying I'd understand what you meant if I understood what you intended to mean?
In the original post, you discussed the power axis of political thought, but--aside using a term more at home in economic discussions as though it were a term of power (communism)--said nothing whatsoever about the economic axis. As such, I fail to see how anything I said about the left-right (economic) axis was addressed in your post, whatever your intent. Perhaps you might be more clear on that subject.
Do you agree there is an economic (left-right) axis separate & apart from the power (authoritarian-libertarian) axis, and that one can be a left (or right) leaning authoritarian, or a right (or left) leaning libertarian? Or alternatively, do you believe that communism (an economic term, as far as I'm concerned) is the opposite of anarchy (a term of political power)? (And if so, what are the opposites of the terms "capitalism" & "dictatorship?")
the only thing that might be considered as debatable is how a radical is described. and the description you use leaves out one detail, the intelligence of the person called a radical. it is an insult to his intelligence.
As I mentioned, the description (definition) of "radical" I use is the one political scientists offer us lay folks. As I am not a political scientist myself, I'm willing to take their word for it and trust their definition.
I can appreciate that the intelligence of a given "radical" is an important issue, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not a person expressing radical ideas can be called a radical in the first place. Rather, judging the intelligence of a radical only gives us the opportunity to add "brilliant" or "psychopathic" or some other adjective before the word radical. Brilliant or crazy, radical ideas are radical ideas are radical ideas.
I'm not sure what it is that you believe is an insult to his intelligence, or for that matter who "he" is.
and there is one rule when dealing with an enemy. don't underestimate his inteligence. if you do, you've lost before you start.
I'm no more clear on who the enemy is, or who's underestimating anyone's intelligence... But just the same, I'll keep that maxim in mind, just in case I suddenly find myself facing an enemy whose intelligence I'm about to underestimate. (Not all that likely, though... I tend to think well of others, even when I find that they don't see fit to return the gesture...)
ok i'll be more clear.
"said nothing whatsoever about the economic axis"
it didn't have to say anything. the economic axis is a part of the power axis. to have absolute power is to not only control the social aspect of society but also its economic aspect also. thus its as much a part of the power axis as every other aspect. a dictator who controls the social but not the economic would fall somewhere inbetween the two extremities.
if you reread it i clearly defined the power axis as being power over the people. thus, on one extremity you have government with complete control over the people, and at the other the individual has complete control over himself. and here the individual controls his own economic conditions, meaning he provides for himself and if there is to be any business done with another he uses the barter system of economics. which is, by the way, the purest form of free enterprise. thus, the definition of the two extremities, communism, a political theory of absolute control over the people, and anarchy, no government at all. each person has absolute control over himself.
now, as to the description of radicalism if you reread my post i specifically said that both, a radical and extremist could united in their beliefs.
i also declared he did not need to be an extremist in thought.
i also declared the difference was in the extremes used that a radical believed was allowable to impose his political ideas on the people.
the difference between your experts and me is that your experts declare that violence is a part of the description of a radical.
i only was saying that violence would be allowable if he chose that method.
the intelligence part comes into play if the radical understood that the use of violence would not attain his goals then he'd use another tactic.
it is this aspect that your experts do not take into consideration in their description.
the fact he does not use violence has no bearing on whether he is a radical or not. its the idea of whether or not he considers it an allowable tactic to inpose his political beliefs.
remember, the use of violence is only a tactic to be used not a political belief. it is not a part of the beliefs of anyone. any act of violence is but a political tactic, wars, suicide bombings, etc.
they serve but one purpose, to overthrow the present power system and gain power for themselves.
you and i have different political beliefs. some might even call our beliefs extreme. but we have one thing in common. we don't believe that the use of violence would be an allowable tactic in order to gain power.
a radical holding to the same political beliefs as you or me would consider violence as allowable. but it doesn't mean that he needs to use it if he intellegently decided that another tactic would be a better tactic.
.
the economic axis is a part of the power axis.
Have you been to the Political Compass link?
And if so, do you then disagree that both Stalin and Gandhi were economic leftists, but had very different ideas about who should hold the power in society?
communism, a political theory of absolute control over the people, and anarchy, no government at all. each person has absolute control over himself.
You might wish to consider how to explain this, then: Anarchist communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Anarchist communism advocates the abolition of the state, private property and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production, Direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers' councils and/or a Gift economy through which everyone will be free to satisfy their needs.
or this: Totalitarian democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Totalitarian democracy is a term made famous by Israeli historian J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.
In short, I disagree with you. While an authoritarian government more often than not does control the economy, it does not follow that those on the economic left are therefore authoritarians, while those on the economic right are libertarians. They are two distinct spectrums of thought, with different political implications for governing, depending on where one falls on each spectrum.
----
now, as to the description of radicalism if you reread my post i specifically said that both, a radical and extremist could united in their beliefs.
So far, I think we agree. I did not dispute your saying that, or the factuality of it.
the difference between your experts and me is that your experts declare that violence is a part of the description of a radical.
First off, they're not my experts. (If you followed the link in my first comment, you may've noticed I got the definition directly from our friend, Professor Douglas. I actually went & bought the book from whence it came, at his urging.)
Secondly, nowhere do those experts say violence (or vandalism, or any bad behavior at all) is a necessary part of being a radical. One only has to desire immediate, fundamental change from the status quo. As I said above, Leon P Bardat ("my" ((that is "Donald Douglas'")) expert) says that in his day, Martin Luther King, Jr was a radical for desiring the immediate, fundamental change that was the abolition of segregation here in America. MLK was never violent or destructive, but he WAS a radical.
While you're free to see it another way, I at one time took your position (that violence/destruction or other "extreme" behavior was a necessary component of radicalism) in an argument with the good professor, & I'm here to tell you, he made his case. I was wrong. Radicalism is about ideas & ideals, not about how one goes about trying to implement them.
repsac,
i have already said in my post that there would be some who would disagree with my description.
and i said twice now that a radical need not use violence. violence is only a tactic not a belief. by my description mlk would not be a radical but an extremist. reason: he did not accept that violence was an acceptable means to use to bring about change.
his black muslim counterpart malcom X would be called a radical because he did say the violence was acceptable means to bring about change.
by my description separating the two, extremism and radicalism can be summed up like this;
to a radical, the end justifies the means.
to an extremist, the end does not justify the means.
by your understanding, a radical is synonymous with an extremist if they seek the same changes. my view say no they are not synonymous.
and remember this, repsac, just because the good professor convinced you to change your mind does not make him right. and i may be wrong too but what you have said has not convinced me of it.
now, if you wish to say that a radical is an absolute extremist then i'll agree.
extremism is always the most idealic beliefs. for they are usually found at the extremities of the power line.
i only called them your experts because you were using them as your proof in this discussion, nothing more.
as for my use of the word anarchy i can only use the description of the dictionary.." 1.Absence of any form of political authority. 2. having no ruler." if there be no ruler then absolute power lies within the individual. he rules himself. thus the defintion of one extremity of the power line. from this the other extremity become absolute rule by government, which in today's terms means communism. granted, i might have made myself more clear by say dictatorship instead of communism.
as for my use of the terms left or right, they are only directional terms when speaking of a power line. it only indicates which side of the center that a person is in relation to the extremities. you could switch the definition of the extremities and still place all that lies between them accordingly.
the nice thing about the use of a power line is not only the fact you can determine where political parties are but you can also determine the direction in which a nation is going too. this would indicate the influence that a political party has on government over time.
Your excellent post did not confuse me, Griper... this comment thread did! LOL!
I'm going to go watch Tarzan in the "Ape Man". After reading this thread, I believe listening to someone articulate by grunting will be a much needed relief! ;)
he laughs at gayle's remarks.
My head hurting, I shall leave you to your beliefs & personal definitions of these political terms.
If we cannot agree on mutually accepted definitions of the words (dictionaries or other unbiased reference sources might help), we might as well be speaking different languages.
I don't remember if I submitted this Yesterday or not. Seems to me, I was distracted before posting it. If it's a duplicate, don't post it. If not, please do.
I figured that I ought to respond to this one since I've often talked to you about the subject of Extremism, but to be honest with you, I must admit that the first time I read it, I was a little confused by it.
I understand how each person's beliefs are slightly different than any one else's.
On my second pass in reading this post, I am beginning to see that perhaps your definition of Extreme is that which goes outside of the "Extremities" of what any given group is willing to accept.
I agree with the Communism verses Anarchy Extremes. After reading this twice, I also understood that if all the power lies with individuals, or if all the power lies with the Government, these are also two extremes.
I'm actually following you this time.
Ok. To you, Radical refers to how strongly a person tries to push his ideas on others. It is therefore more of an attitude than an actual location in relation to the Extremes.
You seem to have a problem with the word "Hope", Griper. I do not think that the offering of "Hope" is the problem. I think that it is the offering of "Hope" in the form of "Change", when in fact, "Hope" can come in simply making what we already have work better.
Once again, I must repeat that it is not Faith in oneself, any more than it is Faith in Leadership. What we need is Faith and Hope in God. I do like your statement, though, of being a Leader of Leaders, whether than a Leader of Followers.
I took a break, but now am back to read all the comments below this post.
Repsac,
I guess that Griper mentioned "A Political Power Line", or the level of Power and Authority with the Government or with the Individual. Your comment included and Economic Scale as well. You claim that they are not the same thing.
I guess you are talking about Socialism that is not Communism.
Griper,
A person's intelligence is only insulted if he sees the word "Radical" as an Emotionally Charged Word. It does not have to be viewed that way.
Tweetey,
Yes, the post makes sense, but I still had to read it twice.
Repsac,
Communism is usually a form of Dictatorship. If it is not, than I'm misunderstanding the definition. Also, if it is not, than what is the difference between Communism and simply Socialism? Gee, I hope you're still around because I would sure like to hear your reply.
I think what Griper is getting at is that when ever anyone becomes dependent, as on a Government, they have less control and are controlled more by that which they depend on, which in this case is the Government.
Griper,
I did not see the implication of Violence, nor of high or low Intelligence in Repsac's Definition. His Definition is based on Experts. I'm not sure where you got yours.
Repsac,
You are really educating me and making me think.
Griper,
"To an Extremist, the end does not justify the means." Your words.
You are implying that an Extremist can not also be a Radical and I disagree.
Repsac never said that the two words were synonymous.
"Now, if you wish to say that a Radical is an absolute Extremist, then I'll agree." Again your words.
Now it sounds as if you are the one calling the two words synonymous.
I laughed at Gayle too.
It's too bad, Griper, that you get so caught up on the definitions of words at times. There is nothing wrong with Repsac's definition of the word Radical, yet you are insistent on using your own.
Repsac,
Perhaps you just need to allow Griper to have his definition and try to remember it when reading his posts.
lista,
words are important. they have a power over people that can either manipulate your thoughts or convince those thoughts. so, yes i am picky in my definitions because of it. i prefer being convinced rather than manipulated. and understanding how a word is used or means can help prevent manipulation.
and i separated the words radical and extremist for this purpose.
i defined extremist as having beliefs that would be considered as on the edge of a group he identifies with. but being an extremist he still abides by the code of the end does not justify the means.
a radical could hold to extremist views but would abide by the code of the end does justify the means.
thus we see that an extremist would be restricted by morals of behavior whereas a radical would not be.
so, a radical could be seen in terms of being an extremist but an extremist could not be seen as a radical by definition of each.
they would be synonymous in terms of political beliefs but not synonymous in terms of what is permissable to gain power.
I guess that Griper mentioned "A Political Power Line", or the level of Power and Authority with the Government or with the Individual. Your comment included and Economic Scale as well. You claim that they are not the same thing.
I guess you are talking about Socialism that is not Communism.
Actually no... The way I read my political science, Communism isn't about power, but about economics. I believe Griper is mistaken in placing it on the "power" axis.
Most of those governments who've practiced the communist economic model have been authoritarian, perhaps because communism lends itself to a strong central government better than other economic models, but that fact doesn't make communism a model of power, itself.
Communism is usually a form of Dictatorship. If it is not, than I'm misunderstanding the definition. Also, if it is not, than what is the difference between Communism and simply Socialism?
Communism is an economic system "in which property is owned by the community as a whole rather than by individuals. In theory, communism would create a classless society of abundance and freedom, in which all people enjoy equal social and economic status. In practice, communist regimes have taken the form of coercive, authoritarian governments that cared little for the plight of the working class and sought above all else to preserve their own hold on power." - Communism - MSN Encarta
My take is, they do not become authoritarian because they are communist, but that communism lends itself to authoritarian dictatorships.
Socialism is an "economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. The term socialism also refers to the doctrine behind this system and the political movement inspired by it." - Socialism - MSN Encarta (There is a comparison of communism & socialism just after the definition at this link, as well.)
While I'm not offering it to prove/disprove anything, you may wish to wade through this page in your spare time: Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think what Griper is getting at is that when ever anyone becomes dependent, as on a Government, they have less control and are controlled more by that which they depend on, which in this case is the Government.
I agree, to an extent. I fear it less because I believe we the people ARE the government, and thus we are depending on ourselves, in the end.
Perhaps you just need to allow Griper to have his definition and try to remember it when reading his posts.
Communication is based on a shared understanding of the words we use. When one or more people in a conversation choose to leave the shared understanding behind in favor of their own definition of words & phrases, the ability to discuss & debate the abstract concepts behind the words becomes far more difficult. Frankly, I also question the wisdom of discussing/debating a person who insists on using his own definitions of words rather than the ones dictionaries offer.
I considered posting dictionary definitions of the words in question, but decided against it. That said, I encourage you to look up the political definitions of "radical", & "extremist" for yourself, & compare them with what Griper is offering.
I found this interesting...
According to this link, Griper isn't too far from good definitions... ...but has the words mixed up. Take it for what you will...
Radicalism or extremism? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i chose to define the two words as i did for a number of reasons, repsac.
number one the word radical sounds more harsher than the word extreme in my mind. thus i gave it the harsher definition.
number two, the word extreme more more indicative of a person's position while the the word radical is more indicative of a person's behavior.
number three, when speaking of a power line or a line of continuum then ends of the line are called the extremities of it. and extremity is a derivative of extreme.
a person may take an extreme position on an issue but his behavior is that of a radical.
or
a person may take a radical position on an issue but his behavior is that of a extremist.
to me, the first sentence sounds better and makes more sense than the second sentence. it may not to you, thus the need to define them so that people will understand my use of the words as i see them.
and lastly, any good teacher of writing essays will tell you that when you use words that might confuse the reader you give it definition so that they can follow along with your line of thinking. and these are two words that can do exactly that.
I can appreciate that it might sound as though the word definitions should be switched...
I've always had a problem with the idea that we drive on a parkway, and park on a driveway... I'm just not so sure it'd be a good idea to start using the words the other way 'round because I feel they're misplaced as they are... n'est-ce pas?
More nutty English language here: English is Cuh-Ray-Zee (No video, unfortunately...)
repsac,
it not only sounds like it but it makes more sense too. by your definitions the second sentence would be the correct usage of the words. my way would indicate a more common usage of how people speak.
and there is a big difference between your examples and mine. that difference being in definition. your problem is with seeing a word within another word and nothing else. but neither word would be used as synonymous with the other. there would be no need to define either of them for cloarity of meaning.
in my words there can be confusion thus the need to define. one big difference being, per your own source, is who is defining a person or group. extremist is used by others outside a group and radical is the term the group uses to identify itself.
also, by your own source, the term radical is used in a perjorative manner here in the usa.
since i would use the word in a perjoritive manner based on behavior rather than viewpoint one holds then my definitions holds. and considering that outside of the usa it is not used perjoritively it constitutes a need to define them for clarity of thought in terms of my meaning.
also, from my reading of your own source and further research of the two words it is clear how people would use them. it would depend on how a person was motivated, whether they be inner motivated or outer motivated.
I stand by my earlier comments on the subject.
I encourage anyone looking for the definition of an unfamiliar or in any way confusing word to consult a dictionary or other respected reference source.
Griper,
I'll need to look at Repsac's definition again when I have more time and see if I agree with it. I also should take the time to look the word up in the dictionary.
I agree that it is better to be convinced, whether than manipulated. I also agree that Radical and Extremist are not the same thing.
An Extremist, however, can be a radical and can just as easily feel that the ends justifies the means as any other person can. Maybe not, or maybe so. It depends on the Extremist.
Repsac,
If most Communistic Governments are Authoritarian and Communism often does lead to Authoritarian Power, than we really can't separate the Power issue from it because it is obviously a real threat. Just because the initial idealistic idea was not meant to be a "Model of Power", this does not remove the fact that it often and even usually does lead to Power. This is far too important of an issue to ignore and pretend is not there.
I do not agree that "We, the people, ARE the Government." Government is a separate entity in and of itself, sometimes influenced by the people, yet often controlled instead by the leaders.
I agree with you that we should use dictionaries as our authority over what words mean. Otherwise, we spend too much time debating definitions and not enough time debating actual issues.
I will eventually post the Dictionary Definitions of the words in question if you don't. I just haven't taken the time yet to do so.
Griper,
Don't you see? What "Sounds more Harsher" "In your Mind", may not lead to the already agreed upon Definitions that are recorded in Dictionaries. When ever you use your own Definitions, whether than those in the Dictionary, you set yourself up to be misunderstood.
"A person may take a Radical position on an issue, but his behavior is that of an Extremist." Your words.
If the word Extreme refers to "a person's position", whether than a person's behavior, than the above statement doesn't make any sense.
I'm not sure that a blog is exactly like an essay, Griper. Since a blog is continually moving and changing, any definition used that is not compatible with the ones given in the dictionary will need to be defined and redefined over and over again so that new comers can continue to follow you. Using Dictionary Definitions is therefore easier and saves time.
Griper,
Actually, to be honest with you, your comment that "Any good teacher of writing essays will tell you that when you use words that might confuse the reader, you give it definition so that they can follow along with your line of thinking.", I did take notice because I remember learning something like that myself in an essay class, yet the point that I made about a blog not being exactly like an essay still stands.
I wish I had the time to look at all of Repsac's links, but I don't.
You claim, Griper, that your definition is "a more common usage of how people speak". I don't know whether that is true of not. I think it depends on who is speaking, just as you yourself have said "Who is defining a person or group?"
I would put it another way, though. When it comes to the word Radical, if those outside the group are using the word Radical to describe someone other then themselves, as you are doing by describing Obama, they are more likely to use your definition, because it implies wrong motives and is more Accusatory.
If, however, those inside the group are using the same term, Radical, in order to "Indentify Themself", than a more neutral, less accusatory, definition would be used. Here's where Repsac's definition comes in.
Here is where the communication problem comes in. As long as you are talking to others within your own group, who agree with you (Fellow Republicans), the Accusatory, Emotionally Charged Definitions that you use are not going to insult anyone and cause any problems, yet when someone outside of the group enters (a Liberal), your Emotionally Charged, Accusatory Definition is going to cause offense and hinder the conversation.
When you said, or Repsac's source said, "The term Radical is used in a pejorative manner here is the USA", basically, what this means is that the term Radical has become an Emotionally Charged word. By this, I mean that a perfectly neutral term has become an Emotional, Accusatory term. This happens all the time in this country, yet even so, I try really hard to avoid Emotionally Charged words because of what I said in my above paragraph.
Sometimes what is the most common is not what is the most practical and functional in conversation or otherwise.
I thought we already settled that the two words are not synonymous and I'm not sure that anyone ever said that they were.
Griper,
Actually, to be honest with you, your comment that "Any good teacher of writing essays will tell you that when you use words that might confuse the reader, you give it definition so that they can follow along with your line of thinking.", I did take notice because I remember learning something like that myself in an essay class, yet the point that I made about a blog not being exactly like an essay still stands.
I wish I had the time to look at all of Repsac's links, but I don't.
You claim, Griper, that your definition is "a more common usage of how people speak". I don't know whether that is true of not. I think it depends on who is speaking, just as you yourself have said "Who is defining a person or group."
I would put it another way, though. When it comes to the word Radical, if those outside the group are using the word Radical to describe someone other then themselves, as you are doing by describing Obama, they are more likely to use your definition, because it implies wrong motives and is more accusatory.
If, however, those inside the group are using the same term, Radical, in order to "Indentify Themself", than a more neutral, less accusatory, definition would be used. Here's where Repsac's definition comes in.
Here is where the communication problem comes in. As long as you are talking to others within your own group, who agree with you (Fellow Republicans), the Accusatory, Emotionally Charged Definitions that you use are not going to insult anyone and cause any problems, yet when someone outside of the group enters (a Liberal), your Emotionally Charged, Accusatory Definition is going to cause offense and hinder the conversation.
When you said, or Repsac's source said, "The term Radical is used in a pejorative manner here is the USA", basically, what this means is that the term Radical has become an Emotionally Charged word. By this, I mean that a perfectly neutral term has become an Emotional, Accusatory term. This happens all the time in this country, yet even so, I try really hard to avoid Emotionally Charged words because of what I said in my above paragraph.
Sometimes what is the most common is not what is the most practical and functional in conversation or otherwise.
I thought we already settled that the two words are not synonymous and I'm not sure that anyone ever said that they were.
lista,
that was the point. if you notice i wrote the two sentences exactly alike but just reversed the two words as you would as synonyms. which way do you think the words would be most commonly used, as in the first or second sentence?
1.a person may take an extreme position on an issue but his behavior is that of a radical.
or
2 a person may take a radical position on an issue but his behavior is that of a extremist.
by repsac's understanding of the words, the second sentence would be the way people most commonly would say it. by my definitions of the words the first sentence is the way people would most commonly use those words.
if both are correct and used then definitions need to be given for clarity of understanding when both are used in an argument.
but more important is how the writer would commonly use the words because it is his thoughts that the reader is trying to understand. a writer does not write to express the thoughts of his readers but his own.
as for the use of experts, lets read what the experts that repsac depends on.
"The terms extremism or extremist are almost always exonymic — i.e. applied by others to a group rather than by a group labeling itself. Rather than labeling themselves extremist, those labeled as such might describe themselves as, for example, political radicals. There is no political party that calls itself "right-wing extremist" or "left-wing extremist", and there is no sect of any religion that calls itself "extremist" or which calls its doctrine "extremism".
that is the very first paragraph of the reference repsac pointed us to. that in itself declares that both words could be used to describe the same person or group.
now, let's read another part of it.
Ideology and "methodology" often become inextricably linked under the single term "extremism".
the key word there is "often" meaning "not always". repsac is arguing that it should be "always"
now another passage
"The notion that there is a philosophy which can be described as "extremism" is considered by some to be suspect."
the key word there is "some" and "suspect" not "everyone" and "fact". by my definition and description i showed how it can be by use of the line of continuum or power line to describe political philosophies.
now, does that mean those "some" would agree with me? not necessarily but other experts would.
another passage;
The attitude or behavior of an "extremist" may be represented as being in a spectrum which ranges from mild interest through "obsession" to "fanaticism" and "extremism".
the only thing my definition does is define it according to the mild interest and place the word radical at the other end of the spectrum which any expert will tell you is permissable as long as you clarify it.
now let's look at another idea of it under the topic of Political radicalism.
The 19th century American Cyclopaedia of Political Science asserts that "radicalism" is characterized less by its principles than by the manner of their application(behavior).
now let's use another source, the merriam webster's collegiate dictionary:
radical: of,relating to, or constituting a political group with views, "practices" and policies of extreme change.
radical: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs.
so, the word radical must include extreme behavior not just ideology as repsac says.
whereas extremism does not necessarily need extreme behavior, though it can include it. in the dictionary it cites radicalism as a synonym.
so, on my line of comtinuum in regards to political thought extremism is the more proper usage. on the same line in terms of power radicalism is the more proper word to use.
Griper,
If the word Extreme refers to "a person's position", whether than to a person's behavior, than neither of the two statements you keep repeating make sense.
The reason why the first sentence makes more sense to you is because you see the word Radical in terms of behavior, yet at least one of Repsac's links explained just the opposite, describing the word Extreme as the one having more to do with attitudes and behaviors, thus making the second sentence make more sense.
You are right in your expression of the need to define the terms. The main reason why I do not agree too much with your definition is because I don't seek for what's more common, but for what is the least amount Emotionally Charged, because Emotionally Charged Words cause offense and in doing so hinder conversation.
"A writer does not write to express the thoughts of his readers but his own." Your Words.
This is true, yet the goal of avoiding offense beyond what is necessary to get ones point across is a goal that helps in the process of successful communication, whether than just meaningless conflict.
It frustrates me when words can have so many meanings. I prefer to go with the oldest of the definitions, before a word becomes so emotionally charged that peaceful dialogue becomes difficult while talking to ones opponents, whether than just those who already agree with us.
Post a Comment