Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

To All Cultural Conservatives- We need a new word

This post has 13 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator
Physiocrat Posted: Wed, Mar 26 2008 9:46 AM

Those of use who adhere to what is known as conservative/ traditional moral values (more precisely Judeo-Christian values) we need a new word(s) for this. Firstly the implicit conotation given in the word conservative, in any context, is that we want to retain the status quo and we are thus all reactionaries. This obviously though not what we want- farmers can go out of business as well as the villiage store. What we really want however is that society has varies institutions- eg. church and family- and common, immutable, moral values (principles), beyond non-aggression, which can form the bedrock for a dynamic society; thus satisfying the human wants of familiarity and the continual striving for improvment.  We stand between the cultural leftists who want all things to be open to change and the reactionary conservatives who want everything to remain the same.

I propose then we need a new word. The best i can come up with at present is foundational dynamism which doesn't role off the tongue.

 Any ideas?

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Stranger replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 12:20 PM

 Conservatism is about nobility. Try that word.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 12:56 PM

 Classical Conservatism, if that isn't already taken? 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator
Physiocrat replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 12:59 PM

Nitroadict:

 Classical Conservatism, if that isn't already taken? 

 

But it still has the word conservative in it and calling it classical makes it even more kind of reactionary. 

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
I like the term natural order.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

I mis-read your original post; quite right that I was off the mark.


What about dynamist*?

Although, this was already used by Virgina Postrel to describe "a forward-looking and change-seeking philosophy which generally favors unregulated organization through "spontaneous order"., in contrast with "stasis": "a philosophy favoring top-down control and regulation and a desire to maintain the present state of affairs."  I don't think that's entirley what you propose though...

*[from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Postrel]

Perhaps natural dynamist or natural dynamism?

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator

Nitroadict:

I mis-read your original post; quite right that I was off the mark.


What about dynamist*?

Although, this was already used by Virgina Postrel to describe "a forward-looking and change-seeking philosophy which generally favors unregulated organization through "spontaneous order"., in contrast with "stasis": "a philosophy favoring top-down control and regulation and a desire to maintain the present state of affairs."  I don't think that's entirley what you propose though...

*[from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Postrel]

Perhaps natural dynamist or natural dynamism?

 

 Natural Dynamism is winning at the moment. It has the immutable aspects along with the forward looking aspects.

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

Nitroadict:

I mis-read your original post; quite right that I was off the mark.


What about dynamist*?

Although, this was already used by Virgina Postrel to describe "a forward-looking and change-seeking philosophy which generally favors unregulated organization through "spontaneous order"., in contrast with "stasis": "a philosophy favoring top-down control and regulation and a desire to maintain the present state of affairs."  I don't think that's entirley what you propose though...

*[from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Postrel]

Perhaps natural dynamist or natural dynamism?

It would seem to me that this idea is more in line with the "cultural left" or "progressive" view of history, since a dynamic outlook would have to deal with the modification and even the eventual phasing out of traditions.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator

Brainpolice:

It would seem to me that this idea is more in line with the "cultural left" or "progressive" view of history, since a dynamic outlook would have to deal with the modification and even the eventual phasing out of traditions.

 

The latter is true but the immutable principles the change is based on is retained by the word natural IMO.

 Btw are you disagreeing with my OP about what the cultural conservative agenda, as held by libertarians, actually is? Since your response seems to imply that nothing can really change with a culturally conservative outlook.

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

Physiocrat:

Brainpolice:

It would seem to me that this idea is more in line with the "cultural left" or "progressive" view of history, since a dynamic outlook would have to deal with the modification and even the eventual phasing out of traditions.

 

The latter is true but the immutable principles the change is based on is retained by the word natural IMO.

 Btw are you disagreeing with my OP about what the cultural conservative agenda, as held by libertarians, actually is? Since your response seems to imply that nothing can really change with a culturally conservative outlook.

I guess it depends on what you really mean by cultural conservative. It could mean stasis but the other posts seem to indicate that this isn't exactly what you're advocating. It could mean a regression back to past traditions, but I have a problem with that because I don't see that as possible in my understanding of how society works. I do think that some of the things that "cultural conservative" libertarians may wish to grasp onto (or return to) might eventually be phased out in a free society. But I'm thinking long-term. I tend to hold something of a social evolutionist view. Since, no offense intended, I see things such as a high regaurd for the family and church to be archiac notions rooted in an earlier evolutionary necessity, that they are remnants tied over from an earlier period, I think that as society evolves these things will start to become more obsolete.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 814
Points 14,875
Moderator

Brainpolice:

I guess it depends on what you really mean by cultural conservative. It could mean stasis but the other posts seem to indicate that this isn't exactly what you're advocating. It could mean a regression back to past traditions, but I have a problem with that because I don't see that as possible in my understanding of how society works. I do think that some of the things that "cultural conservative" libertarians may wish to grasp onto (or return to) might eventually be phased out in a free society. But I'm thinking long-term. I tend to hold something of a social evolutionist view. Since, no offense intended, I see things such as a high regaurd for the family and church to be archiac notions rooted in an earlier evolutionary necessity, that they are remnants tied over from an earlier period, I think that as society evolves these things will start to become more obsolete.

 

It would take me a while to elucidate my vision for society- it would make a good future article so I'll add it to the things to do list- although my main, immutable, principles would be Judeo-Christian morality, the church, family, country (in the sense of a definable group of free associating people in a geographical area with whom we share a common identity), elitism (inegalitarianism) and respect for natural authorities. Everything else is open to change.

The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,175
Points 17,905
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Like I said, although not personally a cultural conservative, I also have a high regard for those things Physiocrat listed - and specifically, I am anti-egalitarianism.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 946
Points 15,410
MacFall replied on Wed, Mar 26 2008 5:17 PM

How about "structuralist"? As a sociological term it's quite compatible with libertarianism, and it would be so much fun combining it with other hyphenated terms.

I'm now a free market anarcho-structuralist. Heh heh heh.

Pro Christo et Libertate integre!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

I think structuralism has already been taken:

[see: http://www.answers.com/topic/structuralism ]

"In general terms, the doctrine that the structure of a system or organization is more important than the individual behaviour of its members. Structural inquiry has deep roots in Western thought and can be traced back to the work of Plato and Aristotle. Modern structuralism as a diverse movement-***-epistemology began with the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913).

In social and political theory, structuralism refers to the attempt to apply methods influenced by structural linguistics to social and political phenomena. Its distinctive methodological claim is that the individual units of any system have meaning only in terms of their relations to each other. Saussure, who did not use the term ‘structure’, preferring ‘system’, saw language as a system of signs to be analysed synchronically, that is, studied as a self-sufficient system at one point in time (rather than in historical development).

The French social anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss introduced Saussure's epistemology to social science, arguing that analysts should develop models to reveal the underlying structural mechanisms which order the surface phenomena of social life. Lévi-Strauss uncovered the ‘unconscious psychical structures’ which, he thought, underlay all human institutions.

Within political science and international studies, structuralism has had an important influence. This is particularly evident in structuralist Marxism and in critical realist philosophies of social science which often claim that Marx's theory of exploitation is an example of an underlying causal mechanism at work in society."


I'm not sure so about the parts concerning linguistics, but "...structure of a system or organization is more important than the individual behaviour of its members" seems to have a pro-establishment flavor, which I'd imagine wouldn't be good if you didn't desire stasis.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (14 items) | RSS