Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Strict father vs. Nurturant parent
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:18:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Neuroscientist and Linguistic expert George Lakoff has come up with the theory that we can compare politics to two different moral systems based on two different family structures.
"This worldview is premised on the presumption that the world is a dangerous place. There always has been and forever will be evil in the world. This is a world in which there are winners and losers. There is absolute right and absolute wrong. Children are born to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore they have to be made "good." This is the world in which a strict father protects and supports the family, while teaching his children right from wrong. Children must be obedient to the moral authority of the father. Punishment sometimes is necessary to secure such obedience. Punishment teaches internal discipline. Moreover, it is what is necessary for survival and success in a difficult, competitive world."
"Nurturant Parent worldview, which is gender-neutral. Here both parents are equally responsible for child rearing. It assumes that children are born good and can only be made better. The parents" role is to nurture their own children so that they will become nurturers of others, making the world better place. Nurturing is premised on empathy and responsibility. It incorporates the notion that you cannot nurture someone else if you do not care for yourself. You have to be strong, to work hard and to develop your competencies."
In relation to Politics, the Left has been linked to the Nurturant parent model, while the right has been linked to the strict father model. However there are other things to consider when observing the two models of politics. For instance, we have Libertarianism and Authoritarianism. There are both Left wing and Right wing Libertarians.
In both cases of libertarianism, both sides want to minimize intrusion or force on the people as much as possible. The major difference is that the Libertarian Leftist is leary about private ownership, while the Libertarian Right places Private Property as a fundamental right. We can see how the Right Wing Libertarian sees that private property is something you're entitled to, and don't need to worry about others if its your property. To them, they got the property fair and square, and those who dont have property were not disciplined enough, those who need use of private property deserve to have to sacrifice their rights, or need a property lord to regulate their needs. While the left on the other hand views private property as a recipe for tyranny. To the left, if property becomes privatized, then any entity that the public takes advantage of could lead to tyranny of the owner, like a landlord putting restrictions on renters who cannot afford their own house, or having to give up your rights 8 hours just to get an income from a job. To the left, everyone should have equal rights of fulfillment, and should not be subjected to property owners to survive.
Then there's the authoritarian side of the picture. The Right Authoritarian would be fascist, in the sense of social control at the hands of the Governments preferences, severe penalties for defiance, tendency towards nationalism, and places the state as the source of all morality, and values machoness. The Left authoritarian would be communist, where in theory, the Government creates an utopia where everyone is cared for, and a kind of collectivism centered around eliminating anything creating social class or confrontation, under the idea that we need to be cared for and protected from anything that poses a threat to the people, and protect anyone from ever getting hurt.
Then we got centrists like Ron Paul, who is strictly Libertarian, but is neither left or right. He appears as a nurturant parent, as wanting to restrict Government from being able to use force on the people, and sees them as a threat to our wellbeing. And believes that everyone is entitled to rights as individuals, no matter who they are. Plus Paul sees nurturance as coming from the community, and not Government. Yet on the other side, is pro-responsibility, and expects people to be responsible for themselves, instead of running to Government. People cannot demand Government protect them from an offensive entity and has the option to take a stand or deal with it. Like sexual harassment in the workforce, the individual can quit if someone is being too friendly.