Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 14:37:06 CST
From: jcurtis@cclink.aus.etn.com
With the upcoming elections in the U.S., I've become increasingly curious about how the terms 'right' and 'left' came into use in describing political orientation. Was there one particular point when these terms came into being or did the arise out of common usage? As someone who sees a little more to the 'left,' I am also intrigued by the different connotations that can arise from the two words when they are divorced from their political content. If one particular person did create these meanings, why was 'right' used for conservatives and 'left' for more liberal minded people (if those were indeed the original political meanings)? Any information or input would be greatly appreciated.
Jason Curtis
(Note from David Bailey, Editor: I'd like to piggyback on Jason Curtis's inquiry by asking the group also to consider how these terms have evolved from their origins at the time of the French revolution, if that is what everyone thinks is the correct source. For example, I find the term right to refer in discourse on Russia to the communists, and left to the capitalists. How come?)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:22:15 -0500 (EST) From: John J. Crocitti <John.J.Crocitti@students.Miami.EDU>
I believe the political meanings of "left" and "right" grew out of the French Revolution when, at an Assembly meeting, the two competing political cliques or parties sat on opposite sides of the room. The more radical group sat on the left side, the more moderate on the right. Hence, the terms left and right. I'm sure that any text on the French Revolution will provided a much richer and detailed account.
JC
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 19:28:07 -0500 (EST) From: { <asilver@epas.utoronto.ca>
Note that in the House of Commons, the party in power sits on the Speaker's right, while the opposition party sits on his left. In the chamber of deputies in France, the parties of more advanced view sat on the left (i.e. the president's left).
A.Silver, Toronto
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:10:41 +0100
From: Thomas Diez <Thomas.Diez@mzes.uni-mannheim.de>
I would propose that the terms "right" and "left" came to signify "conservative" vs. "progressive" with these terms themselves of course subject to the specific context they are used in. Keeping that in mind, it makes much sense to talk of communists as being "right" and capitaists as being "left". Then again, I would like to add one question being: I would propose that the left/right dichotomy has been increasingly challenged in recent years. One of the most popular thesis on this is Ronald Inglehart's postmaterialism-thesis, putting forth a second dimension of politics. Does anyone have a good reference of when and in which context this change has gained some importance in political and/or polisci discourse?
Best wishes,
Thomas
Thomas Diez
Mannheim Centre for European Social Research Mannheimer Zentrum fuer Europaeische Sozialforschung Steubenstrasse
D-68131 Mannheim
Tel. ++49-(0)621-292-8465
Fax. ++49-(0)621-292-8435
tdiez@mzes.sowi.uni-mannheim.de
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:23:39 +0000 (GMT) From: ANGELA MANGIS <A.Mangis@lancaster.ac.uk>
In the Russian context, Communists are the 'right' because they are behaving conservatively in attempting to maintain the status quo. The radical left in this instance are the reforming capitalists.
Angela Mangis
A.Mangis@Lancaster.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1960 02:39:55 -0800 (PST) From: M. MAYZEL <mayzel@post.tau.ac.il> On Mar 14 A. Silver wrote, in part:
> ... in France, the parties of more advanced view sat > on the left ...
I just wonder - why "more advanced views" ? Are the French more advanced than the English? what does it mean "more advanced" I am familiar with the Marxist approche, but I think the useage here is problematic.
M. Mayzel
Tel-Aviv U
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:58:31 -0500 (EST) From: { <asilver@epas.utoronto.ca>
> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1960 02:39:55 -0800 (PST)
> From: M. MAYZEL <mayzel@post.tau.ac.il
> On Mar 14 A. Silver wrote, in part:
> > ... in France, the parties of more advanced view sat
> > on the left ...
>
> I just wonder - why "more advanced views" ? Are the French more
> advanced than the English? what does it mean "more advanced"
> I am familiar with the Marxist approche, but I think the useage here
> is problematic.
>
> M. Mayzel
> Tel-Aviv U
>
Sorry I got M.Mayzel upset by my use of "more advanced views". It's just an old-fashioned euphemism for radical. And of course I meant more radical than the guys who sat on the right. What have the English got to do with it?
A.Silver, Toronto
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 11:40:06 CST
From: Rusty Logan <RUSTY@DAH.STATE.AR.US> >
>On Mar 14 J. Crocitti wrote: I believe the political meanings of
>"left" and "right" grew out of the French Revolution when, at an
>Assembly meeting, the two competing political cliques or parties sat
>on opposite sides of the room. The more radical group sat on the
>left side, the more moderate on the right.
>
>On Mar 15 A. Silver wrote: Note that in the House of Commons, the
>party in power sits on the Speaker's right, while the opposition
>party sits on his left. In the chamber of deputies in France, the
>parties of more advanced view sat on the left (i.e. the president's
>left).
I have an idea, based on no historical evidence, about the origins of a political left and right. I don't doubt that the terms gained their political meaning from the seating arrangements of opposing factions, but I'm curious to know what influenced the seating arrangements. Historically in western civ., in almost all cultures and languages (at least the Romance languages), left-handedness has and is a synonym for such things as awkwardness or actions of dubious merit. "He took a left-handed stab at it." "That was a left-handed compliment." And so on. It seems natural to me that a party representing conservative, traditional, statis quo views would sit on the right (particularly where the Church is involved in politics). "The right hand of God." Whereas, those with more progressive or radical views, those advocating change, would sit on the left. When are progressive ideas that challenge the status quo not "awkward" when first presented? When is a challenge to tradition not initially called of "dubious merit." I think the seating arrangements of the past that today influence our understanding of "left" and "right" were consciously decided for their symbolic meaning.
Two cents from another crazy lefty.
Rusty Logan
Rusty@dah.state.ar.us
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:56:10 -0800 (PST) From: Eric Reinders <6500rein@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu>
No one seems to have mentioned it yet, but the classic on left-right distinctions is surely Vilma Fritsch, _Left and Right in Science and Life_ (London, 1964).
A comparable set of theoretical questions is addressed in Barry Schwartz, _Vertical Classification: A Study in Structuralism and the Sociology of Knowledge_ (U. of Chicago, 1981), but of course dealing with up-down rather than left-right.
Incidentally, the meanings of left-right distinctions in traditional Chinese culture are very different. When the emperor is in the ritually correct position facing South, East is to his left, West to his South. Under conditions of peace, the civil administration is on the left/East, the military to the right/West. And since it is the consistently anti-militaristic literati who created these positions in space, naturally then Left/East is the position of honour.
Eric Reinders, Religious Studies, UCSB
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:22:09 +0200 (WET) From: Richard Sherwin <sherwr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il>
Latin for left is "sinister" or some spelling like it... with all the implications of the contemporary word.... so too left-handed, etc. until 'right-disadvantaged' or 'left-advantaged' finally got going...
Richard Sherwin "even when rooted in Gd Department of English a flower withers when cut"
Bar Ilan University
52900 Ramat Gan, Israel
sherwr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 14:09:36 -0500 (EST) From: moran <moran@Oakland.edu>
In a swordfight of course the lefthanded person has distinct advantages as he/she would be more used to dealing with righthanded swordsmen than the r.h. person dealing with the left. In any case, the left hand was the dagger hand, and sinister indeed as you could grasp right hands in a show of faith and still be done in by the left.
sean farrell moran
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 16:55:16 -0500 (EST) From: <asilver@epas.utoronto.ca>
Rusty Logan's intuition about the origins of left and right seems very good to me. The English word left (according to the OED) comes from an old Anglo-Saxon word meaning weak. Since most people are right-handed, the left hand became associated with weakness and the right with strength or power. That's why the resurrected Christ sits on the right hand of God to judge the living and the dead. And that, I presume, was why it was natural for the governing party -- i.e., those in power -- to sit on the Speaker's right hand in Parliament.
A.Silver, Toronto
Date: 21 Mar 96 12:39:39 PST
From: William Peck <William.Peck@directory.Reed.EDU>
Somewhere at some time (yes, an unpromissing beginning) I read that this terminology originated in the French parliament, as already suggested, in the restoration period , which I guess = the beginning of the "modern"(=like us) era in French (and maybe W. European) politics.
Bill Peck
Philosophy
Reed C
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 23:07:45 EST
From: "Charley Shively, (617) 287-5727, 661-7534"
There is an interesting literature on the anthropology of right and left handedness. What about people who cant distinguisho right from left? Are they pre-post-modern?