{"id":1473,"date":"2013-08-30T19:55:10","date_gmt":"2013-08-30T19:55:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/?p=1473"},"modified":"2014-02-09T04:00:44","modified_gmt":"2014-02-09T04:00:44","slug":"labels-and-ideological-bubbles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/blog\/2013\/08\/labels-and-ideological-bubbles\/","title":{"rendered":"Labels and Ideological Bubbles – Article by Sanford Ikeda"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\"The<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Sanford Ikeda
\n<\/big><\/big><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
August 30, 2013<\/big><\/span><\/div>\n
Recommend this page<\/a>.<\/strong><\/div>\n
******************************<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Be mindful of how you label the people with whom you disagree.<\/strong><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
When I engage in an ideological discussion I try to be sensitive to how I ideologically label the person with whom I\u2019m talking and how she labels me. I\u2019m not talking about dismissive or openly pejorative words (e.g. evil, stupid, silly), but proper terms of discourse. More than just good manners, how we habitually label our opponents in ideological dialogue could reveal something unpleasant about the ideological world we inhabit.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n

Getting the Label Right<\/strong><\/h4>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
Now, some people argue that \u201cideas matter, labels don\u2019t.\u201d When we\u2019re talking about specific ideas, such as for example military intervention in the Middle East, then yes calling it liberal, libertarian, progressive, socialist, or whatever may add nothing to the discussion. But when referring to the worldview of a particular person or group of like-minded persons, especially in the context of a public debate, then how we label ourselves and others can matter a great deal. If the goal is to promote constructive dialogue then it\u2019s important to get the labels right.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
We prefer in such cases to be called by the label that we identify ourselves with. I don\u2019t like being called a conservative or a liberal because those labels signify sets of ideas and policies, many of which I do not hold. I prefer to be called a libertarian. (Classical liberal might be better but no one in the mainstream knows what that is.)<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
Colleagues I\u2019ve known for decades at my college assume that I\u2019m a conservative because I\u2019ve come out publicly against nationalized healthcare, from which they wrongly infer that I oppose same-sex marriage and that I \u201csupport our troops\u201d in foreign wars. Readers of The Freeman have, I\u2019m sure, had to defend themselves against the charge of being \u201cpro-business\u201d because of our skepticism of regulation and high taxes. We have to explain that upholding the free-market is not pro-business, pro-consumer, or pro-labor (although the free-market position is in a sense \u201cpro\u201d all those things and more). That kind of mislabeling, however annoying, can be the result of an honest mistake\u2014one I know I make myself.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
Mistakenly mislabeling someone is one thing: conservative for libertarian, marxist for progressive. Another is deliberately mislabeling your opponent, a trick that forces her to waste time defending herself against the false charge. But there\u2019s a third kind of mislabeling that reflects a deeper sort of error, one that issues from exclusivity and insularity.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n

Who calls herself a Neoliberal or a Statist?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
For example, I\u2019m reviewing a book about cities whose author uses the word \u201cneoliberal\u201d a lot. It\u2019s used mostly by Europeans on the political \u201cleft\u201d\u2014e.g., social democrats, progressives, socialists, greens\u2014to refer to people or groups who hold some sort of \u201clibertarian\u201d views. I\u2019ll explain in a moment why I\u2019m using scare quotes here.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
From what I\u2019ve been able to gather from my European colleagues, however, no one actually identifies herself as a \u201cneoliberal.\u201d Neoliberal is apparently a term some attach to positions \u201con the (extreme) right,\u201d which apparently includes people thought to have an anti-union or pro-business agenda. There are such people, of course, but there\u2019s a reason no one self-identifies as a neoliberal.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
As Stanley Fish explained<\/a> a few years ago in The New York Times<\/em>: \u201c\u2026neoliberalism is a pejorative way of referring to a set of economic\/political policies based on a strong faith in the beneficent effects of free markets.\u201d So \u201cneoliberal\u201d is pejorative.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
And before libertarians get too indignant, let me point out that we sling words like \u201ccollectivist\u201d and \u201cstatist\u201d when describing our opponents, and to my knowledge no one self-identifies with those terms, either. To be sure, among our ideological comrades, they may have a fairly clear meaning and may spark a certain esprit de corps<\/em>. But consistently using a word, over a wide range of venues, to describe others that no one ever <\/em>uses to self-identify is a pretty good sign that you live in an ideological bubble.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
Evidently, while the author of the book I\u2019m reviewing says she\u2019s writing for \u201can interdisciplinary readership,\u201d she takes it for granted that it will be an ideologically sympathetic one.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n

Our Ideological Bubbles<\/strong><\/h4>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
An ideological bubble<\/em>, as I’m using the term, is a social network with shared ideological understandings that closes its members off to others with opposing views. You can be a staunch market-anarchist, for example, but still be willing to have a serious, civil conversation with people with whom you strongly disagree. Put simply, you live in an ideological bubble if the only people whom you will talk to seriously about ideology are those you already agree with.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
An ideological bubble insulates us from real-time criticisms of our principles and positions, retarding our intellectual growth. It gives us a false sense of security and breeds self-satisfaction, off-putting harshness, and intolerance\u2014things destructive to civility. Also, keep in mind that it’s often the bystanders to a debate whom we want to persuade, and they will consider our language and conduct when judging our ideas.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
One of the things I\u2019ve learned from my great teacher Israel Kirzner<\/a> is that we can\u2019t realistically be aware of all of our current limitations because we simply don’t know all that we don’t know. We have blind spots, and that means intellectual bubbles of all sorts are inevitable. \u00a0But that doesn\u2019t mean that they have to remain invisible to us. Kirzner also taught us that creative discovery is possible. The signs are there, and keeping an eye open to them will give us a chance to make them at least a little more permeable.<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Sanford Ikeda is an associate professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism<\/em>.<\/strong><\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
This article was originally published by The Foundation for Economic Education<\/a>.<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sanford Ikeda August 30, 2013 Recommend this page. ****************************** Be mindful of how you label the people with whom you disagree. *** When I engage in an ideological discussion I try to be sensitive to how I ideologically label the person with whom I\u2019m talking and how she labels me. I\u2019m not talking about dismissive or openly pejorative words (e.g. evil, stupid, silly), but proper terms of discourse. More than just good manners, how we habitually label our opponents in…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41,5],"tags":[2364,1992,2363,1282,1370,2362,2365,57,2347,2360,30,2366,2361,911,900,899,2367,1734],"class_list":["post-1473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy","category-politics","tag-behavior","tag-bubble","tag-civility","tag-collectivist","tag-debate","tag-discussion","tag-ideology","tag-individualism","tag-israel-kirzner","tag-label","tag-libertarian","tag-mislabeling","tag-neoliberal","tag-progressive","tag-sandy-ikeda","tag-sanford-ikeda","tag-stanley-fish","tag-tolerance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1473","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1473"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1473\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1997,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1473\/revisions\/1997"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}