The struggle over dimensionality: A note on theory and empirics

Abstract

Dylan on dimensionality: The significance of political labeling On Friday, 13 December 1963, the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (NECLC)1 organized their annual Bill of Rights dinner in order to present a distinguished individual with its Tom Paine Award. That night, the award was given to a young singer-songwriter dressed in a suede jacket and a pair of blue jeans, attire that starkly contrasted with the furs, pearls, and bow ties worn by the mostly wealthy and elderly liberal NECLC ranks. In his controversial acceptance speech Bob Dylan declared his political independence by stating: ‘There’s no black and white, left and right to me anymore; there’s only up and down and down is very close to the ground. And I’m trying to go up without thinking about anything trivial such as politics.’2 By 1963, Dylan had become a symbol of the New Left and the Civil Rights Movement, a role that made him uncomfortable. Interestingly, Dylan used two distinct terms to demonstrate his political autonomy; he no longer wanted to be associated with the ‘left’ or the ‘right’. These labels are clearly not Dylan’s inventions nor are they merely a vestigial homage to the seating arrangement in the French Estates General of 1789 where supporters of the Ancien Régime sat to the right of the Assembly president and supporters of the revolution to his left.3 The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ have come to identify distinct historical traditions, different conceptions of the good society, and alternative lifestyles. In the contemporary world, political scientists, politicians, journalists, and voters have come to associate broad streams of ideas with the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’. Although the left–right dimension is sometimes referred to as the ‘ideological super-issue’ – that is, the dimension that bundles the issues that happen to be salient in a society (Pierce, 1999: 30; see also Gabel and Huber, 2000; McDonald and Budge, 2005) – its poles contrast a more progressive and redistributive role for the state to a more conservative and market-oriented role. Dylan’s unease with the labels ‘left’ and ‘right’ has resonance with the uncertainty of political scientists about the value of ‘left’ and ‘right’ as radical simplifications of political actors’ positions within a political space. The conceptualization and measurement of the dimensionality of political space and the positions of parties and voters within that space lie at the heart of a science of politics and constitute the topic of this special issue.