Advertisement

Political Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 151–173 | Cite as

What’s Left and Who’s Right? A Q-method Study of Individual and Contextual Influences on the Meaning of Ideological Labels

  • Elizabeth Zechmeister
Original paper

Abstract

Left–right semantics are commonly employed by scholars, the media, and politicians in reference to Latin American politics. Yet, how do citizens understand these terms and what determines the meanings they assign to them? I investigate the significance of left–right labels, as potential political heuristic devices, among and across a selected group of citizens in Mexico and Argentina. Subjective understandings of the left–right semantics were tapped using Q-sort methods. Analyses of these data reveal quite different conceptions across individuals and national contexts. Further, and as hypothesized in the text, the analyses demonstrate that ideological labels (a) reference valence issues, in addition to political actors and policy stances; (b) differ across contexts in ways that correspond to elite packaging; and, (c) vary by individual partisan leanings and political sophistication.

Keywords

Ideological labels Left Right Q methodology Mexico Argentina 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I owe thanks to Dr. Emily Stern at Di Tella and Dr. Eric Magar at ITAM for their support in the implementation of these studies. For research assistance, I thank Sara Arce, Ximena Bustamente, Lauren Forest, and Mariano Turzi. I am grateful to John Aldrich, Jennifer Merolla, and Laura Stephenson for their help at various stages of this project. Finally, I owe thanks to a number of people who commented on previous drafts of this paper, including Andy Baker, Federico Estévez, Bob Huckfeldt, Cindy Kam, and Guillermo Rosas. All errors and imperfections that remain are my own.

References

  1. Bobbio, N. (1997). Left and right: The significance of a political distinction. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press (translated by Allan Cameron).Google Scholar
  2. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bruhn, K. (1997). Taking on Goliath: The emergence of a new left party and the struggle for democracy in Mexico. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, D., & Stokes, D. (1969). Political change in Britain. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cattell R. B. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1973). The political uses of symbolism. American Politics Quarterly, 1, 305–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conover, P. J, & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal–conservative self-identification. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1984). How people organize the political world: A schematic model. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 95–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Converse, P. E. (1966). The problems of party distances in models of voting change. In M. K. Jennings, & L. H. Zeigler (Eds.), The electoral process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Converse, P. E., & Pierce, R. (1986). Political representation in France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row. .Google Scholar
  15. Estévez, F., & Poiré, A (2001). Early campaign dynamics in the 2000 Mexican presidential election. Working Paper in Political Science, 2001-01, ITAM, D.F.Google Scholar
  16. Estrada, L. M. (2005). Party identification in Mexico. Ph.D. diss., San Diego: University of California.Google Scholar
  17. Erikson, R. S., & Tedin, K. L. (2003). American public opinion (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Longman Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, G., Heath, A., & Lalljee, M. (1996). Measuring left–right and libertarian–authoritarian values in the British electorate. British Journal of Sociology, 47, 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans, G., & Whitefield, S. (1998). The evolution of left and right in post-Soviet Russia. Europe–Asia Studies, 50, 1023–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleury, C. J., & Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1993). Anchoring the French voter: Ideology versus party. The Journal of Politics, 55, 1100–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freie, J. F. (1997). The effects of campaign participation on political attitudes. Political Behavior, 19, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuchs, D., & Klingemann, H.-D. (1990). The left–right schema. In M. K. Jennings, & J. W. Van Deth, et al. (Eds.), Continuities in political action. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Hinich, M. J., & Munger, M. C. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press. .Google Scholar
  25. Huber, J. (1989). Values and partisanship in left–right orientations: Measuring ideology. European Journal of Political Research, 17, 599–621. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1999). Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 888–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huntingon, S. P. (1991). The third wav: Democratization in the late twentieth century Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  28. Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. D. (1976). Party identification, ideological preference and the left–right dimension among Western mass publics. In I. Budge, I. Crewe, & D. Farlie (Eds.), Party identification and beyond: Representations of voting and party competition. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Jacoby, W. G. (2002). Liberal–conservative thinking in the American electorate. In M. X. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Political decision-making, deliberation and participation (Research in micropolitics (Vol. 6). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. Key, V. O. Jr. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. .Google Scholar
  31. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kinder, D. R. (1983). Diversity and complexity in American public opinion. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline. Washington, D.C.: The American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  33. Kitschelt, H., & Hellemans, S. (1990). The left–right semantics and the new politics cleavage. Comparative Political Studies, 23, 210–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klingemann, H. D. (1979). The background of ideological conceptualization. In S. H. Barnes, & M. Kaase, et al. (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Knutsen, O. (1997). The partisan and the value-based components of left–right self-placement: A comparative study. International Political Science Review, 18, 191–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCann, J. A., & Lawson, C. (2003). An electorate a drift? public opinion and the quality of democracy in Mexico. Latin American Research Review 38, 60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKelvey, R. D., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1986). Information, electoral equilibria, and the democratic ideal. The Journal of Politics, 48, 909–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Magaloni, B., & Moreno, A. (2003). Catching all souls: The partido acción nacional and the politics of religion in Mexico. In S. Mainwaring, & T. Scully (Eds.), Christian democracy in Latin America: Electoral competition and regime conflicts. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Magaloni, B., & Poiré, A. (2004). The issues, the vote, and the mandate for change. In J. I. Domínguez, & C. Lawson (Eds.), Mexico’s pivotal democratic election. San Diego, CA: University of California, Center for U.S.–Mexican Studies.Google Scholar
  41. Moreno, A. (1999). Ideología y voto: Dimensiones de competencia política en méxico en los noventa. Política y Gobierno, 6, 45–81.Google Scholar
  42. Moreno, A. (2003). El votante Mexicano: Democracia, actitudes políticas y conducta Electoral. Mexico, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  43. Nathan, A. J., & Shi, T. (1996). Left and right with chinese characteristics: Issues and alignments in Deng Xiaoping’s China. World Politics, 48, 522–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ovalles, E. (Ed.) (1998). Autopercepción de los Políticos. Colleción Estudios 37. Buenos Aires: Editorial Centro de Estudios Unión para la Nueva Mayoría.Google Scholar
  45. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns (2nd ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Power, T. J. (2000). The political right in postauthoritarian Brazil: Elites, institutions, and democratization. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, K. M. (2000). Party–Society Linkages and democratic representation in Latin America. Paper presented at the Conference on Threats to Democracy in Latin America, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. [Online] Available: http://www.iir.ubc.ca/pwiasconferences/threatstodemocracy/abstractspapers/roberts2.pdf.Google Scholar
  49. Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misinformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64, 1033–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31, 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M. Jr. (1980). Self-Interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74, 670–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stokes, S. C. (2001). Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Theiss-Morse, E. (1993). Conceptualizations of good citizenship and political participation. Political Behavior, 15, 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomas, D., McCoy, C., & McBride, A. (1993). Deconstructing the political spectacle: Sex, race, and subjectivity in public response to the clarence Thomas/Anita Hill “Sexual Harassment” hearings. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 699–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomassen, J., & Herman, S. (1997). Policy representation. European Journal of Political Research, 32, 165–184.Google Scholar
  56. Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary (2001). CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.0. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University [software on-line]; available from http://gking.harvard.edu; Internet; accessed 1 June 2002.Google Scholar
  57. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Zechmeister, E. (N.d). The political significance of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in Latin America. Working Paper. University of California, Davis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Science University of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations