I read the definition.

1 : example, pattern; especially : an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype
2 : an example of a conjugation or declension showing a word in all its inflectional forms
3 : a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind.

You intended the third use in the broad sense Merriam-Webster proposes: “philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind.”

I had in mind the narrow sense, the framework in which “theories, laws and generalizations” are formulated.

(The first and second senses don’t apply, for obvious reasons).

Well, I suppose I have to say something like this:

(1) Well: I’m sorry.

(2) Despite that, I disagree with Merriam-Webster. I don’t think the broad sense ought to be in usage, because it dilutes ‘paradigm’ (a very useful technical term) down to a mere synonym for already-existing ideas (model/framework/etc.).

Hopefully you will join my in my linguistic crusade to keep language useful and in practice distinguish model from paradigm. (i.e., models are comparable, paradigms are incommensurable; these are distinct, mutually exclusive properties, so they can’t mean the same thing).

(3) In my defense, I note that not all dictionaries support Merriam’s ‘broad’ usage. Wikipedia has an interesting write-up on the changing meanings of “paradigm.”

(4) I do apologize for my tone, but only because I neglected to hold myself up to a higher standard. I let the tone of this blog color my emotional reaction. I find it difficult to maintain my own composure amongst the high-octane vitriol prevalent here (e.g. “And, social sciences teaches girls that years of feminism existed to give them the right to get knocked up and now, dress like a hooker.” This is really, really outrageously wrong, insulting, arrogant and stupid, so hopefully I can be forgiven).

(5) So while you can correctly point to a ‘broad’ usage of paradigm (which I personally abhor, but what can you do? It clearly exists, so I’m wrong–ahh, how liberating to say that, “I am wrong, I was wrong!”), this does not address issues 2, 3, and 4: namely, that the alternative proposal isn’t very good; that political science itself uses more sophisticated distinctions than the ones you impute to it; and that Contrarian’s point, as far as I am concerned, still stands.

Hopefully we can move forward here.

Cheers.

“From Political Science 101 people are taught that communism and fascism are polar opposites. That is a false model, otherwise known as a paradigm Al. A more accurate political spectrum would show anarchy at one end and totalitarian government at the other. At the totalitarian end one would find both communism and fascism, as they have been practiced.”

You should write a paper, Ari. Submit that to the Journal of Political Studies. It’s a tremendous insight that somehow was missed by generations of careful scholars. You could end up with an endowed Chair in Political Theory at Harvard.

Still:

(1) There’s an important difference between a model and a ‘paradigm.’ If you follow the Kuhnian line–and I think that’s what you have in mind–models are created within paradigms, which delimit the conceptual space within which models can be created. Newtonian physics was a paradigm which made possible certain models of space and time (and the movements of objects within it). General relativity is a different paradigm because there is no translation schema for the terms of Newtonian physics: it provides an entirely different account of the basic concepts (‘space’, ‘time’, ‘simultaneity’, etc.) and proceeds to build alternative models of physical phenomena that are incompatible with the Newtonian ‘paradigm’. They are incompatible because the foundational concepts are defined dirrently.

(2) What you are proposing is that the central classifactory criteria for political ideology ought to be a one-dimensional continuum concerned largely with the amount of government within a society, but neglects entirely the form this government takes, the type of political economy implemented and the shape of civil society. It is a very simplistic view.

(3) Communism and Fascism are viewed are rightly different by political theorists because they greatly differ along the three axes above. There is something to be said about a concern with the amount of government or collective intervention, but this concern is utterly meaningless without an account of the form this intervention (or lack thereof) takes.

(4) I believe Contrarian’s point was that lack of conceptual sophistication transcends party lines. He is certainly right in this. To call a centrist political figure like Obama a ‘socialist’ is to admit one has no understanding of the relevant concepts (but perhaps is an able user of rhetoric and sophistry, since it is engrained that socialism is ‘bad’). Likewise, to call former President Bush a ‘fascist’ only reveals prejudice and ignorance (or, again, willingness to engage in inflammatory rhetoric for personal gain).

(5) I sincerely hope you are not an actual political science student.

Always nice to hear from a fan!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Sorry to be harsh but just…ugh. I wish only Andrew wrote for this blog.

Also, the education system does set people up to fall for idiocy based on emotions – otherwise known as liberalism.