This article demonstrates that studies in political sociology are flawed, because they fail to
distinguish between moral conservatism/progressiveness and authoritarianism/libertarianism.
Such a distincti

Koster, W. (Willem) de

Waal, J. (Jeroen) van der

This article demonstrates that studies in political sociology are flawed, because they fail to
distinguish between moral conservatism/progressiveness and authoritarianism/libertarianism.
Such a distinction is necessary, because historically and theoretically speaking, it is the
process of modernization (de-pillarization in the Dutch case) that erodes the former’s
salience and, through the alienation and anomie this creates, increases the latter’s.
Hypotheses derived from this theory are strikingly confirmed. First, the well-established
strong correlation between both value dimensions proves solely caused by the circumstance
that moral progressiveness and libertarianism go hand in hand: moral conservatism and
authoritarianism are almost unrelated. Second, whereas moral conservatism/progressiveness
proves decisive for the voting behaviour of those who belong to a pillar, it is
authoritarianism/libertarianism that underlies the vote of those who do no not belong to a
pillar. It is concluded that the common practice in political sociology to lump both value
dimensions together needs to be abandoned, because it produces theoretically unclear
research findings

Erasmus University Digital Repository

Moreel conservatisme en autoritarisme theoretisch en methodisch ontward

http://repub.eur.nl/pub/12122/SOC-2006-012.pdf

Moreel conservatisme en autoritarisme theoretisch en methodisch ontward

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Erasmus University Digital Repository