Philosophical Foundations of Contemporary Intolerance: Why We No Longer Take Martin Luther King, Jr. Seriously

IF 0.4 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Critical Review Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/08913811.2022.2030608
A. Preston
{"title":"Philosophical Foundations of Contemporary Intolerance: Why We No Longer Take Martin Luther King, Jr. Seriously","authors":"A. Preston","doi":"10.1080/08913811.2022.2030608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A growing body of research suggests that political polarization in the United States is at a forty-year high, and that it is rooted less in disagreements over policy than in hostile attitudes toward political opponents. Such attitudes explain the manifest increase of intolerant behavior in American culture and politics in recent years. But what explains the attitudes themselves? One significant contributor may have been the rise of scientism in the early twentieth century, which undermined the metaphysical, epistemic, and institutional foundations of the type of morality required to transcend our instinctual tribalism.","PeriodicalId":51723,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review","volume":"34 1","pages":"99 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2022.2030608","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT A growing body of research suggests that political polarization in the United States is at a forty-year high, and that it is rooted less in disagreements over policy than in hostile attitudes toward political opponents. Such attitudes explain the manifest increase of intolerant behavior in American culture and politics in recent years. But what explains the attitudes themselves? One significant contributor may have been the rise of scientism in the early twentieth century, which undermined the metaphysical, epistemic, and institutional foundations of the type of morality required to transcend our instinctual tribalism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当代不容忍的哲学基础:为什么我们不再认真对待马丁·路德·金
摘要越来越多的研究表明,美国的政治两极分化达到了40年来的最高水平,其根源与其说是政策分歧,不如说是对政治对手的敌对态度。这种态度解释了近年来美国文化和政治中不容忍行为的明显增加。但如何解释这些态度本身呢?一个重要的贡献者可能是二十世纪初科学主义的兴起,它破坏了超越我们本能的部落主义所需的道德类型的形而上学、认识论和制度基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Review
Critical Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society is a political-science journal dedicated to advancing political theory with an epistemological bent. Recurrent questions discussed in our pages include: How can political actors know what they need to know to effect positive social change? What are the sources of political actors’ beliefs? Are these sources reliable? Critical Review is the only journal in which the ideational determinants of political behavior are investigated empirically as well as being assessed for their normative implications. Thus, while normative political theorists are the main contributors to Critical Review, we also publish scholarship on the realities of public opinion, the media, technocratic decision making, ideological reasoning, and other empirical phenomena.
期刊最新文献
Depolarization Without Reconciliation Education and the Epistemological Crisis in the Age of ChatGPT Republicanizing Leviathan: Kant’s Cosmopolitan Synthesis of Hobbes and Rousseau Who Is Haunted by the Shadow Of God? Dialectical Notes on Michael Rosen’s Narrative of (Failed) Secularization Six Variations on Michael Rosen’s The Shadow of God
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1