Vosem is an interesting idea, but I don't really see much difference between the z and y axis. z really seems a re-statement of y.
I agree with Sonia. I've been interested in the possibility of a third axis or dimension to the Nolan chart almost as long as I've known about the chart, but I don't think this model got it right. The "fiscal" and "corporate" axis contain too much overlap to represent truly different categories.
I've sometimes remarked to people that the political struggle only represents half of the ideal world I want to live in. The other half is cultural. For example, it would be theoretically possible to live in a libertarian society made up of fundamentalist Christians. You could legally use drugs, be sexually nonconformist, dress creatively, live a slacker lifestyle, etc., but it would be socially frowned upon to such an extent that people would be very uncomfortable publicly engaging in such behavior. Even if it were perfectly libertarian, I doubt I would find such a society preferable to the one we live in now.
The philosophy of libertarianism, as I see it, provides a "unifying field theory" for the political side of that map. I have found no equivalent theory to make sense of the cultural side. The cultural side of the map is messy; it doesn't lend itself as easily to definitions and categories; it has not been analyzed the way politics has. As Hakim Bey says, "it is not a clean, well-lit room."
If there is a third axis to the Nolan chart, I believe it is an axis of personal style. I haven't found what I think are good terms to describe the poles of this axis. Conformity and nonconformity are one pair of terms that could describe the poles. One could also call them mainstream and alternative, or traditional and bohemian.
To illustrate: In the libertarian movement, there are anarcho-capitalists who in political terms are nearly off the Nolan chart in their libertarianism, yet on a personal level they may be quite straightlaced. On the opposite extreme of this dimension, you can find lots of people who are culturally alternative, hedonistic, nonconformist, etc., yet may be quite conventional (statist) in their politics. [Of course you can also find many examples of the opposite -- people who live quite "normally," and subscribe to mainstream (statist) political thought, and people who embrace social nonconformity along with the politically subversive.]
Taking a stab at what might be some characteristics of the two poles of this axis...
MAINSTREAM ALTERNATIVE
To illustrate: In the libertarian movement, there are
anarcho-capitalists who in political terms are nearly off the Nolan
chart in their libertarianism, yet on a personal level they may be
quite straightlaced. On the opposite extreme of this dimension, you can
find lots of people who are culturally alternative, hedonistic,
nonconformist, etc.
I think some caution needs to be used when putting these terms in the same basket. For example, if you are in a hedonistic society, it may be *conformist* to be hedonistic.
Likewise, you may see culture as being to economically left and therefore see a pro-free-market perspective as being the "non-conformist" one. But it's not difficult to find people would see the opposite bias in our culture and therefore see a pro-free-market perspective as the conformist one. (I've met many such people)
MAINSTREAM ALTERNATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
conformist non-conformist
strong work ethic hedonistic
rule-oriented vibe-oriented
logical intuitive
risk-averse risk-friendly
monogamous polyamorous
practical/value functionality artistic/value style
comfortable with hierarchy uncomfortable with hierarchy
order chaos
unaware of this axis aware of this axis
It sounds like you're trying to combine a political test with a personality test. If so, you could take the four dimensions of the Keirsey temperaments (which use many of the terms you use above) and add the two dimensions of the Nolan chart for social and economic freedom. What would be the potential uses for such a chart?
-- Steve
To illustrate: In the libertarian movement, there are
anarcho-capitalists who in political terms are nearly off the Nolan
chart in their libertarianism, yet on a personal level they may be
quite straightlaced. On the opposite extreme of this dimension, you can
find lots of people who are culturally alternative, hedonistic,
nonconformist, etc.I think some caution needs to be used when putting these terms in the
same basket. For example, if you are in a hedonistic society, it may be
*conformist* to be hedonistic.
I know "conformist" is a term whose meaning varies depending on the context. The list below is only a very rough stab at laying out some ideas. But I don't blame you for reminding me.
Likewise, you may see culture as being to economically left and
therefore see a pro-free-market perspective as being the
"non-conformist" one. But it's not difficult to find people would see
the opposite bias in our culture and therefore see a pro-free-market
perspective as the conformist one. (I've met many such people)
I'm not assuming "non-conformist" would be in the same grouping with pro-free-market. Remember I'm postulating this as an entirely separate axis, with libertarians and statists to be found on both the mainstream and alternative poles of the axis.
MAINSTREAM ALTERNATIVE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
conformist non-conformist
strong work ethic hedonistic
rule-oriented vibe-oriented
logical intuitive
risk-averse risk-friendly
monogamous polyamorous
practical/value functionality artistic/value style
comfortable with hierarchy uncomfortable with hierarchy
order chaos
unaware of this axis aware of this axisIt sounds like you're trying to combine a political test with a
personality test. If so, you could take the four dimensions of the
Keirsey temperaments (which use many of the terms you use above) and
add the two dimensions of the Nolan chart for social and economic
freedom. What would be the potential uses for such a chart?
Very sound criticism! You may well be right that what I'm getting at is nothing more than a poor rendering of something like a Kiersey-Bates analysis of personality types. Though I feel perhaps there is some merit in the idea of a single personal preference axis related to the cultural spectrum of culture to counterculture. Could also describe it as the old Apollonian/Dionysian split.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
I know "conformist" is a term whose meaning varies depending on the
context. The list below is only a very rough stab at laying out some
ideas. But I don't blame you for reminding me.
It's more than that - even at a particular point in time "counter-culture" can be composed of a large number of opposing extremes. For example, even if popular culture one dimensional value, say religious perspective, (which it certainly isn't), counter-culture could be on both opposite ends of the spectrum that are far from the popular culture position - both a radical Islamist and a radical Atheist might be considered counter-cultural.
Very sound criticism! You may well be right that what I'm getting at
is nothing more than a poor rendering of something like a Kiersey-Bates
analysis of personality types. Though I feel perhaps there is some
merit in the idea of a single personal preference axis related to the
cultural spectrum of culture to counterculture.
I get the impression you'd like to define your/our positions as being the "counter-cultural" ones and anyone else as being "conformist". Is this correct?
-- Steve
I know "conformist" is a term whose meaning varies depending on the
context. The list below is only a very rough stab at laying out some
ideas. But I don't blame you for reminding me.It's more than that - even at a particular point in time
"counter-culture" can be composed of a large number of opposing
extremes. For example, even if popular culture one dimensional value,
say religious perspective, (which it certainly isn't), counter-culture
could be on both opposite ends of the spectrum that are far from the
popular culture position - both a radical Islamist and a radical
Atheist might be considered counter-cultural.
I don't mean "counter-culture" as simply "anything opposed to the mainstream." That's why it's admittedly an imperfect term -- as stated, I am not satisfied with any of the pairs of terms mentioned.
Very sound criticism! You may well be right that what I'm getting at
is nothing more than a poor rendering of something like a Kiersey-Bates
analysis of personality types. Though I feel perhaps there is some
merit in the idea of a single personal preference axis related to the
cultural spectrum of culture to counterculture.I get the impression you'd like to define your/our positions as being
the "counter-cultural" ones and anyone else as being "conformist". Is
this correct?
No. I think you are reading too much judgment into the terms.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>