Julian blogs:
Radical means open: to new understandings, to new perspectives, to new awareness, and the valuing of self-examination and critique. White Men’s Conservatism and White Men’s Liberalism are closed systems of thought the boundaries of which their ideologues refuse to acknowledge, identify, or name. Radicalism, as a social-political perspective, here means not closed. It means open to learning more. Not assuming I know it all. Not assuming anyone does.
To give a specific example: When I first moved to Oregon, the state had a rule against government organizations replacing…
Eliminating unnecessary jobs to focus on the actual core functions of the Federal government is the epitome of increasing efficiency.…
Is government efficiency hampered by excessive bureaucracy and needless organizational inertia? Sure, I can buy that. I've worked for companies…
@Jacqueline+Squid+Onassis: Since the administration said that only people who were cheating would get upset if their checks didn't get there…
I can't wait to hear what RonF has to say about the efficiency of fascism when the Social Security checks…
Then there’s an actual dictionary:
(1 and 2 are not germane)
3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs [the radical right].
I support the idea that words have no meaning in the abstract; they only have meaning in context.
That said, when I see a word I may tend to impute a context derived from the word’s origins. As I understand it, the term radical arose from a reference to “root,” just as the term radish refers to a plant valued for its root.
Consequently I use the term radical to refer to people who feel rooted in some fixed idea of the truth – and are therefore NOT especially open to contrary ideas. Such people are notable precisely because they resist outside influence. In this sense, I could characterize Martin Luther King Jr. as radical in that he felt rooted in the idea that all men are created equal and was not open to reconsidering that idea – all the social pressures of his day notwithstanding.
(I contrast the term radical with terms such as conventional and reasonable. The last term I find especially insightful in a double-speak kind of way: Reasonable people do not take guidance from reason; they take it from convention. I regard a person who following her own reasoning, even when that reasoning leads to conclusion that differ from convention – that is, a person who is “rooted” in reason – as radical.)
I see value in radicalness. As we occasionally discuss on this blog, I understand Amp to regard himself as rooted in feminism, and not especially open to contrary points of view. I also see value in open-mindedness. I value open-mindedness so highly that I strive to avoid professing a loyalty to any one point of view – including feminism.
But mostly, I see a tension between open-mindedness and (most manifestations of) radicalness – at least as I use the terms. I don’t think it promotes clarity of thought to gloss over the distinction.