but have no scientific or even descriptive relevance. They see two
major problems with the use of the notions of left and right as ana-
lytical concepts. First, they note that these notions cover a broad range
of political positions, which change across space and time, and argue
that any definition simplifies reality and leaves out important move-
ments and parties. Is it possible, for instance, to find a meaningful
definition that would draw together Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill,
Augusto Pinochet, and George W. Bush, against Lenin, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, Nelson Mandela, and Tony Blair? Second, it is
often pointed out that, even in a given place and time, the notions of
left and right remain relative. It is always a question of being on the
left or right of someone. As the quotation from E ́douard Vaillant given
above indicates, political positions are very much a matter of...debate!
The best we can do, conclude some experts, is to build modest, time-
and space-specific typologies of various ideological preferences. Doing
otherwise would smack of essentialism, a perspective that assumes
phenomena have inherent, distinctive features, which give them their
true and universal meaning.^15
This reluctance to define the left and the right is misplaced on two
counts. First, as even the most prudent authors recognize, the left–
right division is a genuine social fact that can hardly be ignored.
Second, the conventional fear of essentialism is misguided.
Consider, first, the undeniable reality of the left–right dichotomy.
Social scientists, argues Rene ́Re ́mond, have not invented this notion;
they have found it in the real practices of political actors, all over the
world and for more than a century. Observers have repeatedly pre-
dicted the demise of the division, but repeatedly as well they have seen
it persist, as the most powerful of all political cleavages.^16 This dis-
tinction can be challenged as a working concept, but it cannot be
abolished as a phenomenon.^17 This is the case because the left–right
(^15) Among the many authors adopting this position, see: Rene ́Re ́mond,Les droites
en France, Paris, Aubier-Montaigne, 1982, pp. 18–37; Roger Eatwell, “The
Nature of the Right, 1: Is There an ‘Essentialist’ Philosophical Core?,” in Roger
Eatwell and Noe ̈l O’Sullivan (eds.),The Nature of the Right: European and
American Politics and Political Thought since 1789, London, Pinter, 1989,
pp. 47–60; Jean-Marie Denquin,Science politique, fourth edition, Paris, PUF,
1992, pp. 337–41; Agne`s Alexandre-Collier and Xavier Jardin,Anatomie des
16 droites europe ́ennes, Paris, Armand Colin, 2004, pp. 10–20.
Re ́mond,Les droites en France, p. 29.
(^17) Denquin,Science politique, p. 341.
A clash over equality 11