dichotomy prevailing over all others.^68 From a scientific point of view,
such classifications may appear insufficient but, in the social world,
they constitute powerful representations. As such, they are important
social facts.
Second, as mentioned above, attempts to define the left–right
opposition are often seen as essentialist, because both terms actually
change in meaning across time and space. These notions would be, so
to speak, empty vessels ready to convey different material depending
on the context. Again, this is largely true. Left and right are relative
notions that take on different meanings according to the circum-
stances. These terms, however, also have a history, anchored in the
development of liberal democracy, and as such they have an enduring
significance, which most people across the world perceive easily.
However difficult to pin down and define, the left–right cleavage looks
like common sense to most citizens. Nobody hesitates, polls regularly
demonstrate, when it comes to placing a party or a well-known public
figure on the left or on the right. There is this little something, this
“je ne sais quoi” that says it all.^69 The left–right opposition may
pertain to the type of understanding that philosopher Michael Polanyi
calls tacit knowledge, “the things people know but cannot put into
words, much less formulate as rules.”^70 The distinction is no less
operative as a source of political mobilization.
Third, it has been repeatedly argued over the years that the left–
right cleavage was a fading division, gradually superseded by other
oppositions, more relevant for our era. Over time, various authors
have talked about the end of ideology or of history, the new cleavages
of post-industrial society, the rise of post-materialism, the emergence
of the women’s movement or of green politics, the fragmentation of
politics into issue-oriented conflicts, or the predominance of person-
ality and electoral marketing over traditional partisan divisions, all
these hypotheses converging to predict the demise of the old battle lines,
born in the nineteenth century. For one thing, the left–right cleavage
(^68) Laponce,Left and Right, pp. 14–23; McManus,Right Hand, Left Hand, p. 36;
69 Bobbio,Left and Right, pp. 1–2.
Maxime Dury,La droite et la gauche: les lois de la repre ́sentation politique,
70 Paris, E ́ditions Eska, 2001, pp. 16–17.
Stone,Policy Paradox, p. 290–91. To illustrate the notion, Deborah Stone gives
the example of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who said about obscenity:
“I can’t define it but I know it when I see it.”
A clash over equality 27