This lecture explores ideas through which we both do and analyse national politics in the modern world, as both concepts and symbols, examining three conceptual pairs: Left/Right, Centre/Periphery and Liberal/Authoritarian. I argue that Left/Right is a symbolic structure that is necessary for democratic politics, but not reflective of deep political principles. We tend to overweight the analytic value of this distinction. Drawing on Edward Shils, I argue that the Centre/Periphery distinction is essential for the analysis of the distributions of material and ideological power in all states, across human history. I argue that the modern distinction between Liberal/Authoritarian hinges on how ‘loose’ or ‘tight’ the governing relationship between centre and periphery is. Beneath this analysis of political ideas is a concern with how nations construct political authority, the core problem of nationalism. I invite comparisons of my approach to Anthony Smith's ethnosymbolism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonathan S. Hearn (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: