Left, Right and Centre: National Political Authority and Its Symbolisation

ABSTRACT 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nations and Nationalism
Published
2026-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.70137
Primary Topic
Political Systems and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Left, Right and Centre: National Political Authority and Its Symbolisation

Jonathan S. Hearn
Nations and Nationalism
Political Systems and Governance
article

Left, Right and Centre: National Political Authority and Its Symbolisation

Jonathan S. Hearn
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT 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.

Nations and Nationalism
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Political Systems and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon