Open AccessRonald Inglehart’s Comment on “After Postmaterialism”: A Reply
Author(s) -
Robert J. Brym
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
canadian journal of sociology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.357
H-Index - 33
eISSN - 1710-1123
pISSN - 0318-6431
DOI - 10.29173/cjs27994
Subject(s) - geopolitics , sociology , white (mutation) , inequality , socialization , value (mathematics) , aesthetics , gender studies , politics , political science , art , law , social science , biochemistry , chemistry , mathematics , machine learning , mathematical analysis , computer science , gene
Professor Inglehart and I are involved in a foreground/background dispute. We see the same black-and-white image (Figure 1) but interpret it differently. Inglehart’s foreground is white, leading to him to conclude that the image portrays two faces. My foreground is black, leading me to conclude that the image portrays a goblet. His foreground (my background) consists of the intergenerational causes of value change, notably socialization in relatively peaceful and prosperous times and the concomitant proliferation of higher-status occupations. My foreground (his background) consists of geopolitical rivalry and growing income inequality, forces that push the citizens of today’s Great Powers away from postmaterialism and into the camp of the meaner angels of our nature. True, we can see each other’s foreground — I adduce data showing that young Chinese citizens are more postmaterialistic than their elder compatriots; Inglehart admits that growing geopolitical rivalries and income inequality have stymied Russia’s advance to postmaterialism — but we each insist that our foreground is the main story.