It is a more than assumed idea that the ends touch. It is a common place that is used above all to refer to political ideologies.
Far from being an idea that has been successful and has spread, there is a theory behind this statement with a well-founded foundation. This is what is known as horseshoe theory.
However, as we will see throughout the article, it is a theory that has received numerous critics and refutations, like so many others, but which must be taken into account.
What does the Horseshoe Theory support?
This theory belongs to political science, but it is also popular domain. He maintains, as a paradox, that The further two opposing positions move away from the center, the more things they begin to share..
Apparently, this simile was already used in Germany during the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) to refer to radical, extreme and ideologically contrary political positions. More recently, the French writer and philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye has discussed this theory in some of his works. It has also been used from the field of sociology by different authors to explain the similarities between radically opposing political positions.
The theory uses a horse horseshoe as a symbol that places the ideological center in the center of the horseshoe and the right and left positions on each of its sides, to represent that, The more thought becomes polarized and radicalized, the closer the two opposites become.. The two points would represent the extreme right and the extreme left. The more the iron of the horseshoe is twisted, the points get closer and closer and can even touch.
Currently, important political scientists have referred to this theory due to the rise of populist, far-right and far-left movements, which emerged from the 2008 financial crisis. Some theorists point out that both share key aspects in their respective ideology, such as protectionism. economic, opposition to liberalism, globalization, etc.
Criticisms of this theory and other alternative models
Despite the roots and popular significance of this theory, many authors do not agree with the horseshoe curve that approximates the extremes. Among these theorists, Simón Choat, a professor at Kingston University, highlights that these similarities between the two sides are superficial generalities without solid support.
Going deeper into the issue, he states that despite an apparent agreement on certain issues the motivations are very different. For example, the rejection of neoliberalism is based on absolutely different identifications with neoliberal elites in both cases. The same occurs with the opposition that both groups show to globalization. While the extreme right appeals to the defense of national identity and tradition, the extreme left bases its position in relation to the economic inequality it generates.
An alternative model proposed by other authors is that of political compass, something more complex. In this model, individuals or groups are located on two coordinate axes within a quadrant. In contrast to the horseshoe theory, approximations are not observed between the ideological extremes, but rather in the more moderate groups that are located in the central positions of the quadrant. According to this model, radical positions move away and do not move closer.
In short, there are different ways of interpreting certain aspects of political science. Knowing these theories serves to better understand how ideological positions that are directly related to human thought work.
.