Ideology
 

We have had many discussions here on the content of various ideologies, past and current, but just for a change, let's talk about the subject of ideology itself.

Here is a link to a recent article on the subject:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_...-ideology.html

Here is a teaser from the article:

"Ideological thinking is not confined to the Islamists in our midst. The need for a simplifying lens that can screen out the intractabilities of life, and of our own lives in particular, springs eternal; and with the demise of Marxism in the West, at least in its most economistic form, a variety of substitute ideologies have arisen from which the disgruntled may choose.

Most started life as legitimate complaints, but as political reforms dealt with reasonable demands, the demands transformed themselves into ideologies, thus illustrating a fact of human psychology: rage is not always proportionate to its occasion but can be a powerful reward in itself. Feminists continued to see every human problem as a manifestation of patriarchy, civil rights activists as a manifestation of racism, homosexual-rights activists as a manifestation of homophobia, anti-globalists as a manifestation of globalization, and radical libertarians as a manifestation of state regulation."

The universities today swarm with various species of ideologies, the latest being Environmentalism.

What is your pet ideology, and why is it so important in your life?

ideology
 

Mark, I hope I don't have one. Ideology is the most deadly thing upon earth. Marxism as an ideology destroyed millions of people. When Christianity ceased to be a religion and became an ideology in the Middle Ages, it spawned the Inquisition and various crusades; and in the Reformation both sides, trumpeting their own ideological versions of the faith, tried to destroy each other. And, of course, radical Islam is Islam as an ideology.

So I eschew ideology. True wisdom rests in multiple perspectives.

dwl

I agree with all you say, David.

And I agree with Keats:

"The only means of strengthening one’s intellect is to make up one’s mind about nothing — to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts. Not a select party."

- John Keats, Letter, 17-27 Sept. 1819

We have so many Keatsean weak intellects in academia today, who do nothing else but follow and advocate "a select party." And I suppose this is one of the reasons why this thread will fizzle away.

Being ideologically uncommitted, David, you must feel quite isolated in academia these days. In fact, I would guess that your indifference to ideology is interpreted by those around you as clear evidence that you are indeed an ideologue of the Right.

If you live at the Left Pole, everyone around you is on the Right.

I happened to read this last night, apropos:

"While the totalitarian regimes are thus resolutely and cynically emptying the world of the only thing that makes sense to the utilitarian expectations of common sense, they impose upon it at the same time a kind of supersense which the ideologies actually always meant when they pretended to have found the key to history or the solution to the riddles of the universe. Over and above the senselessness of totalitarian society is enthroned the ridiculous supersense of its ideological superstition. Ideologies are harmless, uncritical, and arbitrary opinions only as long as they are not believed in seriously. Once their claim to total validity is taken literally they become the nuclei of logical systems in which, as in the systems of paranoiacs, everything follows comprehensively and even compulsorily once the first premise is accepted. The insanity of such systems lies not only in their first premise but in the very logicality with which they are constructed. The curious logicality of all isms, their simple-minded trust in the salvation value of stubborn devotion without regard for specific, varying factors, already harbors the first germs of totalitarian contempt for reality and factuality."

-- Harrah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

Arendt has in mind of course the most extreme mid-century political instances, Nazism & Soviet Communism, but "totalitarian" is a good descriptor for ideology in general. It wants to assimilate reality to its own construction, & anything unassimilable is, on the one hand, unreal, and, on the other hand, a dangerous enemy.

But it's not always obvious where legitimate intellectual passion ends and illegitimate ideology begins.

Mark, your notorious rants against the ideologies you oppose are themselves arguably ideological, in view of the undiscriminatingly sweeping, polarizing, positions you espouse. Not a lot of reality-hungry, polarization-defusing nuance in your discourse. Rather, a seemingly consuming desire to identify the enemy.

One rather harmless but notable ideological conflict, in the context of Eratosphere, is that between Formalism and Free Verse. I have yet to encounter an argument for either of these two ideologies that does not seem embarassingly naive. It's like, in taking an ideological position, you give up your intelligence. Meanwhile, poetry gets written, one way or the other.

The idea that Environmentalism is an ideology is problematic. Undoubtedly true, in certain respects, but in this case what Arendt refers to as "the first premise" is peculiarly weighty, being a matter of scientific evidence & potential global consequences. One counter-narrative current these days is the sunspot narrative: the sunspot cycle in the sun is moving into a nadir (there ain't no sunspots) & this has always, in the past, coincided with cooling trends on earth. Do sunspots trump anthropogenerated carbon dioxide? Stay tuned....

"If you live at the Left Pole, everyone around you is on the Right." Good one. It is good work to struggle against one's own idiocy.

This "contempt for reality and factuality" which is sweeping academia at present is the very thing which incites me to rant, since I feel it is utterly inimical to scholarship and education.

The discipline of History is now coming in for the same treatment that Literature has been given - facts and truth are mere cultural constructions, and can be replaced by other, more politically desirable facts and truths. This really is BIG BROTHER stuff.

I agree that psychologically, ideology is a paranoid structure. Like the paranoid, the ideologue has looked below the surface appearance of the world and has found "the truth" about how it really works. The former may see the devil everywhere, the latter may see the Patriarchy. The ideological system, as Arendt points out, is perfectly rational, given its initial assumptions. But it is no less insane for being so rational.

But have you ever tried to talk a paranoid back down to reality - it has the same chance of success as with ideologues. And I don't attempt either. I only address those who are still sane enough to see how the system can fall under the sway of the mad ones, and perhaps act to prevent it.

And what lies behind the paranoid/ideological impulse to find and settle on "the Truth" about reality? I would say it is the ontological security of the rational ego. In short, paranoias, like ideologies, are props for weak egos. And evidence for this view is abundant. The ideologue gains enormous pride and satisfaction from being so morally impregnable in their readings of "what is." So superior to all the fools who don't see. And so the ego feels more secure in itself.

Am I being ideologically anti-ideology? It is always something I am quite prepared to examine.

But in my preparedness to question any and all of my primary assumptions, I am doing what no paranoid or ideologue is prepared to do, so I don't believe that I am.

Ah yes, I think you will find that Environmentalism is the latest expression of the same cluster of ideologies currently doing the rounds.

From what I have seen of the movement, this site is an accurate

source.

An interesting comment from Lionel Trilling:

Ideology is not the product of thought; it is the habit or the ritual of showing respect for certain formulas to which, for various reasons having to do with emotional safety, we have very strong ties of whose meaning and consequences in actuality we have no clear understanding.

Richard

Interesting topic, Mark. A bit of googling brought be to this, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

A key idea comes later in the article: “What is ideology, after all, but a set of values and ideals? However, on the ideology view, the norms are defined in terms of the interests they serve, rather than the justice they embody.”

The whole article can be found at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-ideology/.

Thank you, Richard.

Yes, I would agree with that - "emotional safety" is another way to put it.

The paranoid/ideologue can relax a great deal, since they now have the security of knowing exactly what is going on in the world - no more ego-threatening confusion, but the emotional safety at having finally arrived at an understanding of what is happening.

But all attempts at such emotional security through ideal formulae merely produce more mayhem and madness in the world.

The only antidote, I believe, is the discovery of what Alan Watts calls "the wisdom of insecurity", which is life-supporting and life-enhancing.

That's a pretty solid set of beliefs you have there Mark ;-)

Janet's onto something here.

Whether you seek "Sanctuary" in uplifted realms of the spirit or merely regard your home as your castle, then you are ideological.

The solitude a poet seeks is the outcome of that poet having an ideological stance.

Is aestheticism not an ideology, Mark? If so I would gladly call myself ideological. Perhaps I could call you the same?

You mentioned Alan Watts. I'll admit to a great fascination to a lot of the philosophy behind Zen Buddhism and the Tao. I feel an affinity with Li Po who spent his days fishing without hook or bait so that he would be left alone by man and beast.

Anti-ideologies are also ideologies.

I think homo sapiens is by its very nature an ideological being.

Duncan

Roger Woddis, the British poet once wrote:
Down With Fanatics!

Fanatics are an evil breed
Whom decent men should shun;
I’d like to flog them till they bleed,
Yes, every mother's son,
I'd like to tie them to a board
And let them taste the cat,
While giving praise, oh thank the Lord,
That I am not like that.

Duncan, I would agree with you up to a point. But I think when we say "ideology" here we mean that destructive variety, the ones that exclude and often destroy those who do not hold to them. Yes, all positions are ideologies to an extent, even my own position that we should not have an ideology! Deridda has pointed out how ideologies create binary oppositions: us/them, believer/unbeliever, party member/party outcast. One side of the binary equation will be favored the other side will be marginalized. So violence is inevitable.

So we speak of ideology, I think we mean this variety of it: the type that excludes, that demarcates and then fears and loathes those who are outside of the ideological circle. This is destructive ideology.

Fair enough - on the whole - David, though who gets to say what is destructive? I could imagine that Li Po might have been seen as a dangerous revolutionary if it had been known that he was fishing without a hook and bait. And Socrates was executed for corrupting the minds of the youth. Sometimes a critic of an ideology starts a new ideology that in turn becomes destructive. (Btw you unintentionally misquote me - "IsAnti-ideologies"?)

Great wee poem, Janet!! I'm still chuckling.

Duncan

Mark

Ask me this morning what my ideology is and I will have a think about it, examine the idea from a number of angles, possibly engage in some dialogue with you, maybe even retire for some private contemplation or to "phone a friend" or do some research.

Ask me what my ideology is later this afternoon and I will...

etc

The most scary people on earth are the ones who have "made up their minds for all time" and who have the answer before you've finished the question.

Philip

Duncan, of course you can call anything and everything an "ideology", just as everything can be called "political", but that way fogginess lies.

The article I linked at the top of this thread has the same definition that I would use - I call it "programatic ideology": it seeks to bring about actual change in the present world, to mold reality to its vision. It seeks to make something happen, involving "a single-minded pursuit of an end."

Is religion, in this sense, an ideology - no, because it it not pursuing an end through programatic change in this world. The author writes:

"How delightful to have a key to all the miseries, both personal and societal, and to know personal happiness through the single-minded pursuit of an end for the whole of humanity! At all costs, one must keep at bay the realization that came early in life to John Stuart Mill, as he described it in his Autobiography. He asked himself:

'Suppose that all your objects in life were realized; that all the changes in institutions and opinions which you are looking forward to, could be effected at this very instant: would this be a great joy and happiness to you?” And an irrepressible self-consciousness distinctly answered, “No!” At this my heart sank within me: the whole foundation on which my life was constructed fell down. All my happiness was to have been found in the continual pursuit of this end. The end had ceased to charm, and how could there ever again be any interest in the means? I seemed to have nothing left to live for.'

This is the question that all ideologists fear, and it explains why reform, far from delighting them, only increases their anxiety and rage. It also explains why traditional religious belief is not an ideology in the sense in which I am using the term, for unlike ideology, it explicitly recognizes the limitations of earthly existence, what we can expect of it, and what we can do by our own unaided efforts. Some ideologies have the flavor of religion; but the absolute certainty of, say, the Anabaptists of Münster, or of today’s Islamists, is ultimately irreligious, since they claimed or claim to know in the very last detail what God requires of us."

Total certainty of purpose and the call to immediate action designates what I am calling "ideology" here.

And God help the ideologue should the goal ever be realized. The frenetic energy of flight through action would come to an end and the ego, left without a purpose, would implode with anxiety.

Ideologies seem to be like accents. Everyone has one except me.

Roger, that's brilliant.!

everyone
 

Roger, I don't doubt for a moment that everyone has an ideology. I know I do, I feel pretty strongly about it, and I want it to triumph in the world of politics and ideas. However, I realize it is rooted in embedded in my own presuppositions. I do not believe it is sacrosanct and know its derivative quality. I don't see people who oppose it as my enemies or as being further down on the scale of being--if I did, I would say they could be censured in a variety of ways, the ultimate way being by destroying them.

So in the Middle Ages, the interpetation of Christianity that existed in Europe at that time was seen as an ultimate ideology, given from heaven, not subject to debate. Hence, anyone who disputed it was a threat. So when Albigensians (Cathars) start to proliferate, they are seen as a threat to the community are either forced to convert or killed. Many other examples such as this, in all religions and political movements, can be cited.

So I have an ideology. So do you. So does everyone. But that ideology can grow toxic if not held within certain limits, and that is the problem.

Here's another symptom of a programatic ideology (such as we have in academia today) - say one word against it, and you are permanently ostracized from the company of believers.

It is amazing to see people who champion the principle of tolerance in all things become utterly intolerant of any hint of opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy of the ideology.

Mark,
I'm passionately against bombs. Is that an ideology?

People who like bombs are passionately against me.

I don't want to hurt the pro-bombers.

I'm not sure they return the compliment.

Are they more fanatical than me?

Or just awful people?

Is religion, in this sense, an ideology - no, because it it not pursuing an end through programatic change in this world.
Aid to poor countries was denied if they accepted condoms for birth control. As a result countless women died and AIDS spread like wildfire. All because of a religious program. I call that ideology.

[quote=Janet Kenny;95399]Mark,
I'm passionately against bombs. Is that an ideology?
People who like bombs are passionately against me.
I don't want to hurt the pro-bombers.
I'm not sure they return the compliment.
Are they more fanatical than me?
Or just awful people?
QUOTE]

My spin on that, Janet:

Yes

They should be.

Good, that's how it should be.

If you're not sure they return the compliment, the toxic side of your ideology is showing up. You are dehumanizing them and stereotyping them, just as you do when you say they "like bombs." Most of the people you mean don't like bombs but simply think they are necessary and it would be an error to eliminate them. You are using rhetoric to belittle and dehumanize them.

No.

No. Their position does not make them awful people. It only makes them people with a different perspective from your own.

dwl

[quote=David Landrum;95435]Ah! Nice people who don't mind using bombs on people. I'll struggle with it David.;-)

Give everybody in the world who wants it a job. None of that, "What can you do for us", type of selfish bastard nonsense, but, let's find you a job so that at the end of the day you won't be bored and resentful, not only because you have to keep buying cheap tasteless food to pay the rent, the utilities and your liability car insurance (I once heard a friend of my father's ( before political correctness) say, "Thank God thay they now make these lazy bums without jobs buy auto liability insurance, because before that, I couldn't get a nickel off of the one that rear-ended me."), but also because with enough boredom you eventually lose the will to even hope things will get better, so that what any hope does exist, finds an outlet in hanging around with those in similar situations, which is almost never good for the safety of those that work. What most people have forgotten, if they were once poor, is that the poor pay higher utilities in proportion to the rich, with the dole that the government sends them in order to shut them up, much like the Romans did with bread and circuses. This is because the utilities draw more power from their old frige, heater, leaking gaspipes, waterpipes, etc... and, of course, the car insurance prohibits getting the old car repaired, so it burns more gas and oil than the rich man's. Sure, there will always be harmless people who won't work no matter what, and dangerous people who won't be satisfied with their lot, idiologically-minded or not, but most, I think, will accept a job even if it's not 8 hours a day in an air-conditioned office. After all, there is a very popuar tv series called, "The World's Most Dangerous Jobs" ("Dirtiest Jobs"?).