[Mark Allinson]

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?

[David Landrum]

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

[Mark Allinson]

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.

[Alder Ellis]

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.

[Mark Allinson]

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.

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.

[Richard Meyer]

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

[Andrew Frisardi]

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

What is ideology? The term was likely coined by the French thinker Claude Destutt de Tracy at the turn of the nineteenth century, in his study of the Enlightenment. For De Tracy, ideology was the science of ideas and their origins. Ideology understands ideas to issue, not haphazardly from mind or consciousness, but as the result of forces in the material environment that shape what people think. De Tracy believed his view of ideology could be put to progressive political purposes, since understanding the source of ideas might enable efforts on behalf of human progress.

Ideology today is generally taken to mean not a science of ideas, but the ideas themselves, and moreover ideas of a particular kind. Ideologies are ideas whose purpose is not epistemic, but political. Thus an ideology exists to confirm a certain political viewpoint, serve the interests of certain people, or to perform a functional role in relation to social, economic, political and legal institutions. Daniel Bell dubbed ideology ‘an action-oriented system of beliefs,’ and the fact that ideology is action-oriented indicates its role is not to render reality transparent, but to motivate people to do or not do certain things. Such a role may involve a process of justification that requires the obfuscation of reality.

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/.

[Mark Allinson]

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.

[Janet Kenny]

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

[Duncan Gillies MacLaurin]

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