What is an ideology? Can there be a “flawed” ideology? Is there a rational or useful system or way to determine a “good” ideology from a “bad” one?
Many ideologies are arrived at haphazardly. Maybe some are sound at their inception, but as social dynamics shift these ideologies become incongruous with reality.
How do you demonstrate that 1. an ideology is flawed at its inception, and 2. an ideology once sound has become incongruous with environmental realities?
A loaded question, but I’ll bite.
An ideology is a set of ideas that make sense of or interpret the world, events, reality, etc.
The ideas that come to form an ideology can be basic ideas such as “everyone is equal” that imply a whole amount of other ideas, or they can be a huge comprehensive set of ideas that are very explicit… a good example might be the entire Bible as an idealogy.
I think the big problem of analyzing ideologies is that we must interpret them through our own ideology. So, a person who is a pragmatist might have a totally different take on the issue than a person who is a Buddhist for instance. Would either of them be right or wrong?
(i.e. it seems to be that most ideologies have a “goal” or “ideal” and other ideologies would be judged against them meeting that particular “goal” or “ideal”. I havent given this particular aspect too much thought though)
My gut feeling is that you cannot judge a ideology based on its consistency with reality, society, events, etc. If an ideology is no longer useful or makes sense because of changing conditions, a pragmatist might say it that it is a bad ideology because it has lost its usefulness, or a utalitarian might say that it now causes more harm than good.
However, I would say that if anything were to be a basis on which to judge ideologies it would not their external consistency, but their internal consistency. The ideas within the ideology must all be congruent and not contradict eachother.
thats my 2 cents on the subject.
Thanks. I’ve recently come up against a competing ideology and didn’t know quite how to convey/organize my thoughts on the subject quickly. You’ve provided a simple, smart, clear explanation to what’s probably a simple question. Sometimes I’m too lazy to organize answers to my own easy questions. Now I merely need to show HOW an ideology is internally inconsistent, or nonpragmatic/nonutillitarian. Probably just saying those phrases alone will end the argument, revealing “my” tremendous literacy and sophistication.
I don’t question enough on this site. I proclaim and pontificate behind a shield of noncommital irony. But it’s nice to have a board of “wisemen” at my disposal.
Gamer,
Wouldn’t the flaw be that the ideology has elements that clash with outside ideologies to the point that its existence becomes threatened?
The Hindus that I know have a great way of dealing with other religions. They will say that the figures of other religions were holy beings that were very enlightened. So, they agree with the religious person about the wonderful quality of their special being while incorporating it into their own concept of such beings. It’s sort of a win/win.
Meanwhile, other religions have a mutually exclusive stance. They create an instant clash. That may bring about the end of the concept.
On another note, Voltaire mentioned that any time that you need an ideology things have already gone down hill. He mentioned that no one has even needed to start a Newton or chemistry cult because many of the findings are self evident. It’s only when a party is basically wrong that they need to form an ideology to defend what they find to be self-evident.
hey, I didnt say I was going to write a thesis paper on the subject
I was just getting the ball rolling on the discussion with some prelimenary thoughts.
Logical consistency would be
1 .“killing is wrong”
2. “death penalty is okay”
These are not consistent with eachother, this doesnt mean that the ideology is bad or good, right or wrong, its just a way of describing the ideology.
This inconsistency doesnt necessarily stop this idealogy from being useful or beneficial to the whole, which would be other ways to describe it. A pragmatist would have to define a goal to which the idealogy would be useful for or not. So if the goal is to keep society peaceful, one could say this ideology is useful because statement 1 tries to keep everyone in check and polite to eachother, and statement 2 is useful as a extra deterrent.
A utalitarian already has a goal in mind “greatest good for the greatest number”. S/he might describe this idealogy similarly to the situation above, except instead of stating it is useful, stating it provides the greatest benefit for the greatest number regardless of its contradictory nature.
Of course, if it is also possible that the fact it is contradictory could make it useless or not beneficial to the greatest number.
I could address your question from the point of view of any idealogy though. I.e. marxist, measuring the idealogy’s ability to provide social equality (pardon this gross simplification of marxism). Christian, measuring the idealogy’s compatibility with the teachings of the bible. Logical-consistencism - measuring the idealogy’s logical internal consistency, etc etc etc
In other words, measuring the idealogy’s consistency against its own ideas.
I would argue that all idealogies can be described by all other idealogies, each giving you a different viewpoint on the idealogy that is being described. Does one idealogy describe better than another? . So there is no objective way of measuring the worth or correctness of an idealogy, but you can describe it and evaluate it in near infinite ways.
Its hard to point one out, really. If there could be such a concept as “ideology” it would be defining the coherency of a thought with an act, and you would need a mind, in a head or a jar. The very word “ideal” is the forming of the concepts “possible,” “highest degree” and “goal-oriented” into one description. A “perfect” state where a degree is at its highest is the ideal. It is a rational construct.
I know that in real time, ideologies do not exist and are not experienced because the existence would precede its essence, and as Nietzsche remarked “reaching an ideal is to transcend it.”
And as Sartre said daftly: “in our opinion there is no such thing as philosophy.”
Existential truths are a bitch.
But both were hinting at the incongruity of language with actual society in its attempt to express a final “ideal.” This is simply the result of a loss of faith in language. Belief in Gods is the result of grammer, I think Nietzsche said something of the like. The “ideal” is nothing different. It is the illusion of comprehending something as a subject, as a “word.” Only recently has this evolved.
A great body of propositions to explain reality can only be a sign of making things simpler than they are. There is no political essence or ideal state because it is always changing.
An “ideology” cannot be by virtue of change and becomming. For instance, when we discuss or think about Marxism we are essentially activating, or accessing, a historical contingency in language describing “man” as if he were finished, and we “agree” about man’s description. But its happening in a way that esacpes its definitions, like it is expanding and bringing with it new rules and laws.
There are indeed organizing teleological forces at work, but to mistake organization with purpose is a subtle thing often missed. This is most certainly Sartre’s metaphor at work: the existence preceding the essence. An ideology is only an attempt at describing a purpose, and as such, creates purpose where there was none. This is why its existence is before its explaination.
Compare Nietzsche’s concept of Will with Sartre’s idea of radical freedom. For Nietzsche, a things goal is to eventually overcome itself. He is speaking as if there was a dialectic involved. As if a thing always had the tendency to seek out its opposite…a “self” must past itself in its evolution and in its expressions of power. But there are no ideals to begin with, those things to overcome do not exist. A non-purposive Will was no Will. Existence just “was.” Nietzsche recognized that even the concept of Will itself is an ontological abstraction, and withdrew it saying that there is nothing more than appearance. I personally believe he was discarding the Platonic Will in that admission. Both Nietzsche and Sartre got rid of the dual-reality. A consequence of this is the abandonment of language and objectivity. Everything becomes a perspective.
I think it was Derrida who said something along the lines of ‘saying deconstruction won’t work is no argument against it.’ We see the paradox…the statement is a form of deconstruction itself.
Post-modernism is the reflex of this great loss of language and I think the human race will develop more senses, perhaps even psychic, in the future to rid itself of the language-reef.
That would be kewl.
But no, I think ideology has no other existence other than as a political tool for swaying masses. It certainly has no other tangible effects other than the motion to destroy itself by transcending it. Marxism as a revolution would nullify itself if it were attained. The ideal is always beyond reach?
With everything in mind, sure, I think so. But there are some swift leaps involved. Brace yourself.
In the undustrial age, the presence of war, distruction, disaster, corruption,
and everything inevitable, must be turned into an artistic expression and an embrace of fate. Sometimes there are points where it would cost less just to push what was falling and start over. This great nihilistic inversion has its first breath at the recognition of meaninglessness and tragedy…its its speed quickens. Nietzsche mentioned that upon this realization we ask “make the void the purpose, or leave it void of purpose.” The spirit of “seriousness” is abandoned and we are at play. It is still the same life expression, but it is reborn as a maturity that Nietzsche explained as something like ‘maturity is the memory of the seriousness one had as a child at play,’ and I see here the dionysian triumph over Apollo.
The tragic becomes the comic and is saved with art.
A good ideology is one that allows freedom for anything to happen. This is as creative as it is destructive. Or, the alternative is to lose the spirit of seriousness and leap toward impossibilites.
Like Marxism maybe, with a few modifications, so we don’t look like cattle, on Dunamis’ behalf and request.
Gamer,
I take ideology to be the structuring of the perception of reality, and follow the metaphor of anamorphisis, a method of painting that causes you to stand in a certain place in order for it to make sense. Ideology therefore constructs the “eye”, which is to say, the “subject”, bringing about a certain kind of “sense”. Following Althusser, there is no such thing as the absence of ideology, so in a manner we are all in a position of “false consciousness”, a constructed relationship to each other and the world, which supports certain material relations:
[i]what thus seems to take place outside ideology (to be precise, in the street), in reality takes place in ideology […] That is why those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology: one of the effects of ideology is the practical denegation of the ideological character of ideology by ideology: ideology never says, “I am ideological.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays.
“All ideology has the function (which defines it) of ‘constructing’
concrete individuals as subjects”, Ibid. [/i]
Marxists make a big deal about “superstructure”, the structuring of laws and institutions that somehow hides/constructs the material relations themselves, but this is for me a certain resistant organization of those relations, in meaning, and not so much a “false appearance” that can be stripped free. What is false about ideology is only the sense that things are only the way they appear and can be no other way. For this reason, I would suggest that “Science”, as a dominant mythology, is as ideological as many other things.
Dunamis
This is a very thought provoking statement Dunamis, thank you!
Did you edit that in? I swore I didn’t see it the first time.
That’s much more to my liking. At least you gave science a dominant rank.
That’s all I can ask.
Did you edit that in? I swore I didn’t see it the first time.
Yeah, I though it made my point a bit more clear, and would produce a less allergic reaction from those that bow down at that temple. 
Dunamis
“A good ideology is one that allows freedom for anything to happen.”
– Detrop
I’ve read all your replies. God you guys are smart. I’m working very hard to apply it to the actual situation at hand, and I may have used the word wrong. Nonetheless…
take the assertion “My children will never have to work. I will make it so they can pursue their dreams and realize their potential without having to waste time and soul and the mundane business of making a living from scratch” coupled with: “I will guide my children with a firm, loving hand, recognize their natural predilections and incite them to pursue excellence for the sheer joy of it…for I believe vigorously seeking you potential is a: a path toward happiness, and b: often hindered by the mundane realities of life that are set by socioeconomic realities but also (and this is the problem…) by imposed ideologies, such as the parent who COULD help a child pursue their dreams and potential but withholds these lifechanging keys to freedom self-righteously.”
The opponent would then say: “I don’t have respect for artists and accomplished people who come from rich families, or rather, I respect the ones from the poor background more. Therefore, my children will work for their bread. If they want to follow their hearts they will have to earn it by juggling, struggling and being lucky and worthy enough to make a living at it,” coupled with: “It would make my children happier in the long run to earn it on their own with no help; they should follow their heart but with the burden of concurrently meeting subsistence-level financial obligations.”
Overall I see two competing ideologies.
One, I feel, puts the happiness of the child first, and equates happiness with self realization and the freedom to pursue excellence to its fullest, which USUALLY means not having to split your time making a living, or having financial constraints playing a big role in the way you shape your path toward learning and doing, coming and going. Whether this is indeed the key to happiness is debatable (but convincing to my mind), but this position seems at least internally consistent, pragmatic and utilitarian.
(This position assumes a parent has the means to provide financial freedom to a child. Most parents would claim this is a rare thing, but many parents would be capable of providing a supplement, if they wanted to, by virtue that they’ve been supporting the child for 18 years anyway. Even $200 a month goes a long way for a struggling artist.)
The second ideology maintains that EVEN if the means to do so exists, it is better NOT to give the child money. Rather to instill a sense of self-sufficiency in the child, which is better for the child and society as a whole, long term. (This is both a pragmatic and utilitarian claim, but highly suspect to my mind. These claims are only p and u if the child is able to make good of his dreams on his own – a rare occurence. Yes, it comes with not only success but a measure of pride, too. This added pride is a small feature, and it seems a big gamble to win this small feature, since it’s far more likely the child will suffer and fail unaided, and wind up selling shit or pushing paper.)
I know this is too long. And so many variables. For example, a child should demonstrate a certain amount of legitimate commitment prior to any smart parent funding his pursuits. But isn’t it a parent’s job to help the child develop a capacity for commitment, a vision, a realistic goal, a zest for growth and self-awareness? Isn’t anything less (than an effort toward that) a sort of failure on the parent’s part? That aside, as long as a child demonstrates committment and zest, and a realistic goal based on self-awareness and awareness in general, it is a GOOD ideologue to grant the child funds and freedom, if such funds are available, and a BAD ideologue to withhold them on the grounds that it is better for the child (or the world) in the long run.
Gamer,
I think that if you look at my example and apply it to your current question you might get some answers.
Gamer,
I think they both, “put the happiness of the child first, and equate happiness with self realization and the freedom to pursue excellence to its fullest”, but each has a “wisdom” how to do this. I’m not sure that these are competing ideologies, so much as competing ideas about how a person comes to be happy, by learning to overcome problems, or by having less problems to overcome. Each has its weakness and strength.
Dunamis
Adlerian…I found your post extremely useful. It sort of implies an natural selection process of ideologies. However, I DO think it’s very plausible that we may need to form a science or math cult. We’re fighting tooth and nail over evolution, which seems self-evident that it’s science, and ID seems self-evidently NOT science. (To me.)
I don’t see how these two ideolgies (my examples before) could make room for eachother. They are mutually exclusive as is. But they needn’t be, I suppose, taken on a case by case basis.
I am hopeful that Ideology 2, “The Greedy Parent” I call it, will die out eventually, and only happen out of necessity, if at all. I foresee a Star Trek type era where NOBODY bothers with mundane tasks, and all can pursue potential, learning and love unencumbered by drawing fruit from the earth by the sweat of their brow. This is a competing ideology that I hope will grow.
Dunamis, yes each has it’s pros and cons.
I just think the second “wisdom” is a gamble, and in a sence it can not be stated they both put happiness first. (Any PRO to side 2 will only apply to a small percentage of the group, whereas the PROS of the other group apply to all of them. SO they’re really not equal. MOST of the group won’t achieve happiness and their parents must know the odds.) It contends that it is better to attain your dream WITH a struggle. But it fails to take into account the risk involved. It is certainly not utilitarian. Most struggle and fail. And I suppose they’d contend (the parents in group two) that that’s better than succeeding on the initial steam of outside funds. They’d better say that to be consistent. And what they’d be saying, tto me…well how do we judge that kind of wisdom? It seems wrong. All those depressed casualties of ambition. Ruined by their parents ideology. I know scores of them. This site is probably littered with you poor fucks.
This is political ideology in America as I see it.
Pitting the ideological team of the Republican Party against the ideological team of the Democratic Party is as humorous as pitting the Dallas Cowboys against Podunk High School.
The Republican Party has within its membership three of the most sophisticated and experienced ideological teams that exists in America. The Southern Nationalism and the Southern Christian Fundamentalist teams, both came to the GOP in the-mid sixties. The Corporate America team has always been in the GOP. I tend to create names for my structures as I go along.
In my view ideology is a coherent system of ideas that is developed by a political group for the purpose of serving the interests of that group. The particular ideology is framed and promoted to the general population in an effort to gain supporters for the group. An ideology is the marketing plan for selling to the population a program that will benefit those who are members of the group developing the ideology.
The Corporate America team originated in the early twentieth or late nineteenth century. It probably was seriously hurt as a result of the depression but reorganized after WWII such that today the ideology of capitalism is as natural to all citizens as the sun coming up in the east every morning. This is why so many people vote against their economic interests because they are so enraptured by the ideology of Corporate Capitalism they do not recognize when the load is shifted from the back of some to the back of the many and that equality is a myth of ideology.
Southern Nationalism and Southern Christian Fundamentalism joined forces in the South in the early nineteenth century and morphed into the Solid South Regionalism after the Civil War. All ideologies constantly evolve based upon circumstance. Until the mid-sixties the Solid South were in the Democrat Party and shifted into the Republican Party after the passage of the civil rights legislation in the Johnson Administration. I think the religious aspect of the South was slow becoming politically active and become very active and very successful as a result of the Christian Coalition joining together after the Supreme Court decisions regarding abortion.
CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.
A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions. The greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.
In America we have PMs (policy-makers), DMs (decision-makers) and citizens. The DMs are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The PMs are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. PMs exercise significant control of DMs by controlling the financing of elections.
PMs customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.
An enlightened citizen is the only means to gain more voice in more policy decisions. An enlightened citizen is much more than an informed citizen. Critical thinking is the only practical means to develop a more enlightened citizen. If, however, we wait until our CT trained grade-schoolers become adults I suspect all will be lost. This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT.
Chuck
Hi Chuck, welcome to ILP.
Your comment:
"This is why I think a massive effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they must train themselves in CT (critical thinking).’
I agree excessively. And here is where philosophers and philosophy might find a useful application. I’ve been trying to stimulate some discussion of this here, but most of us are too cynical to entertain the possibility that philosophers might have a massive role in the reshaping of the near future.
The only problem lies in what I call the “critical mass of critical thinking.” At some point we’ve all witnessed how critical thinking WHATEVR THE F— THAT MEANS leads to circular problems and/or arcane, irrelevant or recreational discoveries. Clearly you can be too critical in your thinking, to the point where you no longer believe in time, space and causality and begin living as such. It is hypocritical to invite folks into critical thinking with the caveat that there’s a right amount of critical thinking. Who chooses when to jump off the train, so to speak? Nonetheless to me its clear that some is better than none, usually. And the majority is lacking in a basic subsistence level cr that I think should be and can be brought up to speed for the betterment of things in general.
Gamer, I see what you mean about the two ideologies you outlined. I agree. It seems, the second one is taking it all wrong. The sense of individual responsibility can be cultivated in many situations, plentiful or moderate resources or, the lack of. But, the idea about not helping out the child even if the means is there is really an ignorant ideology stemming from, perhaps, the great depression, the war, calamity (I don’t know, just guessing), or just generations of impoverished life. These are the undesirable occurences of life. But it is entirely possible that these misfortunes do not have to be part of it.
I think, one should adopt something like the second ideology due to necessity only, due to lack of choice. If there’s just no way to get out of it or something. But to use that reasoning because of one’s inability to rationalize that “Hey! the child does not have to suffer. He or she can pursue his dream using the available resources. Because what are resources for but the means to better oneself” is really the weakness in a person’s (or parent’s) critical mind or lack thereof, not in the material means itself. Though, it is not a guarantee that money will make the child grow up to be productive, happy person, at least it provides the conditions to achieve it. Other factors must come into play.
Haha. Same here. I suffer from laziness and disorganization, separately or together.
Arendt, very generous of you to bother reading through that mess, and I’m glad you agree with my stance. I know you’ll agree it’s a complicated thing in real life. For instance, many children are ungrateful, unrealistic, self-centered, emotionally weak spendthrifts, and they deserve nothing – giving them money only fans the fire in their burning pit of obliviousness. How they got that way MAY be the result of their parents’ “bad” ideologies, or not. Children and parents will have to engage in this debate alone. I’m afraid no formula can account for all the variables in the personalities, situations and perceptions that arise. Even if a parent agrees to help financially, contingent upon certain qualities or acts of the child, rarely would such judging be purely objective. Ultimately the parent decides on a whim, like a Greek God gazing from the heavens…looking for a “worthy” subject for whom he will act as benefactor.
Good thoughts, G and A.
The children are the most important. The parent owes everything to the child. If the child does not overcome the errors and problems of the parent, we are not moving forward. We are lingering. The child owns the parent.
Everywhere around me I see pathetic parents breeding pathetic children, who continue this regression infinitely backwards. I no longer blame the parents or the children. I blame the politics, I blame religion. I blame democracy- the cancer of civilization.
But wait, my friends! Now is not the time for creating. Now is the time for destroying, cleansing, tilling the soil for good breeding.
Let us not focus on fantasy and ideology just yet…let us focus on revolution and destruction.
(with that, detrop plants neutron bombs under every major city in America, gathers up those exceptional individuals, and flies to his space-station orbiting the Earth. Later to initiate the greatest renovation the Earth has ever seen.)