Is ideology the bane of intellectual sophistication in the U

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Is ideology the bane of intellectual sophistication in the US?

Marx is perhaps the first intellectual of great stature to coin the word “ideology” and to study its epistemological foundations. Marx makes it clear that ideology is an important aspect of all societies and especially for a society so dedicated to the cultivation of production and consumption as is capitalism.

A brief examination of culture in the United States and one will find that ideology, as framed by Marx, is a fundamental aspect of many of its social institutions; especially evident in religion, politics, and economics.

Ideology “is a systematically and socially biased body of thought”. It spans a broad spectrum of groups with their varying degree of bias and sophistication.

Despite the broad spectrum encompassed by this category of thought and practice “all ideologies share an identifiable logical structure objectively dictated by their ideological character”. Each ideology has a moral, i.e. prescriptive, dimension. Each ideology attempts to shape society to fit its particular world view. “Ideology turns what is a fact for one group into an “ought” or “ideal” for others…Marx argues that since an ideology generalizes a narrow point of view beyond the limits of its validity, it is compelled by its very logic to ‘moralize’ and ‘preach’.”

Ideology often becomes a hypocritical moral doctrine. Because it generalizes and remodels abstract ideas into an object, i.e. it objectifies, it reifies narrow abstract ideas beyond their true limits of validity it is compelled to propagandize and to “sell” its ideas. Ideology is constantly telling others how they should live.

Ideology has a complex character. It is normative; what are its ideas and experiences it attempts to present them as inherent in human nature and from this it “deduces appropriate moral recommendations”. It is biased toward a specific group; it is against other social groups, it treats these other groups as mere means. It universalizes a narrow and limited view and “sells”, perhaps evangelizes (militant and crusading zeal) might be an appropriate expression, this view to others.

An ideology can never adequately defend it self rationally because its assumptions have never been critically evaluated nor explicitly formulated. It is often rabidly critical of rival views. “Consequently it never states its first principles, or makes a perfunctory case for them, keeps reiterating and reformulating them, elaborates on them in the name of critically examining them, and so on.”

[b]I think that ideology is the bane of American culture; it is solidly entrenched because ideology fits well within our religious, democratic, and economic heritage. The only antidote for this virus is a population well educated in the sophisticated thinking discipline and moral character traits of CT (Critical Thinking).

Do you think that CT might be my ideology? Can a teeny-tiny small group of individuals in a nation of 350 million form an ideology?[/b]

Quotes from Marx’s Theory of Ideology by Bhikhu Parekh

2

It would seem obvious that any line of thinking that leads its followers to stop thinking critically would be an enemy of intellectual sophistication, as you put it. This is not to say, however, that such a line of thinking, or ideology, was not formed through a critical thinking process. Many ideologies have had rather solid logic behind them but such logic becomes lost and over simplified and many followers fail to understand why exactly they are a member of such a group.

This is because if the founders of an ideology wish it to become more mainstream they always have the option of propaganda rather than logical persuasion to get the word out. People fall in love with slogans and simple concepts but to often fail to take in the whole spectrum of what a particular ideology entails. This is why communism became so warped under the soviet union. An ideology can stray so far from its original philosophy that it can become unrecognizable. In fact this is why many people in China believe that they live in a communist state. Anyone who can look up communism in a dictionary can easily see that China is almost as anti-marxism as nations can get. Yet China, along with the rest of the world, still calls itself communist. I would be willing to bet that many Chinese citizens don’t even understand what communism is. If they did then they would know that they were living under a false government that uses lies to oppress them. This is the same thing as with the soviet union. Are the means of production in the hands of the workers in any of these societies? No. So they are obviously not communist. And yet, somehow, the prevailing political party in China is the communist party. The people don’t really understand these things because they have been conditioned by ideological indoctrination rather than the actual core teachings of the original philosophy. Everytime I hear someone refer to China as a communist state it’s like they’re insulting my intelligence.

The best way to combat such warped ideologies is through critical thinking as coberst said. However, it is quite possible that if critical thinking ever did go mainstream (that’ll be the day…) it would become a warped ideology just like the rest of them. For instance, some atheists who are completely close minded about the possiblity of the existence of god claim to be using logical arguments, but I suspect that many of them have fallen victim to the “cult” of rationality. I am not religous and do not believe in god but I see no scientific evidence that would disprove that some sort of being that transcends the laws of this universe may exist. (In fact some aspects of the big bang theory even suggest that a being or force must have come into play at some point, but that is another discussion and is beside the point.)

It is hard to spread a philosophy without a mainstream ideology. The problem is that ideologies can be so easily warped and unverified as they are passed amongst populations. But how else are you going to get the word out? Critical thinking can largely combat such dangers but could potentially be in jeapardy of becoming and ideology itself.

3

societies cannot exist without ideologies. the larger or more complex the society, the deeper and more powerful the ideologies must be.

4

You make a good point. A population that is unskilled in CT cannot be easily reasoned with and thus the leaders use emotional appeal. Thus the low level of sophistication becomes permanent in a democracy. If the population does not have a level of sophistication to recognize that they are not sufficiently sophisticated then they may not have the ability to become sophisticated. A vicious circle ensues.

5

Does this not insure the destruction of the human species when its technology reaches a critical level of too much power in the hands of too many fools? I guess we may be on that “Ship of Fools”.

6

society must be founded upon ideological grounds, unquestioned, so as to present a base framwork to construct new original or novel IDEAS which must be consciously and not unconsciously realised.

7

Which comes first, the ideology or the society? Which is based upon which?

8

Forming a society upon unquestioned ideological grounds would be and has been a dangerous thing. When forming a society and the laws that go with it, those in charge must use reason to form their ideologies. What is practical and ethical must prevail. This means questioning aspects of our lives in order to figure the best proceedures for dealing with them. These proceedures are, of course, manifested as laws and customs. The laws, customs, and mindset of such a society may, sadly, become an “unquestioned ideology” but that does not have to be the way that they were originally created.

Again, we can liken this situation to that of communism. Communism was formed from a logical idea, then bastardized by people who wanted power. Those who accepted the rule of the powerful unquestioningly allowed such a bastardization to take place. (I am not, by any means, vouching for communism here. It was originally imagined with some incredible logical insights but still always had it’s host of problems.)

The point of governments like the one in the United States is to provide the neccessary tools to change the framework of the system if neccesary. You need not have an unquestioned ideology as a framework in order to have a stable society. The United States, like many other free nations, allows its citizens to question its core ideology. This leads to the progress that we have seen with many constitutional amendments. Nations need not be formed upon unquestioned ideological grounds, by any means.

9

every social organization exists upon a framework of ideological values/principles, even if such framework is very loose/relative/illdefined. the very concepts of law/order and politics necessarily engender ideological perspectives. so ideology must preceed society.

but it gets tricky, because society infringes upon, rewrites and inserts its own ideologies over time, in competition with those that existed at society’s onset. and the now-powerful nature of society as pervasive force seems to psychologically imprint these new ideological values at the expense of previous ones.

so, perhaps a decent model would be: 1) masses/movements found societies based upon prevailing ideological values, usually in a reactionary manner, 2) society is born from these values, but by virtue of its novelty and impredicability/need for utility it gives reinterpretation/birth to its own ideological values which coexist or struggle with those values of the founding, 3) as social power grows over time modern ideological values expressive of society itself tend to outcompete founding/previous ideological values which have now lost their social usefulness (or the perception thereof), 4) society, in the end, homogenizes ideological values in line with its own perspectives, sacrificing all opposing views.

the culmination of this process would seem to produce a rigid homogenization or oppressive exclusiveness (status quo) void of diversity or necessary competition, which (in most cases) would then undermine social structures themselves (which are predicated upon diverse competition/emergence of utility from such competitive action). society is initially sustained by an underlying purpose combined with prevailing conditions of healthy meme/ideological competition that emergently generates utility via a process of selection, ensuring social health and vitality; but over time, once society learns to set its own limits and preclude all other ideological differences than its (modern/most recent) own, it sets up its own downfall by undercutting the necessary prerequisite of healthy ideological/meme/value competition which had produced the backdrop for social growth and evolutionary refinement into higher/more efficient/more stable types.

society collapses under its own ideological hegemony.

10

It appears to me that religion is an example of this process of building a society through ideology. Is civilization constructed on the ideological base of religion?

We are meaning creating creatures. We have constructed our societies on these meanings that we have created. Can we create non ideological meaning in a society that lacks an understanding of and a confidence in reason?

11

it would seem that sometimes, certainly it is.

i dont know, but i would guess probably not.

its hard to imagine nonideological meaning created as the basis for society without a strong emphasis on reason or intellect/logic as its support. of course, reason/intellect/logic can be just as geneative of ideological meaning as anything else— they just also seem to have the best hope for transcending unjustified/arbitrary/irrational ideological bases.

12

I dont believe that CT is your ideology, i believe it is more of an intrinsic value.

Teeny tiny is not that teeny tiny, roughly 12% of Americans are now Atheist or Agnostic. I believe it is safe to assume that a large portion of those individuals fall under the CT catergory based on researching regarding a negative relationship between intelligence and religous belief (exemplified here):

eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Ho … nfls=false

eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Ho … nfls=false

Forming an Ideology is the last thing critically thinking individuals want to do, because an ideology extinguishes the need to CRITICALLY THINK :banana-dance: . However, I am pleased that you see religion as a plague upon intelligence and free thought.

13

My issue, Three Times Great, was not with your statement about societies being formed under ideologies. It was your ascertion that these ideologies must always be unquestioned that I was responding too. Many new ideologies spring forth because the people start asking questions. So then how could every ideology be “unquestioned?” It took a long time for the founding fathers to figure out what exactly the ideology of their country should be. They even drafted one type of constitution then dumped it for another one. This would not of happened if they were not questioning their own ideology all the way through the process.

14

I believe he is more so saying that some individuals believe ideologies without questioning it themselves. Blindly following.

I would like to see evidence of this. I do not believe that society relies upon ideology. The social structure can persist and be maintained without the existence of an ideology. However, it is highly likely that a society will breed an ideology, it seems to be a rationalization for actions or beliefs. Politics require ideologies however society, as a grouping of individuals seen as a whole because of similar characteristics OR beliefs. Ideology falls under the catergory of belief both are somewhat interchangeable, and a society can persist without the prerequisite you outline.

Prehuman’s existed in societies, seperate of ideologies simply because they did not posess the capacity to create or maintain one. I believe more so that societies spawn ideologies.