Speaking of ideology, that word has become just about as demonized as the L word.
Credit for coining the term usually goes to Karl Marx who saw it pretty much as a set of concepts held by ruling classes to justify dominance. More lately it has been generalized to include any world view, frame of reference, or series of unifying ideas that help to explain the world. In contrast to Marx, these are now more often referred to in cases where ideologies may justify or aim to make changes in society.
Obama is known for his antagonism to ideology (in favor of pragmatism.)
Ideology has gotten a bad rap. Ideology does not need to be secret. Ideology does not need to be rigid or hateful.
As an organization needs a vision, so too do social movements and individuals. So the questions for ideologies, are:
a. Is a held ideology transparent.
b. Is a held ideology open to modification if reality intervenes?
c. Is an ideology used to justify actions which are generally considered immoral or evil.
I'm suspicious of those who deny that ideologies don't exist. Richard Bell was a famous political scientist who proclaimed the end of ideology in America in the 1950's. It seemed like a way of saying, "there's really no disagreement in America about what we are doing, so if you seem to disagree there's something wrong with you."
Many cite radical Islam and terrorist acts and actors as examples of the dangers of ideology. These movements are dangerous; and they are based on ideologies. But these ideologies violate the suggested rules above.
When Obama denigrates ideology, I'm guessing he's using this as a short hand for "inflexibility."
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater:
1. Ideologies exist as social realities and influence much of how groups act.
2. Understanding an underlying ideology helps understand actions or movements, or even methodologies. (See Karl Mannheim on relationship of ideology and epistomology - how we know things.)
3. Having an explicit ideology that is flexible and continually reexamined in the light of observed realities helps provide an articulation of views that may assist people in acting consistently the light of their vision.
We don't feel revulsion when we walk into a hospital and read their vision statement. Likewise an ideology, can help to inform both those who hold it and those who disagree.
The alternative: some kind of relativist pragmatism that does not provide a moral compass. (or more likely hides one that people would rather not discuss.)
Interesting how (my) interests don't change so much. I wrote my senior undergraduate thesis on applications of Karl Manheim's ideas about the relationship between ideology and epistomology.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Paul -- I agree that ideologies get a bad rap, but I think there are some holes in your test for what sorts of ideologies are acceptable or appropriate. First, how 'transparent' an ideology is seems mostly subjective since different people would want to know different kinds of details to assess its correctness or fairness. And if you say that flexibility over time is important, you might be right, but it's hard to judge a rule by how much it can be bent or broken from its prior form. Finally, the test of immorality and evil is definitely a good one, but also one that requires something of an ideology (i.e. human rights) to identify.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that a negative attitude toward ideologies generally is probably dangerous, although it would also seem that when people talk about pragmatism, they assume a number of baseline ideologies upon which their decisions are based. In any case, if we don't talk about the fundamental ideas that guide our actions, we're making it just that much more likely that they won't survive, and everyone after us will think we were just heathens who didn't believe in the Big Robot Brain Who Controls Earth.
Anyway, thanks for your interesting post.
Thanks for commenting. I agree with nearly everything you say.
ReplyDeletePerhaps rather than a test, we should call these (and any others suggesed) desirable qualities.
You're right. It's the assumption of pragmatism as containing no ideologies, that is as potentially harmful as a rigid ideology which is never tested against the "real world."
Can you suggest me some reading on Karl Manheim? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAlso: This very easily becomes a discussion about semantics. To me, what you are running up against is a false correlation of ideology and dogma.
The other danger of a world without ideology is a kind of absolute relativism. A kind of Protagorean "Man is the measure of all things" and any opinion is as good as the next slop. Couldn't resist; I'm taking ancient philosophy.
The book I was thinking of was Sociology of Knowledge.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right about mistaking ideology for dogma.
Even George Lopez, whom I otherwise thought was fantastic in his talk at WVU, used "ideology" as a pejorative.