I take pride in being “non-ideological” now that I am old and wise – but such enlightenment has been a long time coming. When I was younger, I was invested in being an orthodox follower of the ideology I shared with those whom I most admired, typically teachers of social studies and close friends in high school, college intellectual ferment, and grad school socialist gatherings — those who held all the social chips in my world, and who then led me to read certain things. I became a relatively doctrinaire Lefty.
As I became ever more sophisticated, however, the class underpinnings of my own social position grew more muddled. By middle age, I was a married professional civil servant, a parent of two growing sons, a member of a Christian church, a homeowner, and (perhaps most important) constrained by the Hatch Act from openly advocating political preferences. There was too much inconsistency with the ideology of my youth. In 1984 I voted for Ronald Reagan for a second term. In 1985, I gained a second master’s degree in the “Technology of Management” – I had accepted my entrée into the ranks of the bourgeoisie. In 2007, as an only child, I received my inheritance from a General Motors legacy accumulated by my father over many years in that corporate bureaucracy. My wife inherited some capital around the same time. I asked myself: “Is this who lefty ideologues really are?”
Nevertheless, we all tend toward romantic, nostalgic images from our earlier years. Reds is still one of my favorite films of all time! Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton were a couple that inspired me – long after I could no longer conceive of whatever it was they believed. And that is what ideology is all about.
Ideologies depend not only on gaining followers, but on convincing them that departing from their doctrines will result in social sanctions of some kind – loss of community, ultimately. Loyalty to the ideology is measured day-by-day in what you say, what you write, and how you occupy your time. Disloyalty is a threat lurking around every corner. Today’s “cancel culture” reflects this.
It doesn’t matter whether it makes sense — we all know that those information bubbles we live in make it impossible to ascertain objective truth anyway. The only difference between a political ideology and an organized religion is that the former comes from society, and the latter supposedly comes from God! The rules for both are made in much the same way, and the sanctions available to the authorities are similar – all amounting to being shunned by the community of believers. Personal belief systems must be subordinated to the group belief system. And being personal means those beliefs are best kept to yourself!
The first use of the term “ideology” came during the French Reign of Terror. It is attributed to an imprisoned writer and intellectual, Antoine Destutt de Tracy. He wrote in prison of a liberal ideologie based on the works of Locke and Condillac, centering on individual freedom — economic as well as political and social. To Tracy, ideology was a positive thing, a collection of ideals as much as ideation. Napoleon, however, stole the term from Tracy, and transformed it into a negative, accusing his enemies of being “ideologues.” Then Marx and Engels came along and echoed that same sense in their early work, The German Ideology, where the word became an epithet referring to the social structure leading to bourgeois domination of the proletariat. All bad. Only in the 20th century did the term achieve more neutrality. We now have ideologies of both the left and right political wings of our society. But we expend more energy criticizing opposing ideologies than extolling the virtues of our own. Political ideologues are generally not good evangelists.
This is why, with my mature wisdom, I tend to eschew all ideology. Being non-ideological seems to protect me from attacks by would-be opponents and allows me to “win friends and influence people” by being all things to everybody. But there was a distinct 20th century tendency to legitimize ideology, focusing on emotion and anger, after Jean-Paul Sartre, who condoned revolution, even with violence. It was pure romanticism and gave me pause. Did ideology really provide some deep meaningfulness to life? Viktor Frankl, in “Man’s Search for Meaning” became an icon of mid-century Western thought. Frankl put a great deal of emphasis on the urge to completion of tasks. To him, this was “purpose.” And political ideologies do offer that in spades – complete the restoration of things “the way they used to be,” or conversely, complete the revolution to institute some utopia on earth. Frankl was all about finding direction. Is that direction fading in our 21st century lives? Nobody discusses Frankl anymore.
Recently, two approaches to ideology have begun to reveal themselves to me in outline form. Both have the potential to increase the meaningfulness of daily life. One is an ideology based on compromise. It is essentially utilitarian – making things better for more people without making them worse for any others. This is an admirable goal, seldom successfully actualized with past zero-sum ideologies. I’d call it “pragmatic skepticism.” It valorizes rationalism — we should be able to determine scientifically what actions are most beneficial — and de-emphasizes romanticism, where emotions rule (sorry, Jean-Paul!) It incorporates both conservative and liberal values — individual freedom and equality are both important goals — but this ideology remains vigilant to loss of positive social norms from the past. It is neither utopian nor reactionary.
Then, the second possible approach would be one based on humility. You may ask yourself the question, “Who am I to decide these big philosophical questions, anyway? I have things to do, a community to serve, mouths to feed …”. While tempting, this posture ignores the central dilemma of Christian humility: “If not me, who?” It tends to discourage followership – essential for all ideologies — because we become fixated on, or blinded by, those closest to us, rather than serving society at large. But does this kind of humility require a certain status (i.e., “privilege”) as prerequisite? Such humility may be a luxury. A good name for it might be “skeptical romanticism.” Its ultimate question might be, “Am I worthy of this ideology?”
At this point, it should be clear that just about anything can have an “…ism” appended to its name. Those names are assigned by people who have a vested interest in promoting them as ideologies. But the real purpose of ideology is to maintain order in society, to impose discipline, as with soldiers in battle. It is NOT to provide meaning to life. Ideology’s aims are political control on both left and right. While they may conceivably be applied to a DIY ideology (see above), personal belief systems do not qualify. Ideologies need followers, so do the work before assigning that “ism” suffix. Read, think, discuss with others, and write up definitions and premises. Get readers. Then teach it. In your research, be alert to fraudulent ideologies that rely on assumptions that don’t fit your own world view. When the foundational premises all work, incorporate them into your new ideology – then Go Tell It on the Mountain!
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 