A Philosophical Happy Hour investigating ideology, the habits of interpretation, and the right manner of confidence in our beliefs.
An ideology is really ‘holding us’ only when we do not feel any opposition between it and reality – that is, when the ideology succeeds in determining the mode of our everyday experience of reality itself.
An ideology really succeeds when even the facts which at first sight contradict it start to function as arguments in its favour.
– Slavoj Žižek, 1989: The Sublime Object of Ideology
The Meaning of Ideology
People often say the word “ideology” with two distinct but related meanings: one, signifying a set of beliefs aiming at coherent relation to the rest of the social world; the other, signifying a closed adherence to those beliefs, as foundational for all behavior. What relates the two? Etymologically, the word derives from idea and logos. Originally, it was coined to describe the genesis of ideas. But as Mark Shiffman helpfully reveals, other thinkers appropriated it to describe the effort of re-structuring political society by the imposition of ideas.
We therefore see that the first use of the term above (relatively innocuous) does not differ radically from the second. Both, as pertaining to the social world, prescribe a “right way” of living—not merely as an individual, but as a member of society. In both, the idea comes first; it is reality which must adapt (or be adapted). And as Žižek says in the quote above, we are held by ideologies when those ideas determine our experience of reality itself.
Today, we see countless persons held by ideology. Consider the claim that denying transgender identity constitutes genocide. On the surface, such claims are absurd. Yet, for those seized by the belief—namely that one’s life demands social acceptance of felt gender-identity—the question of the claim’s veracity does not even arise. In one sense, it does not even matter to them. Nor do they grasp the irony of their own ready turn to violence. And indeed, ideology always, it seems, turns toward the violent. As Shiffman states, in a conversation with James Matthew Wilson:
First, ideology, of course, is violent against defenders of the order that it seeks to replace. And it has invented the abusive word “reactionaries” to describe them. This was invented in the French Revolution. Ideology is also necessarily violent against those who merely question its certainties: those who believe in the ideology are convinced that all that’s required to arrive at the social order that rights all wrongs of history is for everyone to adhere to the ideology and behave according to its dictates. Anyone who raises doubts and encourages others to doubt is impeding the rectification of human social relations that will finally reconcile all things. And finally, ideology is violent against reality itself, hating any truth in the order of things that stands in its way as much as it hates those who speak truths about the limitations of its plan. Nature is not allowed to be other than what the logic and aims of the ideology require it to be. Ideology is thus violently anti-traditional, anti-philosophical, and anti-natural. It is compelled to force everything to fit into the image of the person and society dictated by the ideology’s vision, and it is compelled to punish or eliminate what does not fit.
– What is Ideology? A Conversation with Mark Shiffman and James Matthew Wilson.
Habits of Interpretation
But here we must ask some questions. Is it true, first, that all ideologies become violent? This depends precisely upon how understand “ideology”. Must it, necessarily, be political? Or social? May an idea such as “The Benedict Option” be ideological? Can someone be ideologically Catholic? Ideologically Jewish—Muslim, Buddhist, Confucian? Is Project 2025 an ideology? Conservatism?
We will return to such pointed questions momentarily. In the meantime, let us think a bit more carefully about what is meant by the term “ideology”. Typically, we use it to signify those aforementioned sets of belief. But what is belief? Primarily, a form of thinking that leads into action. When we speak of an ideology, therefore, we are reifying (not necessarily incorrectly) such a form of thinking. Indeed, I would argue that ideology consists in a form of thinking that rejects any reflective hermeneutic. In other words, it has a strong of habit of interpreting the world in terms of its ideas, but no habit of reflecting upon its methods of interpretation.
Yet in a world rife with ideas, theories, opinions, facts, studies—with information chaos—developing good habits of interpretation proves difficult. Ideology threatens to seize us all. Do we really believe ourselves free of unquestioned premises? Are we trying to remake the world, somehow? Should we?
ideas and Habits
The modern world pressures us to adopt adjectives for describing our identities. (Especially true in the digital age—but I won’t digress.) Liberal. Keynesian. Conservative. Traditionalist. Progressive. Realist. Often these are compounded: progressive Catholic; traditional Catholic; social libertarian; fiscal conservative. And so on and on. Do these adjectives (or what they signify) coalesce into some kind of ideological thinking? Are we guilty of unconsciously becoming ideologues?
I recommend reading the entire transcript of Shiffman and Wilson’s conversation (it is not very long, but it is thought-provoking). Based on what is said therein, I would like to propose the following conversation questions for our Philosophical Happy Hour (7/10/2024):
- Is ideology necessarily political?
- Does violence play a role in ideological thinking?
- What distinguishes ideology from belief?
- What examples of ideological thinking do you see today? How is it manifested?
- How do good habits of interpretation prevent ideology?
- And more! Come talk with us.
philosophical happy hour
« »
Come join us for drinks (adult or otherwise) and a meaningful conversation. Open to the public! Held every Wednesday from 5:45–7:15pm ET.
No responses yet