Ideology has developed a negative connotation, stemming from what is perceived to be a blind sighted belief in a set of ideas that are held in disrepute by the opposition.
At dictionary.com (American Heritage) one definition is: “the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.”
At Miriam Webster’s online dictionary : “ the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program”
An ideology is a belief that a group of ideas offer a suitable explanation of existing conditions and a blueprint for effective action. What makes an ideology dangerous is when it is accepted rather than rationally justified by empirical evidence. When this happens, when it is accepted more as a fact without adequate evidence, it becomes more like a religion than a rational construct for advancement.
It is much easier to identify with a label than the idea behind it. People develop emotional attachments to labels. The reason I avoid labels at my blog, Rebel Yid (often unsuccessfully), like liberal or conservative, is not just because they mean slightly different things to different people or because many voters have a little bit of both in them, but because once they identify with either label a reader will identify the content by the label and will judge the content accordingly rather than by the merits of the content.
Labeling is a normal human method of organizing mass information, and it is not unusual to emotionally link to labels. But it requires emotional discipline to judge an idea on its own merits. There is a tendency to decide emotionally and then rationalize the choice afterwards. I call this process emotional rationalism. Effective advertisers understand this well. Otherwise ads would just rationally list the specifications of products and services without the sexy models and the dramatic activities enhanced by the product.
In the economic and social realms ideologies can become constraints to adequate explanations. I may be a free market capitalist, but I acknowledge that regulations are a part of the system. The argument is not free market vs regulated markets, but how to regulate in a minimal way that allows markets to function well. After the depression of the 1930s regulations were centered on transparency, and separating speculative activity from more consistently required commercial financial activity. Over time the advances in financial markets created strains in the distinctions until they were eventually eradicated by the Gramm-BlilyAct in 1998. Looking back it was not such a great idea.
Ideas as opposed to ideology are more likely to be required to stand on their own merits. This may seem like mere semantics but in a real world of politics and social policy view ideas should require more than belief.
An ideology would seem to be more effective if it effectively explains the world around us, but given the emotional filters we all have there should be a better way to judge an ideology. An ideology that accurately describes our environment should also be a way to more accurately PREDICT future outcomes. But hard core believers will also find a way to avoid accountability for the failures of their ideology.
When faced with a theory that no longer fits the reality the scientist will alter the theory. The ideologue will seek to alter the reality. Scientists bring progress; ideologues bring tyranny.
Recent Comments