ABSTRACT: What is ideology? Can ideology be studied? Do ideologies tend toward conflict? Above all, why is the question of ideology important? Ideologies seem to have become Frankenstein monsters that turn against their creators. Why? How and why do ideologies so easily drive us to murder, or even to war?
The American Civil War, WWII, and Vietnam are all classic examples of ideologically driven wars, not to mention the cold war. These instances of violence (as well as much violence on a smaller scale) appear to be instances where two or more ideologies have come into conflict. Are ideologies inherently incommensurable? Is conflict inevitable? Is communication possible across ideologies? Why is it important to communicate across ideologies?
Intra-species slaughter, in my opinion, is no more built into human genes than it is built into the genes of any other mammalian species, and if we observe the behavior of other mammals (and even non-mammals), we discover that intra-species killing is quite rare – at least, compared to the rate at which Homo “sapiens” engages in it. It is my contention that human intra-species slaughter is – at least when it occurs on massive scales – far less biological than it is ideological.
A microessay on Ideology and Idiom.
Ideologies, and I do not limit this term to “political” ideologies, seem to be Frankenstein monsters that have turned against their creators.
How and why do ideologies so easily drive us to murder, or even to war? The American Civil War, WWII, and Vietnam are all classic examples of ideologically driven wars, not to mention the cold war. These instances of violence (as well as much violence on a smaller scale) appear to be instances where two or more ideologies have come into conflict. Are ideologies inherently incommensurable? Is conflict inevitable? Is communication possible across ideologies?
Intra-species slaughter, in my opinion, is no more built into human genes than it is built into the genes of any other mammalian species, and if we observe the behavior of other mammals (and even non-mammals), we discover that intra-species killing is quite rare – at least, compared to the rate at which Homo “sapiens” engages in it. (I am inclined to think that there should always be scare quotes around “sapiens.”) It is my contention that human intra-species slaughter is – at least when it occurs on massive scales – far less biological than it is ideological.
First question: What is ideology?
I believe that “ideology” – in its most general sense – refers to conceptual frameworks in terms of which we understand the world, and which we cannot escape or “stand outside” without abandoning thought altogether. Why? Because standing outside of ideology would entail standing outside of language, and language is the medium of thought, “the stuff of thought” to quote Stephen Pinker; language profoundly influences not only how we understand the world, but how we perceive it.
Take, for example, our belief that there are solid objects extended in 3-dimensional space. Aside from the great convenience of this belief, why do we hold it? Could it be related to the structure of language in terms of nouns and verbs, subjects and predicates? Is this structure what precipitates our division of the world into objects and properties? Which came first? The observation that the world consists of objects made up of properties, or the ascription of a noun/verb, subject/predicate structure to language? Or do both emerge in a single process? It is probably convenience as well as necessity that gives birth to the kind of ideological system I am hoping to describe. Different environments, different needs, different languages, different beliefs, different values, different worlds.
“Man” the tool user. Already ideology is present in my selection of a pronoun.
Ideology is the most all-encompassing tool, the tool that enables us to think and communicate. But (for example) Capitalism and Marxism are also ideologies, both with their own systems of ideas, both with their own languages, both inherently hostile to one another. Is there any means of crossing that divide nonviolently?
Answering this question will require serious investigation into the subject of ideology, but is such study even possible?
Second question: Can ideology be studied?
Whatever the psychological or historical origin of ideology, it very clearly structures perception even as perception reinforces ideology. It is therefore impossible to “stand outside” of ideology, to get an “objective” view of what it is and how it influences human life or behavior in general; however, it may be possible to stand in more than one ideology simultaneously. Ideologies could, therefore, be studied by comparing and contrasting them internally.
This complex process would be multi-layered, but, at the most fundamental, level it would require the “ideologist” (for lack of a better term) to be multi-lingual. Americans, in general, seem to be hostile to multi-lingual education, whereas, in the rest of the world, monolingual people are considered at best half educated. Ideologically open thinking is clearly difficult to achieve, but close-mindedness comes easily to the lazy mind. I fear the trend toward intellectually lazy close-mindedness is sweeping the world, e.g., BREXIT, Putin, etc.
What’s Wrong with Conspiracy Theories
But I digress. How would the study of ideology differ from, say, anthropology or sociology? To a large extent the methods and procedures may very well overlap, but the ideologist would be studying a different object – or subject; the precise nature of that “object” is one of the problems the ideologist must solve. At least initially, a structural examination of language seems one likely inroad.
The phenomenon of language is not limited to natural languages (English, German, Japanese, etc.); there also exist certain “sub-languages,” which might be called “dialects” or “idioms.” These idioms include everything from the language spoken in the quantum laboratory to the slang in the streets of a ghetto; it includes the language of the prison and the pulpit; it includes so-called “pidgin” forms of speech as well as the Queen’s English; it includes the differences between Mandarin and Cantonese. Just as it is possible, within limits, to translate from Chinese to Italian, it is possible to understand ideologies from within – but, in order to translate from Chinese to Italian, one must speak both languages. And so likewise, in order to compare two ideologies, one must inhabit – not study from outside, but inhabit – both conceptual frameworks.
In considering issues of violent, mass confrontation, the idiom of politics and economics is especially important. Of course, communication across conflicting ideologies will never occur until it is desired.
Third question: Do ideologies tend toward conflict?
To reiterate an earlier point, I believe that there is more to conflict and violence – especially on a mass, “political” scale – than just “human nature,” whatever that may be. We are not born violent, we are not born with ideologies, although we may be born into them. Hence, I do not believe the source of our massive blood-thirst is inherently biological; I believe it is, to a very great extent, ideological.
An ideology obviously embodies the interests of its adherents – so closely, in fact, that sustained critical scrutiny of an ideology is often perceived as an attack on the interests those adherents. The conflict of ideologies can be understood as the collision of two (or more) worlds. However, must the collision always be destructive? Can it sometimes result in something greater than either of the disparate colliding worlds?
We acquire ideology by (mostly) unconscious indoctrination, and I do not believe we can do without ideologies because they are the very conceptual framework in terms of which we understand the world. Without ideology, we are dumb animals. The question therefore arises: Do ideologies naturally tend toward conflict? Put differently, are ideologies necessarily competitive? I believe the answer is no. Ideologies are competitive only when the adherents of different ideologies have a significant interest in some common benefit. Take, for example, Capitalism and Marxism, two diverse ideological sub-languages in perpetually intense competition precisely because they are both seeking the same benefit – wealth – and, unfortunately, this benefit is finite; there is only so much to go around.
At the same time, I do acknowledge that a certain drive to compete is part of a biological survival instinct. That’s one of the things, in my opinion, that Marx got wrong. Competition is not economically driven, it’s biologically driven. Hence the existence of games.
I also believe that human gregariousness is biologically (indeed, sexually) driven. Humans tend to live in groups, and survive much more easily in groups than they can alone. Perhaps ideologies first emerge as systems of impulse control, for the purpose of furthering the survival of the group and social cooperation within the group. Perhaps the evolution of ideology can be understood as arising from certain pre-existing, biological needs (survival, reproduction) which shape language and ideology even as they are shaped by language and ideology.
At a certain very high level of development, ideology comprises a system of beliefs about the way the world is. Because these “ontological” beliefs are foundational, or axiomatic, they are not subject to question, doubt, or critical examination without considerable cognitive dissonance and discomfort within the group. The ideology of a given group does a respectable job of meeting its ends – survival and perpetuation of the group – until it meets another ideology.
When different ideologies come into contact, it seems that points of commonality (i.e., interests held in common), not their differences, are the points at which conflict is most likely to occur. These “common interests” are typically the first points of conflict to manifest themselves. If we cannot get past our common interests, then the likely outcome is violent conflict of one sort or another.
Leave a Reply