Monday, December 29, 2008

Ideology and dogmatism

There are two senses of "ideology": The first sense (ideology) just denotes a set of ideas consciously and intentionally expressed, related and somehow bounded. The second sense (dogmatism) denotes a set of ideas adhered to dogmatically or inflexibly. You cannot have dogmatism without ideology, something specific and bounded to be dogmatic about, so these two senses get confused.

It seems like a clever panacea to eliminate dogmatism by eliminating ideology: it's true that you can't be dogmatic without something to be dogmatic about. But this approach throws out the baby with the bathwater.

It is possible to eliminate ideology, but to do so eliminates being intentional and conscious about your moral, ethical and political beliefs. Once you become conscious of your moral beliefs, you begin constructing an ideology. Once you begin sharing your moral beliefs and trying to persuade others to their value, you begin creating a socially constructed ideology.

There is a set of beliefs underlying all social constructs: they exist whether we discuss them consciously or just adhere to them unconsciously. And there are specific moral, ethical and political ideas underlying the status quo, how we live right now. To criticize these existing beliefs, we must become conscious of them, and accept some of them on their merits, and reject others and hold something different on their merits. To be critical of the status quo, we must begin constructing an ideology.

To profess that one is "non-ideological" then means accepting the status quo uncritically. Lack of criticality is an essential feature of dogmatism, so professing a lack of ideology shares the most objectionable feature of dogmatism.

1 comment:

  1. I think ideology currently gets a bad rap because of all this fake-ass compulsive centrism bullshit and the fact that sick-fuck far-right-wing wackaloon assholes no longer solely control the levers of political power in the United States. Those assholes were all for ideology when it was their deranged ideology that was in power. Ideology as a general concept is completely ehtically neutral. It is disgraceful to abdicate the necessary task of distinguishing decent ideology from despicable ideology.


Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.