Gene Callahan has some good thoughts here. He writes:
"Dan Klein claims: "One’s ideological views – that is, the pattern of positions one tends to take on important public-policy issues – run deep and change little."
Well, Dan is not using the word "ideology" in the same way I do. And that's fine: I can get different definitions than my own. But in my case the claim is simply empirically way off: My views have changed dramatically at least five times in my life: from conservative as an adolescent (I used to watch Firing Line religiously at age 12!), to pretty far left by my mid-twenties, to neoconservative in my mid-thirties, to mild libertarian a few years later, to libertarian anarchist, and finally, to a understanding that holds that ideologies themselves are the main problem with contemporary politics.
I like to believe that this is a result of a willingness to think things all the way through again and again, changing my beliefs as required by such re-thinking. My critics will probably say it is just evidence of some personality disorder. I figure the odds are 50-50 as to who is right."
I probably lean more towards Gene's presuppositions about the meaning of "ideology". Dan Klein's definition here simply refers to a consistently held position. Of course, consistency can be well reasoned and empirically supported. I usually think of being "ideological" as adhering to ideas because of a desire to make your positions "fit" with some larger, coherent worldview.
Gene also links to a thoughtful post by Rod Dreher on the topic.
Ideology's primary cost, of course, is it's inflexibility. Internally consistent worldviews are a dime a dozen. The harder part comes in when you realize that consistency with the external world is a lot harder to establish, and often requires flexibility in foundations and conclusions.
Partisanship is of course the worst sort of ideology. Inflexibility when it comes to the ideas you hold - a determination to "fit" what you think with an internally consistent, pre-fabricated worldview - is bad enough. When you then substitute an articulated worldview for a party, you don't have much less to stand on. Liberals who never question a Democratic president. Republicans who blame Democrats for what they lauded in Republicans. Libertarians who will fawn over Ron Paul at the same time that they project their hero-worship onto others, etc. Parties are useful things. At a time when nobody on "the other side" seems palatable, one can be relieved that the party institution at least maintains a center of semi-sane gravity. But anything much beyond that appreciation seems dangerous.
Isn't being non-ideological an ideology?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you literally could not make much sense of the world without, well, some sort of weltanschauung. It is a general framing device. In fact, it is a bit of heuristic technology by which to solve problems. As for inflexibility, it really isn't that big of a deal - most people simply ignore contradictory positions, they make compromises, etc. Flexibility is much more common than the press coverage would make one believe.
As for parties, they harness and control the various hatreds and social grievances, particularly between elite groups. They also help to share the political spoils broadly within the winning party - which provides incentives for the opposing party to do better at the polls. One of the biggest mistakes of the founding generation was try to avoid the creation of permanent parties (that is never what Madison thought of as factions - he thought that the better sort would rule above faction and that the gridlock of competiting factions would allow them not to worry about, well, factional concerns); there was an emergent workaround of that by the early 19th century.
re: "Isn't being non-ideological an ideology?"
ReplyDeleteTheoretically I suppose you could have an ideological superstructure dedicated to non-commitment to a coherent framework for understanding the world... but that seems dumb and I can't think of anyone that thinks or operates like that. So, no.
re: "Anyway, you literally could not make much sense of the world without, well, some sort of weltanschauung. It is a general framing device. In fact, it is a bit of heuristic technology by which to solve problems."
Very well said. And as a tool for framing and organizing thought that's important. What's problematic is when the frame itself substitutes for thought, or when you assign yourself to a worldview for less reasonable reasons.
re: "As for inflexibility, it really isn't that big of a deal - most people simply ignore contradictory positions, they make compromises, etc."
I don't have the figures in front of my so I'm not prepared to say "most people". But I think I probably agree.
As Gene suggested, defining ideology is tough so you've got to make sure you're clear about that before you start talking about it.
ReplyDeleteI think two real key points about being non-ideological in a plausible and good way are:
1. Not letting an ideology supply you with conclusions, but rather letting it (if you have one) supply you with a narrative or frame to make sense of conclusions you've come to. This is not a chronological claim, obviously. You don't gather conclusions independent of an ideology and then go in search of an ideology to provide a framework for understanding those conclusions. It's iterative and simultaneous.
2. Being able to consider prospects that oppose your ideology are very important. This is in practice one of the more frustrating parts of dealing with an ideologue - they take what are actually motivating assumptions of their ideology as fact.
Here's a way of approaching what ideology really means.
ReplyDeleteAt basic level physics, there are certain theorems, laws, and principles. None of those laws or principles hold at an advanced level, and even the laws of thermodynamics seem questioned when we realize that supernovae can create new elements.
A physicist is one who considers it is possible that supernovae can create new matter. An ideologue is one who still clings to laws of thermodynamics even when considering events on a cosmic scale, and simply refuses to believe new matter can be created.
"Theoretically I suppose you could have an ideological superstructure dedicated to non-commitment to a coherent framework for understanding the world... but that seems dumb and I can't think of anyone that thinks or operates like that. So, no."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I am getting at. There are lots of people who claim that they want to step outside of the bounds of ideology, which just makes me think that they are merely selling their own ideology.
"What's problematic is when the frame itself substitutes for thought, or when you assign yourself to a worldview for less reasonable reasons."
Those people tend to die more quickly than their competitors.