Ideology is NOT a four lettered word

[coberst]

Ideology is not a four lettered word

 

 

The Economy—The Market—Family Values—War on Terrorism—War on Drugs—Support the Troops—Freedom—Democracy—Under God—Pro-life—Pro-choice--Universal notions concocted to maneuver and to manipulate by appearing to represent the interest of the whole mass of the people.

 

What is the source for these Universal Notions? Do these notions grow like wild flowers? Do these notions form like raindrops and fall to earth to nourish and to refresh all citizens? Are these notions universally benign and beneficial?

 

Such Universal Notions have a human source and are devised to promote the interests of that source. I suspect that all such notions and many others more mundane have a common source—ideology.

 

Ideology makes the world-go-round and we know less than nothing about ideology because knowing only that which is erroneous is equivalent to knowing less-than-nothing.

 

Of special interest to me is the college course outline and content placed on the Internet by the college professor for students of a particular college course. At no significant financial cost one can, through the Internet, take advantage of a college course outline at home. One particular example of such a course “Ideology & Discourse” can be found at http://www.discourse-in-society.org/ideo-dis2.htm.

 

I can think of few domains of knowledge more important for a person attempting to understand her or his world than ideology.

 

I suspect many people confuse the content of ideology with the content of philosophy. It is not unusual for someone to question another’s philosophy or worldview when in fact it is the ideology of the person that is the correct question.

 

Psychology and sociology have generally decided to use the word ‘belief’ to replace a more ambiguous word ‘idea’ and ‘thoughts’ of any kind; I shall follow that same practice in this thread.

 

In keeping with this attitude and the course of study “Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisplinary Introduction” I shall use the following definition:

 

Ideologies are the fundamental beliefs of a group and its members.

 

This definition was chosen by the author to replace an often used meaning of ideology as ‘false consciousness’ or ‘misguided beliefs’. This more general definition will permit a more rational consideration of this domain of knowledge identified as ‘Ideology’.

 

The word ‘ideology’ has a very negative connotation in political discourse and thus in discourse in general. This apriori negative attitude makes it impossible to give rational consideration to this very important concept. Perhaps the first thing that a person must do to gain knowledge about this important concept is to erase this negative attitude, which has been a result of social osmosis in so many people.

 

Social discourse plays an essential role in why we adopt ideology, what we know about it and how ideology becomes the most important sociocentric influence in our life. Discourse plays a fundamental role in the nature of ideology and thus discourse is an important consideration in the study of the nature of ideology.

 

Ideology and discourse is a multidiscipline subject of study. One must approach it from most of the domains of knowledge in the humanities and the social sciences. “However, we shall reduce this large number of potential disciplines to three main clusters, namely those involved in the study of Discourse, Cognition and Society.”

 

Virtually all people agree that ideology is about the beliefs of a collective of people. “Ideologies consist of shared, social beliefs, and not of personal opinions…Ideologies are about life and death, birth and reproduction…they are about people and their health in relation to their environment…they are about class...about having power…about the redistribution of wealth and resources…they are about gender…about race and ethnicity.”

 

There is an enormous amount of knowledge accepted by an enormous number of people without any consideration. This vast domain of beliefs has been labeled sociocultural ‘common ground’ of a group or a culture. There are also a great number of beliefs that are not shared by all and need to be asserted or defended.

 

Ideologies are considered to be ‘basic beliefs’ in that these beliefs form the foundation upon which other beliefs are accepted or rejected. Norms and values are considered to be basic beliefs; they organize our attitudes and actions. Some of these norms and values that are part of every community become translated into basic beliefs of an ideology, therein lies there strength. It is these “group-related and interest defined interpretation of values that form the building blocks of ideological beliefs.”

[cwes99_03]

Without reading your (again) very long post that seems to lack organization, I found an ounce of truth at the beginning and also a misstep (IMHO).

 

The misstep was that you said everything has a human source. More than 80% of the world disagrees as they believe there are other higher powers than the human intellect. That being a relatively small point on this thread, I don't wish to make it a big one, but just to voice my thought.

 

The ounce of truth though might be a pound. All movements such as the ones you expressed originate with ideology. Ideology is simply allowing an idea to be a force of reconning. So the idea that the people can choose how to govern themselves was the force of reconning (ideology) that the Brits (and now every nation of the world due to American influence) had to deal with when they so upset the colonists. Likewise any major movement has an ideology behind it.

 

Sometimes ideologies become muddled, however, and the movement loses momentum or dies away. Anyway, keep on thinking coberst, you'll catch something sooner or later that propels you to the status you seek.

[Pyrotex]

Ideology is not a four lettered word...Some of these norms and values that are part of every community become translated into basic beliefs of an ideology, therein lies there strength. It is these “group-related and interest defined interpretation of values that form the building blocks of ideological beliefs.”

A really good read. thanks for posting.

 

I like the approach you (and your sources) take to ideology. Rather than use the word as a blunt pejorative, it is more useful to apply the word to historically observable social patterns and turn the word into a well-crafted tool for debate and analysis.

 

Would that our politicians do the same for words like "liberal" and "conservative"--currently their meanings (as used) are synomous with "puss-brains" and "maggot-breath". Not very useful.

 

If I read your post correctly then "ideology" began as a body of lessons learned and taught by a community; perhaps learned through painful experience or exhaustive scholarship. But then, having been learned, the essence of the lessons are passed down to subsequent generations as simply a list of "rules" and "accepted truth". Inevitably, there come the generations that simply accept this as fact (god-given, unquestionable), and anyone who disagrees or steps out of line is a puss-brain or a maggot-breath.

 

At this point, the body of lessons has become an "ideology".

 

Did I read you correctly???

[coberst]

Pyrotex

 

It seems to me that ideology is a very important concept that affects all of our lives every day. We all absorb certain ideas while we grow up that we receive from our family and our community. These tend to form an important base for how we approach life throughtout our life. Certainly there are few ideologies more powerful than religion.

 

I guess Marx was the first philosopher to put such importance upon this concept.

[Pyrotex]

...Certainly there are few ideologies more powerful than religion. I guess Marx was the first philosopher to put such importance upon this concept.

Don't equate ideology with religion. (a small point, but useful)

A religion typically "has" an ideology, just like it typically "has" a scripture or a beaucracy of teachers/authorities.

 

I believe you are right. Marx may have been the first human to take (or create) an ideology and politicize it rather than theologize it.

 

No! Wait! Confuscious did it first! It might be argued that Rousseau was second and Marx was third. But close enough. After Marx we have Engels and Adam Smith and a host of others.

 

I think the key point here is that an ideology, however it started, became a "black box"; take it or leave it, with little or no discussion as to the validity of its contents.

[coberst]

Pyrotex

 

It seems to me that religion is many things but one of these things is that it is an ideology. I do not mean to say that religion is only an ideology. Religion is also a theology, I guess. Do you disagree with this? I would also say that capitalism is an ideology or the Democratic Party is an ideology. Do you find that I may be using words incorrectly here?

[Turtle]

Ideology is not a four lettered word

But its root idea is. ;)

 

Ideology makes the world-go-round and we know less than nothing about ideology because knowing only that which is erroneous is equivalent to knowing less-than-nothing.

Some still-dead-Greek-Philosopher whose name I don't recall said, "it is better to know useless things than to know nothing at all." If you read Plato, and Aristophenes, and Homer et al, you will know more than nothing about ideology. :hihi:

 

The misstep was that you said everything has a human source. More than 80% of the world disagrees as they believe there are other higher powers than the human intellect. That being a relatively small point on this thread, I don't wish to make it a big one, but just to voice my thought.

 

Speaking of missteps, the proportion of ignorance to a fact is not a contradiction of that fact. :eek_big:

[coberst]

Turtle says--"But its root idea is. "

 

Why so cryptic? I would like to learn more about this concept.

[Turtle]

Turtle says--"But its root idea is. "

 

Why so cryptic? I would like to learn more about this concept.

 

Acknowledged. As to the crypticness, I am enamored of it to a similar degree as your favor of the expansive essay. I like squeezing a lot of communication into very few words.

First, we append my succinct retort to your statement of premise:

Ideology is not a four lettered word, but its root idea is.

The grammatical reference is first, wherin "idea" is the root word of "ideology" and "-ology" is its suffix; moreover without regard to the negative connotation of 'four-letter-words', "idea" has literally four letters.

Then moving to the implication that there is held the view that there is something wrong with ideology, and that such a view is in error, we see that any ideology is at one and the same time composed of ideas as well as threatened by ideas. A conundrum if ever there was one.

Finally, the premise statement is itself an idea which is the root of the thread, and so making the whole thing self-referential; this is mirrored in the self-referential nature of the roots of a tree to its branches which echoes the implication of the conundrum. Is the tree growing up, or is the tree growing down!?

I don't doubt there is more, but I think this gives an idea of how to find meanings in my cryptic replies. :)

[Pyrotex]

...this gives an idea of how to find meanings in my cryptic replies. :)

Yup! That's how I do it! ;)

[coberst]

Turtle

 

Sorry I asked. I won't make that mistake again.

[Turtle]

Turtle

 

Sorry I asked. I won't make that mistake again.

Your welcome. :)

[Pyrotex]

...It seems to me that religion is many things but one of these things is that it is an ideology. I do not mean to say that religion is only an ideology. Religion is also a theology, I guess. Do you disagree with this? I would also say that capitalism is an ideology or the Democratic Party is an ideology. Do you find that I may be using words incorrectly here?

My only criticism is your use of the word 'is'. 'Is' implies 'equality' or 'equivalence'.

 

A religion or a political party is not equivalent to an ideology. It may be an expression of an ideology, or it may profess an ideology. Its teachings may contain or be founded upon an ideology.

[cwes99_03]

Pyro, would you ever say that the two are equal, an ideology and a group? Do not some, sometimes cease to exist without the ideology, or be unable to function as a group if the ideology were ever dismissed?

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, would you ever say that the two are equal, an ideology and a group? Do not some, sometimes cease to exist without the ideology, or be unable to function as a group if the ideology were ever dismissed?

Upon considerable deliberation, I choose to answer, "no".

 

A group may, under extraordinary circumstances, become identified with an ideology. Like, say, the Seventh Day Adventists or the Khmer Rouge. But the human beings are not the set of rigid dogmatic beliefs that they espouse. There are actors that became identified with just one role. But the actor is not the role.

 

And yet, I agree that if the ideology were to "vanish", the group itself may very well disband and disbond, ceasing to be a coherent group. Be that as it may, flesh and blood humans are not ideologies.

[cwes99_03]

Yah I don't think I necessarily got the thought across 100% but I think you hit on it.

 

My thought was that anyone who lives or dies on an ideology (an idealogue) is more than just an actor. I'm sure this is the point you deliberated.

I'm not talking about someone who is willing to die for their beliefs, but someone who can't identify with something else if their beliefs were to be shattered.

While relatively few, I do believe these people exist. I think great care must be shown to these people when dispelling their beliefs. These people include followers of David Koresh, and others who have commited ritualistic suicide as they saw an end coming to their ideology.