In an aside, the ad hominem "thatcherian propagandist" was not phrased like that - I went out of my way to look up the thread to check on this. The arguments you displayed were called "thatcherian propaganda". IMO, that was phrased a bit too sharp, but that's not my point here: please refrain from putting words in other people's mouth and painting yourself as a victim. And I'll stop here about this. Too much meta these days.
Lastly, as Ted and others are beginning to point out, meaning of the word "ideology" can be haggled over which in my perspective makes it entirely useless. Let the word-smiths do their work first. Instead of trying to assail ideologies, whether existing or non-existing, I would find it more interesting to analyse core values from which political goals and policies can be established.
There are certain core values and arguments that are traditionally associated with the left, and others associated with the right and plenty that fall in between and even possibly that overlap...
I think some of my point was that right wing rhetoric was being used, in a way that to me felt like a regurgitation of arguments often laid out in the media or through conversations with others who absorb that rhetoric without much questionining of it - perhaps because they don't know how to critique and deconstruct it. Certain things become part of the language, part of the 'attitude' or values and part of that collective knowledge or 'common sense' maybe that is not properly evidenced or questioned because it feels as though it is and has always been there. Ad astra per aspera
Lastly, as Ted and others are beginning to point out, meaning of the word "ideology" can be haggled over which in my perspective makes it entirely useless.
It's not "useless", my point was that,like many words it has a variety of meanings, which arose for good reasons. Cf. the word "realism":
re·al·ism (r-lzm) n. An inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism. The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form. Philosophy a. The scholastic doctrine, opposed to nominalism, that universals exist independently of their being thought. b. The modern philosophical doctrine, opposed to idealism, that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.
All useful.
It's just important to be aware of these differences, especially the two main meanings of "ideology", narrowly political and pejorative, and the wider, neutral sense, and not to confuse them:
In Marx's polemic, `ideology' was the systematic, limited, perverse thinking of opponents he saw as intellectual tools of corrupt regimes. It is poor practice to limit definitions of words to polemic uses, yet this has been the fate of `ideology'. ... `Ideology' is invaluable to socially-oriented semiotics because it identifies a unitary object that incorporates complex sets of meanings with the social agents and processes that produced them. No other term captures this object as well as `ideology'. Foucault's `episteme' is too narrow and abstract, not social enough. His `discourse', popular because it covers some of `ideology's' terrain with less baggage, is too confined to verbal systems. `Worldview' is too metaphysical, `propaganda' too loaded. http://www.semioticon.com/seo/I/ideology.html
In Marx's polemic, `ideology' was the systematic, limited, perverse thinking of opponents he saw as intellectual tools of corrupt regimes. It is poor practice to limit definitions of words to polemic uses, yet this has been the fate of `ideology'. ...
`Ideology' is invaluable to socially-oriented semiotics because it identifies a unitary object that incorporates complex sets of meanings with the social agents and processes that produced them. No other term captures this object as well as `ideology'. Foucault's `episteme' is too narrow and abstract, not social enough. His `discourse', popular because it covers some of `ideology's' terrain with less baggage, is too confined to verbal systems. `Worldview' is too metaphysical, `propaganda' too loaded.
http://www.semioticon.com/seo/I/ideology.html
The broader meaning reminds us of our dependence on "pre-formulated ways of looking" at the world and is an important area of study, as are the relationships between the two senses:
Bloch believed that even ideological artifacts contain expressions of desire and articulations of needs that radical theory and politics should heed to provide programs and discourses which appeal to deep-seated desires for a better life. Ideologies also provide clues to possibilities for future development and contain a "surplus" or "excess" that is not exhausted in mystification or legitimation. And ideologies may contain normative ideals whereby the existing society can be criticized and models of an alternative society. For example, the notion of the citoyen (citizen) in bourgeois ideology with its individual rights, civil liberties, and actively engaged autonomy expressed something more than mere legitimation and apologetics for bourgeois institutions and practices. Bloch takes seriously Marx's position that the task of socialism is to fully realize certain bourgeois ideals. Throughout his life, Bloch argued that Marxism, as it was constituted in its Social Democratic and other leading versions, was vitiated by a one-sided, inadequate, and merely negative approach to ideology. http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell1.htm
http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell1.htm
I'll look into Ted's longer comments. As a general point, this post does not assail ideologies, but claims that we enter a time of pragmatic realism. It does not exclude humanist values, but it is no longer ideological in essence. I suspect people, especially in developed countries, will become more and more fed up with ideological stances, but not as a proof of materialism, consumerism, or bureaucratisation of the society. But rather because a time of Rationalism similar to the Enlightenment is about to begin.
Nope.
Noun 1. propagandist - a person who disseminates messages calculated to assist some cause or some government
A propagandist is disseminating propaganda consaciously for a cause. But, if s/he is successful, non-propagandists will buy into it, and propagate it further. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
So a propagandist is disseminating propaganda. Period.
So if I say that your public posts amount to propaganda, I actually implicitely called you a propagandist.
prop⋅a⋅gan⋅dist [prop-uh-gan-dist] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a person involved in producing or spreading propaganda.
dictionary.reference.com
if your opinions are propaganda and if you spread your opinions by repeating them on a public forum
it follows that you spread propaganda =you are a propagandist.
Just like I said before: even when evidence is in front of you, you still won't have it.
Then again, in our present time, it's less the rise of new ideologies that I see (neolib/neocon views seem beyond their nadir), more blank opportunism. Sarko is the most obvious example across Europe, though in a much smoother way, Merkel (nut unlike her predecessor Schröder) also displays it. It's not that I entirely disagree with you about their pragmatism, more that I see a pragmatism of power -- the knowledge how to stay afloat while the balance in public opinion, the political elite, and among economic players moves. There are for example the 180-degree turns in Sarko's and Merkel's economic rhetoric.
a time of Rationalism similar to the Enlightenment is about to begin.
Would that be! Sadly, I see too much nationalism (in my region), xenophoby (further West), religious nuttery (US creationists), personalisation-emotionalisation of any issue (chiefly TV media) to believe it even for just the West. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Rationalism is a tool, and it doesn't tell the society where it should go, but allows the society to discover its ideals, then helps and accompanies the society on that road. Ideologies start from an axiom, and struggle to bring the society there, more or less forcefully. It's not a "society without highminded goals", but about freedom to discover them and and of how to reach them. Like, instead of telling a young girl she should become a nurse, you make sure she's well educated and has an array of choices, and allow her to discover herself her own way.
When there is no ideology, there just isn't any. Full stop. Only an ideologue can argue that stating that is in itself an ideology.
I said that Realpolitik is hardly an absence of ideology.
As long as we are so full of our selves as we all are, there will be ideologies - some that many share with others and others that individuals bring forward and that will reflect who they are (their identity) - their past, present and future - aspirations, hopes and fears, idealism, experiences, culture, family, nation, faith, etc.
Ideologies can range from nihilism to extreme religious/political fanaticism.
I agree that in a time of global crisis at different levels (foremost economic and environmental), classic ideologies have lost some of their (original) significance because the slow reflection on how to persuade others to do things best (according to our own ideals, good and bad) has given way to pragmatism (quick solutions to urgent problems).
While some compare ideologies, others decide, put efficiency (quick results, regardless of long-term effect) first and move on without caring about such details. This new pragmatism (or realpolitik) is an ideology that just IS. No one consciously decided on accepting it. It's an ideology that spreads so fast that many have become unaware of what it really is - not the death of ideology but an ideology that is about to become (has become?) this World's second nature.
It takes effort to shift a culture in a different direction.
It could be, would such views be singular and form a coherent system ("worldview"). As it happens, such views of religion are part of (or even just: result of) a great variety of worldviews.
This is a basic failure of such discourse, an erection of a false dichotomy. In fact the other side of that dichotomy, theism, is not a religion/worldview either -- it is a general class of a multitude of religions/worldviews. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
I maintain that there are plenty of powerful constructs just as "pragmatism" that can or should be qualified as an ideology. Has anybody written a book about the new ideology of pragmatism and given it a name? If not, it still doesn't make it less of an ideology than the teachings of the Latter Day Saints or Marxism though we're unconscious followers of this new pragmatism.
This may be the 'erection of a false dichotomy' because of how you define it but I still believe that the idea is right.
Americans elected Barack Obama because they believed in having a choice. He will now direct the course of US politics but he won't do so alone. As all Presidents he will rely heavily on his advisers, and he is also going to seek support and advice from the "opposition". In fact, his approach is going to be pragmatic above all else; defending US (home and foreign) interests, and opposing views will become fewer in view of "the crisis". - Americans elected a President who they expected to best be able to solve the crisis. The only significant ideology opposing this raw pragmatism came from the Christian right. - Sarkzoy was also elected for pragmatic reasons.
This ideology is "in the air" and people drink it in like they probably wouldn't if they were given a definition and time and incentives to reflect upon it. It seems there is no choice.
When this happens, what is the role of the opposition, any opposition? They hinder the natural response as dictated by pragmatism. They become lunatics, not much else. The DOERS will listen when it serves the larger cause ("survive the crisis" - whatever that may mean) and the rest, they will ignore.
This is not the death of ideology but this new 'ideology' may call for a new name. It is driven by the same force as globalisation - resisted by many. It is nurtured by fear (of terrorism), and ultimately everyone will acknowledge the need to react in face of global recession and serious environmental issues.
I believe that this is not a question of "lunatics" versus "hands-on" people.
correct...the nth straw man V has dragged in for burning.
i'll give you one thing, V, you're one hellacious hairsplitter! lol :)
great comments lily, and welcome to the funny farm. The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
Sorry for "lunatics", in case it bothered anyone - just a borrowed word to emphasize an opposition, I didn't mean any Eurotrib valuable members! The question was, would people be fed up with ideologies, or just bored with'em, in their oh so modern hedonistic consumerism!
i for one, feel enormously safer for your efforts.
:) The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
(but then yourself only bothered with straw men - wazzarealmotive! some rightwing scheme for sure; nevermind then: you, I won't protect! :) )
You call it opportunism because you have an ideological point of view. Like I said before, when Sarko took employment-aid measures, others accused him of being an ideological turncoat. He replied, I still say subsidized contracts are not good, but this is a crisis situation and I am a pragmatist. Why exclude the possibility that these people (Sarko, Blair, Clinton etc) actually have their nations' best interests in view, and nothing else? Why call anything not fitting into some narrowminded ideological Procust-bed "opportunism" (implying ill will)?
rather because a time of Rationalism similar to the Enlightenment is about to begin
Perhaps then you should sub-title your diary "Is Rationalism Born?"?
I do help you hope so. From where I'm sitting, my impression remains that an opposite trend is dominant in important European countries - a slow slide into increasing polarities and divisive politics fed by increasing populist tendencies. This includes France, Italy, Netherlands, UK, Spain - whereby Sarkozy and Blair have played significant destructive roles. Anything Bill Clinton may have done was annihilated under Bush's ideologies.
Most of the daily topics we read in the Salon are sorrily embattled by populist rhetoric and all too often overshadowed by the ideological fluff of economic hoopla.
Bush was brought by 9/11. An accident. Populism is brought by political correctness and the difficulty of passing a simplified message. I can assure you that Sarkozy actually believes all those things, accepts being proved wrong and the secret is to find a way to reach the people of all sensibilities, races, origins, levels of education.
Now, did any one else recently strike you as such ? :)
Really?
Dutch politics has had a long reputation of being pragmatic. This was likely partly facilitated because of the coalition structure that is necessary to form a working government. Whatever it may be, during the past decades Dutch government was unafraid to tackle ideological taboos - softdrugs, euthanasia, abortion, prostitution, gay marriage to name the more outstanding ones. The immigration and integration issues were underestimated, came at the surface during the late nineties and remain unresolved - which goes for most of Europe. As I've analysed somewhere else, the political centre in the Netherlands is actually on the decrease - giving way to populist movements of Geert Wilders (hard-right) and the Socialist Party (conservative hard-left). Both parties, but particularly the xenophobic Wilders, are characterised by exclusive and divisive policies. Currently the Dutch government is formed among others by a Christian bloc which has been for the past year eroding pragmatic policies (creep on drug policy, prostitution, euthanasia regulations) and pushing to strengthen their own ideological world-image (laws of blasphemy surreptitiously being hardened).
In other words, and given the reputation that the Netherlands have long paved ahead in pragmatic solutions to ideologically generated problems, I remain unconvinced of the thrust of your argument that world politics is on the brink of renouncing ideological policies and embracing pragmatic solutions. To the contrary. There's a long way to go.
Immigrant and religious issues in particular (the main causes for populist movements' revival) were approached badly, from a communitarian viewpoint, without thinking about how those communities' values go together, and where communitarian isolation leads.
I suspect the dutch case was less about true pragmatism, and more about experimenting libertarianism to the extreme.
And then, pragmatism alone isn't enough, IMO, and it fails in real-politik; it must be accompanied by rationalism and humanism and implemented by brilliant people. The idea of "hope" that transfigured America needed someone of the value of Obama. The French right needed Sarkozy's genius. I don't see who could replace them.
It follows that such approaches would need exceptional figures. But maybe they also stimulate their apparition. Because of Obama, maybe more Obamas will dare and make it through.
ValentinD:
Failure to reach pragmatic goals does not necessarily mean that the goals were wrong, but maybe approached with little competence.
Please point out where I wrote that the goals have failed? Granted, the existing policies are in themselves not flawless, used as strawmen by the christian parties, but the only way people found out about the holes was by executing them. The goals were regulating euthanasia, abortion, prostitution, legislating gay marriage, and the condoning of soft drugs. All of them work a lot better than the alternative.
Your argue for a rise of pragmatism - I counter that in the Netherlands the reverse trend is visible and what? You argue back that Dutch pragmatism was... not pragmatic and not successful?
Please. Try again, or at minimum show me how they aren't successful. Just claiming that they aren't is not sufficient.
This, for me, is on one hand explained by the 9/11 accident that brought the same kind of polarisation in the US; on the other hand, this issue is an example of how libertarian approaches fail.
You may see those issues you list as pragmatic policies, but you may also note that it is an enumeration of all the now famous civil rights that have become the Creed of the last 30 years. You may also see them as libertarian policies - ie, ideological.
Reclassifying them as purely "libertarian" is not convincing at all - let me stress, again, these policies have been hammered out between a range of political parties - since coalitions are the only way the Netherlands can be governed. But well, if you keep insisting, I suggest you quickly start changing the Wiki page on soft drugs policy in the Netherlands:
Drug policy of the Netherlands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is a pragmatic policy.
Bold mine. And while you're at it, also brush up the policy on prostitution - which is based on the similar rational: harm reduction.
But that's not the biggest problem: you're simply beyond wrong if you want to pin this solely on the immigration/integration debate - it either shows how little you have been following political developments in the Netherlands the past 10-12 years, or, that you receive your information/news from filtered (ideologically tainted?) sources.
Following the two WWs and consequence of a rigid society, libertarianism imposed itself, along with the exaggerations and biases normal in this kind of situations. Or between two extremes, there is place for a more measured, less activist approach.
To return to the Netherlands (a country I'm deeply fond of - but don't ask me why): I would be more careful about raising political compromise to the rank of Pragmatism. (I often consult Wikipedia, but I hang to my critical thinking too)
As to the immigration debate, if you look at previous posts, it is you who seemed to consider it as the main reason for the recent political polarizations. I added that the causes seem to be 9/11 and the bad compromise about multiculturalim, which is quite far from being or even resembling a fruit of rationalism.
Anyway, we're talking past each other. I don't think there is any way forward in this debate if you persist in conflating "libertarian" with "pragmatic" when it suits you at the drop of a hat to frame policies as "ideological". I think it's intentionally shifting the goalposts.
At this point you will have to make abundantly clear to me what your vision is of pragmatic solutions for issues such as soft drugs policy, prostitution, euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, integration, etc. Perhaps you could additionally make clear: can't libertarian rational sometimes not be pragmatic?
Better use another dairy for that; this thread is full...
The idea that the Dutch Approach would be pragmatic and modern is fundamental in your argumentation. IMO, it is a compromise - as in: we seek common ground rather than the truth and the best solution. This may still be pragmatic, but it is no longer automatically so.
My second thought: those compromises were made in a libertarianism-impregnated society, hence heavily influenced by ideology, starting with the postulate that it is wrong to forbid, to limit, to punish; that effort, constraint, traditional principles, are basically wrong (broadly speaking). That was not an independent thinking framework. For a long time now intellectual elites progagate libertarian positions, the civil rights idea always there (who can oppose a right, right), the modern thing to be, bashing when a majority dares to go against the current, framing as bigot, or dictatorial anyone daring to think differently. This is just political correctness. Democratical vote should be accepted, even if it doesn't arrange one side. That's the essence of democracy, not insulting the others as bigots, deluded, well, idiotic buttheads, really. We'll show'em, they can't stop the wave! This is not ok. Libertarianism is an ideology, as you can easily find, and like any other, it sometimes denies free speech (in this case, as obsolete, against-freedom, narrowminded, or simply stupid).
This doesn't mean we should return to a rigid society, but to more rational, mutually respectful attitudes. Wild exaggerations in order to win a point by fist-in-the-mouth postures always provoke a counter-reaction. It shouldn't necessarily be taken as lack of pragmatism.
