Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia An ideology is a set of beliefs , aims and ideas, especially in politics. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society. So we are discussing our visions of how things should be and our ways of looking at things. Even if this is personal and doesn't result from being a member of a political party or being a political activist (ie not buying into an organised ideology), it still counts as ideology. I see yours and mine being very different. I used softer words such as what you say 'comes across as' because I don't want to go pointing my finger and saying you are this or you are that. My impressions come from the way I read into the language that you use and the concepts you are putting forward. Also your view of what constitutes 'right wing' may well be a bit different to mine. So you put yourself as moderate where I put you on the right based on the way you have discussed these issues with me. You think I am left wing conditioned but you don't think that you could be right wing conditioned? The one thing about right wing rhetoric is that it does a fantastic job of getting the message over that this is all common sense, rational and reasonable and because most of the messages you absorb (through the French media you believe to be left wing) are aligned with right wing rhetoric, it's the 'norm' to you that you think is moderate. I haven't been able to express that too well.
Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia An ideology is a set of beliefs , aims and ideas, especially in politics. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.
An ideology is a set of beliefs , aims and ideas, especially in politics. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.
So we are discussing our visions of how things should be and our ways of looking at things. Even if this is personal and doesn't result from being a member of a political party or being a political activist (ie not buying into an organised ideology), it still counts as ideology. I see yours and mine being very different.
I used softer words such as what you say 'comes across as' because I don't want to go pointing my finger and saying you are this or you are that. My impressions come from the way I read into the language that you use and the concepts you are putting forward. Also your view of what constitutes 'right wing' may well be a bit different to mine. So you put yourself as moderate where I put you on the right based on the way you have discussed these issues with me. You think I am left wing conditioned but you don't think that you could be right wing conditioned?
The one thing about right wing rhetoric is that it does a fantastic job of getting the message over that this is all common sense, rational and reasonable and because most of the messages you absorb (through the French media you believe to be left wing) are aligned with right wing rhetoric, it's the 'norm' to you that you think is moderate. I haven't been able to express that too well.
This makes me wonder if it is a good time for the political compass to get rolled out again? Ad astra per aspera
Ideology is a set of beliefs and ideas that pretend the reality is a certain way. A bit like many scientifical theories, that first are built (based on certain hints) then are proved - more or less by bending the reality to fit them.
I try to see the reality without using a pre-established way of looking at it. My deepest concern is objectivity. I know it's a big word, but this is what interests me. If things are shown to be this way, I have absolutely nothing to add, and I approve all those quota laws. I won't adopt leftwing ideology, but I certainly won't value much the rightwing one either.
Pretending to be outside ideology is not ideology, exactly like being an atheist is not a kind of religion, but the absence of it(see poemless below).
You put me on the right from your viewpoint. Upon reading me more completely, american republicans will likely count me on the center, maybe even center-left (I think machine guns must be strongly regulated, for instance). So it's all a matter of where you look from. You can return me the argument and say I am right wing conditioned, which is why I endeavour to find arguments and reasons, without starting from an ideological base, but really interested to know the truth.
French Left made a terrific job in depicting itself as the people who have a heart, who are sensitive to others' misfortunes, implicitly putting in opposition the rightwing. Hence the famous phrase an indignated Giscard d'Estaing threw at Mitterrand: "vous n'avez pas le monopole du coeur!". So French left emphasize the emotional, caretaking side, while the right does the same with the rational, economical side. One might even say the Left belongs to a feminine archetype, while the Right belongs to a masculine one! :)
I'll return the reasoning: are women instinctively of the left, and men of the right? I don't think polls show that, though. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Bringing arguments in a discussion about "protection of the feeble", rationalizing the thing, is already a sort of lack of heartfelt warmth towards the marginalized, the weak, the victims - for which anything possible should be done immediately, come what may.
Only a rightwing person would be capable of saying that "we cannot receive all the people of the third world" as immigrants, because we simply lack the ressources. A true leftwinger will never say this, it's about compassion, a matter of the heart. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I know no genuine rightwing ideologue, 200% convinced and 200% convincing. On the contrary, leftwing ideologues seem to be the ones truly in love with their ideology, with ideologic stances in general.
And this is normal. The Left being about progress, always fostering utopies, it is normal that their positions be naturally more ideological. Reducing them to the cold reality and even colder reasoning, is the rightwinger's method par excellence :)
An anti-ideology essay is by definition rightwing. So here I am, exposed! :) Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Only a rightwing person would be capable of saying that "we cannot receive all the people of the third world" as immigrants, because we simply lack the ressources. A true leftwinger will never say this, it's about compassion, a matter of the heart.
Come on, this is a bad caricature!
There is a variety of views on how to deal with immigration that can broadly be considered "leftist" - but the notion that we should just invite all Africa's poor onto our shores isn't one of them. The closest you come to that is the ones (like me) who say that as long as we keep raping the third world and systematically denying it its shot at equality with the material standard of living of The West(TM), we have no moral high ground from which we can argue that they should stay in "their own countries."
As an aside, if all the hungry of Africa decided one fine day to pick up their clothes and start moving north, there'd be damn all we could do to stop them.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I wanted to point to the compassion string in leftwing ideology.
I can agree with your statement about the moral ground, though. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I didn't say "we should invite", I said, "should not forbid".
A distinction without meaning. A clearly articulated policy of "I do not forbid you from entering my home" is not materially different from a clearly articulated policy of "I invite you into my home." The style is a bit more convoluted and a bit less polite, but materially it is the same policy.
I can agree with your statement about the moral ground, though.
Where do you see our moral high ground? The principle of sovereignty? National self-determination? Fairness?
I don't think we have a moral high ground. I didn't say we have one either. We could discuss whether our civilization is more advanced, but moral high ground?... Naah. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Preview is my friend :-P
Ideology is a set of beliefs and ideas that pretend the reality is a certain way. ... I try to see the reality without using a pre-established way of looking at it. My deepest concern is objectivity.
Ideology is a set of beliefs and ideas that pretend the reality is a certain way. ...
I try to see the reality without using a pre-established way of looking at it. My deepest concern is objectivity.
An objective examination of the word "ideology" would show that it is used in a variety of ways (cf. In Wales' quotation from Wikipedia). In some of these uses it is critical or pejorative and is related to politics, in others, k to p below, it is quite neutral and much wider in scope.
Here is a list of ways the concept of ideology has been treated in recent decades, according to Terry Eagleton. Note that this is more up-to-date than most lists... this one more readily identifies a variety of more refined and elaborated positions by various thinkers. a) the process of production of meanings, signs and value in social life; b) a body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class; c) ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power; d) false ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power; e) systematically distorted communication; f) that which offers a position for a subject; g) forms of thought motivated by social interests; h) identity thinking; i) socially necessary illusion; j) the conjuncture of discourse and power; k) the medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world; l) action-oriented sets of beliefs; m) the confusion of linguistic and phenomenal reality; n) semiotic closure; o) the indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relation to a social structure; p) the process whereby said life is converted to a natural reality. http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/ideo4.html
a) the process of production of meanings, signs and value in social life; b) a body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class; c) ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power; d) false ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power; e) systematically distorted communication; f) that which offers a position for a subject; g) forms of thought motivated by social interests; h) identity thinking; i) socially necessary illusion; j) the conjuncture of discourse and power; k) the medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world; l) action-oriented sets of beliefs; m) the confusion of linguistic and phenomenal reality; n) semiotic closure; o) the indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relation to a social structure; p) the process whereby said life is converted to a natural reality.
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/ideo4.html
This broader sense (k to p) is not just a late development, the word began in this wider, non-pejorative sense:
Ideology first appeared in English in 1796, as a direct translation of the new French word ideologie which had been proposed in that year by the rationalist philosopher Destutt de Tracy. Taylor (1796): `Tracy read a paper and proposed to call the philosophy of mind, ideology'. Taylor (1797): `... ideology, or the science of ideas, in order to distinguish it from the ancient metaphysics'. In this scientific sense, ideology was used in epistemology and linguistic theory until lC19. A different sense, initiating the main modern meaning, was popularized by Napoleon Bonaparte. In an attack on the proponents of democracy -- `who misled the people by elevating them to a sovereignty which they were incapable of exercising' -- he attacked the principles of the Enlightenment as `ideology'. http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/ideo8.html
Ideology first appeared in English in 1796, as a direct translation of the new French word ideologie which had been proposed in that year by the rationalist philosopher Destutt de Tracy. Taylor (1796): `Tracy read a paper and proposed to call the philosophy of mind, ideology'. Taylor (1797): `... ideology, or the science of ideas, in order to distinguish it from the ancient metaphysics'. In this scientific sense, ideology was used in epistemology and linguistic theory until lC19.
A different sense, initiating the main modern meaning, was popularized by Napoleon Bonaparte. In an attack on the proponents of democracy -- `who misled the people by elevating them to a sovereignty which they were incapable of exercising' -- he attacked the principles of the Enlightenment as `ideology'.
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/ideo8.html
In the wider sense there there is no escaping ideology; what's important is to try to become aware of it and that means not just condemning obviously biased political arguments, while naively assuming that one remains untainted by ideology and that one can think about the world "without using a pre-established way of looking at it". This is true only of the most crude and obvious "pre-established ways". Of course none of us can escape all pre-existing ways of thinking; we exist at a specific time in history and we draw on our culture's general ways of thinking about the world, much of which remains pretty unconscious. Also those general ways of thinking will in some cases have been influenced by the narrower sense of ideology.
We are not totally determined by our culture, but nor can we just step outside it to some pure vantage point. Part of the value of philosophy is to try to critically examine very fundamental concepts and sociologists of knowledge try to examine the relations between society and ideas. Both Williams and Barthes are sarcastic about those claiming to be free of ideology and able to think about the world in some pure, non-ideological way, independent of history and its "pre-established ways of looking at" the world:
Meanwhile, in popular argument, ideology is still mainly used in the sense given by Napoleon. Sensible people rely on EXPERIENCE (q.v.), or have a philosophy; silly people rely on ideology. In this sense ideology, now as in Napoleon, is mainly a term of abuse. Raymond Williams ibid.
Raymond Williams
ibid.
...just as bourgeois ideology is defined by the abandonment of the name 'bourgeois', myth is constituted by the loss of the historical quality of things: in it, things lose the memory that they once were made [including concepts, like ideology]. ... Myth does not deny things, on the contrary, its function is to talk about them; simply, it purifies them, it makes them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, it gives them a clarity which is not that of an explanation but that of a statement of fact. [....] In passing from history to nature, myth acts economically: it abolishes the complexity of human acts, it gives them the simplicity of essences, it does away with all dialectics, with any going back beyond what is immediately visible, it organizes a world which is without contradictions because it is without depth, a world wide open and wallowing in the evident, it establishes a blissful clarity: things appear to mean something by themselves. Roland Barthes http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/barthes1.html
Roland Barthes
http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/barthes1.html
In the wider sense, obviously the problem isn't even posed. Awareness is the important thing, indeed, and those were simple examples of obviously biased arguments, not condemning them, and even less some claim to objectivity - merely the concern for it.
My claim is that the last 30 years (since Bell declared ideologies dead!), biased argumenting dominated political and social life, to a larger and larger extent, and it likely led to a Rational counter-reaction, more fidel to the spirit of the Enlightenment. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
HAH! THERE !
(although I do consider several questions impossible to answer and absurd to ask, which were forced on me; otherwise, I would have definitely been on the exact center) Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
"Then I thought of myself as Nowhere Man -- sitting in his nowhere land." John Lennon
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold" W.B. Yeats
:-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
So how about fine, have it your way with the use of the word Ideology and let's say that what you have discussed is your perspective and your interpretation of the issues and how they are dealt with via public policy and so on? Is that a more acceptable way of phrasing it for you? It more or less amounts to what I mean when I use the word ideology in these discussions. Were I to write an essay specifically discussing formal political ideologies then I would frame it formally and define it, but here, I refer to my own perspective when I talk of my ideology.
And my perspective is based on real life too, informed by many different things. But my life experiences and the life experiences of the majority of people who I have come into contact with, are not necessarily going to be the same as yours. So what you consider to be pragmatic and based on real life and common sense in your bit of the world and how it operates, is not the same as mine.
Can you take on board the thought that there are many sections of the community that you know little of? Perhaps too little of to make a judgement?
You stated before that you aren't that interested in disability issues, having not known anyone well who has a disability. Now, you are free to have an opinion on things relating to disability and how you view it but should you and others who have no experience of or depth of understanding of disability and the many issues related to it, have to the power to make decisions on policies that affect my life and that of other disabled people, without consulting representative organisations and without having disabled people fully involved with the decision making and policy design and implementation? Because that is broadly what happens, and that is why activist organisations campaign for better rights and try to influence policy decisions. Can you see that that is valid? Ad astra per aspera
This seems to me a very strange and individualistic reason not to be interested in a topic (I'm also baffled by the phenomenal unlihelihood of anyone not knowing anyone with a disability well).
I have not known anyone (well or not) who starved, had AIDS or sclerosis, lost his home to repossession or to a storm... That will not make me uninterested in their respective issues. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
I have not known anyone (well or not) who starved, had AIDS or sclerosis, lost his home to repossession or to a storm...
Well, I'm not saying it won't happen, ever. I'm still fairly young. But I don't think that repossessions are frequent -nor are tropical storms or tsunamis of course. As for starving, should I know anyone who did, he no longer would. And I DID cherry-pick my diseases. My aunt is in a wheelchair (as is a more recent friend), my mother in law almost deaf, I helped blind people in at school, have friends with cancer... And I have probably known people who had AIDS without being aware of it, of course. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
While I pray that Paris remain blessedly free of these afflictions, I doubt that she is and I certainly doubt that she will so remain over the next year. This will certainly be the case for Britain and the USA. It is my experience and observation that we live our lives surrounded by suffering but that most of us avoid recognizing most of that suffering, especially that which does not happen to ourselves or those close to us. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I'm not saying that it doesn't exist in Paris. Of course lots of people have AIDS in Paris. Apparently none of the people who know me well enough to tell me suffer from AIDS, that's all.
As for hunger, well, it exists I'm sure but -Paris is a rich enclave -Remember we are socialist buggers.
"Soupes populaires" are quite common -and indeed there's one near my place. So getting one meal a day is quite straightforward if you need it. In fact, my brother serves weekly at "La Chorba", an NGO that delivers meals that don't annoy any religion (they started purely for muslims as the name indicates but now it applies to all), and I wouldn't hesitate to suggest going there to anyone. It's decent food. I also give quite a lot to "food banks", when it is directed to people I don't know. Do you think that if someone I KNEW starved I wouldn't start there? Anyway, our safety nets make it less likely to suffer some of those poverty afflictions than in USA (repossessions are EXTREMELY rare). And you can get cheap food at open air markets.
"especially that which does not happen to ourselves or those close to us"
I must admit that I haven't propped up all the homeless I see in the metro. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
I apologize if my post implied any criticism of your compassion. That was not my intent. On reflection, perhaps it is partly difference in our ages that account for your not knowing people with AIDS. We knew the couple I referred to to as neighbors in the late '80s when there still was no generally available treatment for aids, and I lived in Los Angeles where there was and is a large gay community, many of whom we knew. Your comment brought memories flooding back. Fortunately, AIDS is no longer a death sentence, and, with medical care, those with AIDS can remain symptom free indefinitely. And I certainly do not intend to criticize you for not living where there are tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires, etc. But BTW, you do know someone who at least temporarily lost their home due to fire---Jerome and family!
I was struck by the fact that I had experienced most of the things you listed, and I think I got carried away with that without reflecting on how it would sound to others. I too try to help those less fortunate than I, but these days that is likely to a considerably lesser extent than you do. I am chagrined that I have thoughtlessly posted something that might be seen as a slur on your character. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
You have experienced those things, and I other ones: as I said I cherry picked what I had NOT experienced. Thankfully my gay friends have been spared by AIDS. Maybe Europe was better in its adoption of condoms.
And in fact, I don't think I do that much. When I look at myself and at my brother I often feel embarassed. Let's say that I will always do something when I see a need but don't make great efforts to find the people in need (and, yes, I do know people who lost their homes to a fire, and offered Jérôme to stay with us -it was impractical and it didn't happen). Actually that's a typical example: I would be willing to do things but it often does not happen.
In that respect I have a painful memory that I have difficulties forgiving myself for. There was a fire in the building across a courtyard from mine. The window of my room opens on a roof. One night I heard someone shouting from his window to call the firemen. I went but by the time I got to my phone heard a neighbour shouting that they had been called. I returned to my room and he had jumped (or slided on a pipe) on the roof -his window had been just one floor above it. First guilt there: I closed my window, and went back to watching from the kitchen to see if the firemen were coming. He kept shouting "call the firemen". After a while, with the fire having spread to the other room (the one with the window above the roof in question), I saw an arm. And THEN he said "there's my mother". By that time there was no realistic access to the window. But if I had asked whether there was someone else in the flat from the start, I reckon I could have taken my bed's mattress with his help through the window and maybe his mother would have jumped on it (the two of us could not have safely caught her in our arms -this would have been on the very edge of a roof). I could never know for sure but I have every reason to believe that she died in that fire. Maybe she WOULD have died jumping. But I didn't try anything.
I don't think I was quite the bastard that night, but I certainly was not the man I want to be.
And so we go, wishing we were doing more to help people but in fact living most of our lives amongst each other. We still think that when we have a bigger house we will volunteer to host people, like children temporarily coming to France for health reasons, or yougsters having been thrown out by their families (often for being a free mind and not willing to be forced to adopt a religion they don't believe in), or something. Yes we'll give money to some organisations sometimes, but I think that's not satisfactory. It's time and involvement that must be given. Hopefully those "we'll do it one day" will really happen. But my main wish is for society as a whole to become more altruistic. That's where the difference would truly be made. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
I agree that pragmatic can differ by experience, but I'm ready to discuss that and be convinced otherwise. That is a pragmatic approach in itself. I don't hold my conclusions as axiomatic. So my judgements are based on arguments. If I am contradicted, I think about it and reply, or change.
I already said I believe civil associations are justified, there's no question about it, and they should be involved in the decision process, at least consulted. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Can everyone just stop the name calling already? The political compass doesn't generate those labels.
In order to emphasise that the political compass was strangely calibrated (as in a compass that would only have "North", "Norther" "West" and "Wester as directions), I deliberately used extreme words, without implying that they were actually justified, since the compass does not make anyone anything in actual life. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
But, I am not sure US calibration alone can be the cause... especially considering their placement of British parties on their compass. There can be false assumptions on how people view the test questions. Behind many, there seems to be a naive leftist assumption of the universiality of right-wing views. Whereas, a conservative or even a moderate may fully endorse a high-flying idea -- as long as we are speaking about the in-group. What this naive leftist assumption sees as right-of-center view will only come forward against some appropiately antagonised outside group (immigrants, people with different-coloured skins, felons, welfare recipients, 'privileged' public workers). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
BTW? Cyrille, I don't remember if you took the test and where it placed you -- which would be interesting inasmuch as IIRC you're a MoDem/Bayrou supporter, and thus probably as close to the center as possible in a French political context. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I did take the test but did not then asked to be placed because I found it a caricature -I was so far to the left despite answering a straight centrist ticket (actually, when I was unsure of my opinion, I simply entered the MoDem one).
I remember being very close to Jérôme, somewhat more liberal in social terms and maybe a shade more conservative in economics, although I may have been slightly to the left in that one as well. It made ET look like a group of crazy leftist extremists that found Pol Pot Reaganian and that's unfair when only half of us are ;-) Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Why, wasn't he? Same hostility to intellectuals, same abandonment of inner cities :-) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That places him about where Gandhi is--somewhat left-libertarian.
My own numbers:Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90
That places me between Mandela and the Dalai Lama but further towards the lower left corner. Almost all active political figures in "the west" are in the upper right quadrant, with Romano Prodi being the closest to the left-right axis. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
