/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6372792]

Some, like Foucault, think that ideology doesn't exist or isn't a useful concept. One argument among many is that it oversimplifies complex relations between numerous factors involving power relations, economic determinations, biological explanations of a phenomenon, ethical considerations, etc.

Is ideology real? Is it useful?

[Anonymous No.6372881]

I always get annoyed by pseudo-political activist dipshits who say they are 'against ideology'. Ideology, in it's most fundamental, precise meaning is a concept by which you try to relate to the percieved 'reality' of existential condition. It is not something you can step out of, since experience inherently produces some interpretation in the human mind (or it seems to).

What most people seem to refer to when they say 'ideology' is a kind of narrow political ideology, often one that is currently controversial in the society. E.g. I think less people would be inclined to say today that capitalism or meritocracy is an ideology, than those who would say that about nazism, fascism, communism, etc.. This is because the adopted ideology is always percieved as the 'true face of the world' and not just as a model. Similarly, atheists see christianity only as an ideology (read delusion) and christians think the same about atheism.

It is in my opinion impossible to step out of ideology completely, political or otherwise, because one always has preferences. Even someone apolitical (such as me) adheres to the ideology of apolitism (if that's the right word - I have no idea). The only sensible way is I think to make your ideology as inclusive and broad as possible, and stray away from any dogma or hard presuppositions (which is much more difficult than it might seem).

Another belief which I find false is that ideology is either inherently evil or good (and this belief itself is part of my own ideology). People during history have always found a way to exploit any politico-social system, regardless of its codified laws and norms. The reason for that is a flexibility of language and by extention cognitive function. Example: if you were to define as a universal right that 'no human being can be subjected to harm', you can always redefine the terms 'human', 'subjected' and 'harm'. To give a real life example, in 19th century, the social norms which substituted for universal human rights didn't apply to negroes, because eugenics defined them as something less than human.

Sorry if this is all a bit chaotic, but I've thought on this subject a lot and I'm bad at summarizing.

[Anonymous No.6372950]

>>6372792
>Some, like Foucault, think that ideology doesn't exist or isn't a useful concept.


Source? And what meaning of ideology do you mean, here? In a video Zizek clearly defines ideology as a category of "old-fashioned, Marxist, false-consciousness mystification[...] Ideology deals with real problems, but it mystifies them." He goes on, "So, that's, for me, the big lesson today. That's what we philosophers can do. I can propose you how to racist problem- how to solve ecological problem. What I can do, as a philosopher, is - I hope so - show how, the very way you perceive- you conceptualize a very real problem may be part of the problem."[1]

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbL3U3hBtM4

[Anonymous No.6372967]

>>6372792
If you're using Zizek for an example of your point, it's more so that we already disregard and mistrust our ideologies but continue to believe in them for the sake of others. Zizek uses the example of Santa with this: the kid knows Santa isn't real but pretends to believe to make his parents happy, the parents pretend to be Santa to make the kid happy.

>>6372881
I see what you're saying. >>6372950 Makes a good point to show you where the actual stance on this is. It's more about rethinking your ideologies instead of doing away with them entirely.

[Anonymous No.6372996]

[Anonymous No.6373045]

>>6372881
>Another belief which I find false is that ideology is either inherently evil or good (and this belief itself is part of my own ideology). People during history have always found a way to exploit any politico-social system, regardless of its codified laws and norms.

I get that you're saying all ideologies have flaws, but aren't some worse than others? It's like saying all crimes are immoral, but also equivalent in their position on the no-no spectrum

[Anonymous No.6373080]

>>6373045
Idoelogy is a result of material alienation in the same way that shitting is a result of eating.

[Anonymous No.6373230]

>>6373045

Eh, that is a good question. In practice, I would say no. Since the totality of understanding of an ideology is often reserved for a specific 'priviledged' class (the rest live only in a much simplified version of such), the full implications of that ideology only apply to that class and only (of course) if they choose to/fully endorse it. The rest of the populus is left a much larger field of freedom in ethical interpretation. To give an example, a medieval monk (given that he was a true believer) would probably have much more rigid and complex set of ethics than an ordinary peasant, since he's read many different teological and phillosophical treatises on christianity. Meanwhile, the peasant will consider himself a christian as well, but he might act very differently (and from the perspective of the monk, even wrongly) because he doesn't have access to the full theory of the ideology (in this case christianity).

Say the said peasant has had his cow (or any other possession) stolen by another peasant. He could act in a number of ways, since his ethical codex isn't probably very well defined. For example - he could've heard a priest in the church quote the Old Testaments 'eye for an eye' and decide to go and steal one of the other peasants cows back. Or he could've heard the moral maxim of 'turning the other cheek', and he would forgive the other peasant, possibly even give him another one of his cows. Or he could just think 'God giveth, God taketh' and get on with his miserable life.

The monk would have had probably known how to act in a situation like this before hand, and if multiple monks were presented to a same situation, they would probably act the same (well, christianity is kind of a bad example here, but you can extend to anything I believe). But majority of society isn't made out of clergy, and therefore most christians could act in a number of hugely different ways in a same situation.

But back to the question of potential of ideology towards good/evil. I think that the most basic formulae of ideology is always morally ambiguous, since what it really does is that it just presents a view of the world. The subsequent interpretation and creation of ethics out of this image is where morality comes into play. Even if you have something as fundamentally 'bad' sounding as the claim 'human races are not equal in their predispositions and so far, history has been a reflection of the evolutionary process, in which conflict has led to progress', holocaust is not the only option this claim can lead to. For example, one could deduce that humanity with the realisation of this tendency has the potential to transcend it, and create enviroment in which all people could be elevated to the same level.

[Penelope !dgOyi90UNA No.6373236]

It doesn't matter if its useful or not, its not something you can just ignore.

[Anonymous No.6373418]

>>6372792
Ideology is what you take for granted. It's useful, but not as useful as analysis like Foucaults.

[Anonymous No.6373455]

>>6372792
ya i agree. i think how people smell, move and react says it all. which is why this guy's a redundant loon

[Anonymous No.6373924]

>>6373230
an ideology comprises a moral/.ethical doctrine.

[Anonymous No.6373930]

>>6373045
>inherently evil or good
>immoral

go to bed kid

[Anonymous No.6373933]

>>6372881
>Ideology, in it's most fundamental, precise meaning is a concept by which you try to relate to the percieved 'reality' of existential condition. It is not something you can step out of, since experience inherently produces some interpretation in the human mind

This might be true, but then again, it shouldn't be used as an argument for dismissing other people's arguments if that's the case, as Zizek does all the time.

>Some libertarian arguing for X governmental reduction
>Zee? Zis is just pure ideology, and not worz listening to, *sniff sniff*

I mean, Zizek might be right and all, that ideology is sublime and subconscious, but that isn't saying much honestly in a sphere of political and philosophical discussion.

[Anonymous No.6373969]

>>6373933

I don't really listen to Zizek so I wouldn't know about that (the few times I tried, it seems to me as if he was unable to stick to one point and see it through).

What I was trying to get at is that a lot of people think 'ideology' is a thing of the past (or in the worst case fringe extremist groups), and since we now live in the era of enlightened capitalism, our political/phillosophical/social/spiritual position is completely objective,rational, and basically in every way superior to every other.

[Anonymous No.6373979]

>>6373969
>'ideology' is a thing of the past

I'm not so sure that's true. I just think ideology suffers from post-modernity, which makes people think that statements of very ideological nature as being somewhat ironic.

>since we now live in the era of enlightened capitalism, our political/phillosophical/social/spiritual position is completely objective,rational, and basically in every way superior to every other.

I agree with this though, somewhat.

[Anonymous No.6373994]

>>6373979

I dunno...to me it seems that since one of the few places the word 'ideology' gets used is in school when kids are learning about the 'experimental' political systems of the 20th century (nazism, fascism, communism), the word itself became sort of a pejorative boogey-term to be used for a political system one doesn't agree with. And a lot of people don't seem to be willing to reflect they might be living in an ideology themselves and find the notion absurd.

[Anonymous No.6373998]

>>6373994
Yeah, I agree with you on that.

I even feel it at university at the moment, where things that are overtly ideological are peddled as objective truth, so I guess you're right after all when I think about it.

[Anonymous No.6374930]

>>6372792
>Is ideology real?
Nah.
>Is it useful?
Yes.