Is ideology the bane of intellectual sophistication in the US?

[coberst]

Is ideology the bane of intellectual sophistication in the US?

Marx is perhaps the first intellectual of great stature to coin the word “ideology” and to study its epistemological foundations. Marx makes it clear that ideology is an important aspect of all societies and especially for a society so dedicated to the cultivation of production and consumption as is capitalism.

A brief examination of culture in the United States and one will find that ideology, as framed by Marx, is a fundamental aspect of many of its social institutions; especially evident in religion, politics, and economics.

Ideology “is a systematically and socially biased body of thought”. It spans a broad spectrum of groups with their varying degree of bias and sophistication.

Despite the broad spectrum encompassed by this category of thought and practice “all ideologies share an identifiable logical structure objectively dictated by their ideological character”. Each ideology has a moral, i.e. prescriptive, dimension. Each ideology attempts to shape society to fit its particular world view. “Ideology turns what is a fact for one group into an “ought” or “ideal” for others…Marx argues that since an ideology generalizes a narrow point of view beyond the limits of its validity, it is compelled by its very logic to ‘moralize’ and ‘preach’.”

Ideology often becomes a hypocritical moral doctrine. Because it generalizes and remodels abstract ideas into an object, i.e. it objectifies, it reifies narrow abstract ideas beyond their true limits of validity it is compelled to propagandize and to “sell” its ideas. Ideology is constantly telling others how they should live.

Ideology has a complex character. It is normative; what are its ideas and experiences it attempts to present them as inherent in human nature and from this it “deduces appropriate moral recommendations”. It is biased toward a specific group; it is against other social groups, it treats these other groups as mere means. It universalizes a narrow and limited view and “sells”, perhaps evangelizes (militant and crusading zeal) might be an appropriate expression, this view to others.

An ideology can never adequately defend it self rationally because its assumptions have never been critically evaluated nor explicitly formulated. It is often rabidly critical of rival views. “Consequently it never states its first principles, or makes a perfunctory case for them, keeps reiterating and reformulating them, elaborates on them in the name of critically examining them, and so on.”

I think that ideology is the bane of American culture; it is solidly entrenched because ideology fits well within our religious, democratic, and economic heritage. The only antidote for this virus is a population well educated in the sophisticated thinking discipline and moral character traits of CT (Critical Thinking).

Do you think that CT might be my ideology? Can a teeny-tiny small group of individuals in a nation of 350 million form an ideology?

Quotes from Marx’s Theory of Ideology by Bhikhu Parekh

[Valheru]

I sometimes think that ideologies are like biospheres - they cannot be engineered and only time sorts them out.

[Eudaimonist]

Do you think that CT might be my ideology?

Not "might". Is.

Can a teeny-tiny small group of individuals in a nation of 350 million form an ideology?

Yes, of course. At least, the word ideology is often used for the systems of thought of only small groups of individuals.

And even your rants are "constantly telling others how they should live", e.g. a theme of capitalism-bashing.

But you must understand that I do not attempt to define ideology as something bad. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with providing normative advice. Ideologies can be critically evaluated and explicitly formulated, or not. Proponents can be "rabid", or not. They may treat other groups as a means, or not. They may state their first principles, or not. You (or Marx) are trying to pack way too much into your definition.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[tjakey]

Is ideology the bane of intellectual sophistication in the US?

...aahhhh...yep...

[Preno]

Is ideology the bane of intellectual sophistication in the US?it's u, ur the bane of intellectual sophistication in the US

[Christina]

<derail>

Jobar, don't you dare ; )

</derail>

[DMB]

What you perceive to be critical thinking, coberst, does seem to be your ideology. I don't think in practice that anyone lives totally without ideology, even if they don't formally enunciate it. Some ideologies are more harmful than others. Some can even be beneficial. I don't see why it should be anything to get one's knickers in a twist about.

[coberst]

All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.

“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?”

Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals…but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society”.

An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.”

Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.

We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.

“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.”

The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’

Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator”. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.

I think that the proper role for the intellectual is commitment plus detachment. Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?

Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh

[Alex]

Ideology is among a group of "devil terms" like discrimination; judgmental; bureaucracy; prejudice; myth; bourgeois; marginalised; élite - all of which are "morally neutral" but which are often used as ciphers signifying unexamined assumptions.

To single out just one of these "wicked" words: A lot of "discrimination" is not only reasonable but urgently necessary.

[Cath B]

I think it's helpful to have an idea of where the tendency of humans to develop ideologies comes from.

My interests include history, human evolution, evolutionary psychology, archaeology and culture (in humans and other animals) and I've thought and read a fair bit about them though in no way as intensively as you appear to study your philosophical heroes.

It appears from my own studies that a tendency to cultural diversification and tribalism is a trait genetically ingrained in our species at an early stage of our evolution - perhaps at a pre-human stage. Ideological differences may in a sense simply be seen as one aspect of it.

We are smart and sophisticated enough as a species to have the capacity to recognise that trait in ourselves, but the extent to which we can escape from it altogether is uncertain.

[Cath B]

...read a fair bit about them ...

Incidentally, books I've found useful have included works of fiction pertaining to real or imagined cultures other than the one I live in by such authors as Margaret Atwood, Ursula le Guin, Jane Austin, William Shakespeare...

And also the whacky slant found in TV cartoons such as Futerama and The Simpsons (it can be good to lighten up a bit)

[premjan]

Ideology is associated with the need to be conservative about something.

[Cath B]

Ideology is associated with the need to be conservative about something.

Surely it's a double edged sword, like so many things.

An alternative ideology can counteract an existing conservatism.

Then if it stagnates or stabilises (depending on your POV) it becomes conservative itself.

[coberst]

Ideology is baked-in bias. Civilization is constructed on the baked-in bias of religion.

[DMB]

In another thread you suggested IIRC that we all need a guiding star. But what is a guiding star but ideology?

[premjan]

Ideology is associated with the need to be conservative about something.
Surely it's a double edged sword, like so many things.
An alternative ideology can counteract an existing conservatism.
Then if it stagnates or stabilises (depending on your POV) it becomes conservative itself.
Yes, double-edged sword, it can create reform, but in the long run it will ossify into something similarly problematic.

[Worldtraveller]

I don't think ideology is the bane of intellectualism in the US. I think it's laziness, plain and simple.

In the US, one can be lazy (intellectually and physically) and live quite confortably. As a matter of fact, it's strongly encouraged by the mainstream media and most politicians, regardless of the lip service many pay to education and hard work.

Most people I know, and I work amongst many of the more educated portions of the population, have very little interest in reading or otherwise exploring ideas outside of what's required for their jobs.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or laziness.

[coberst]

In another thread you suggested IIRC that we all need a guiding star. But what is a guiding star but ideology?


Self interest.

[coberst]

I don't think ideology is the bane of intellectualism in the US. I think it's laziness, plain and simple.

In the US, one can be lazy (intellectually and physically) and live quite confortably. As a matter of fact, it's strongly encouraged by the mainstream media and most politicians, regardless of the lip service many pay to education and hard work.

Most people I know, and I work amongst many of the more educated portions of the population, have very little interest in reading or otherwise exploring ideas outside of what's required for their jobs.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or laziness.

It appears to me that Americans generally are very hard working. They remain ignorant and apathetic about social matters because the American educational system is designed to focus their attention primarily on maximizing production and consumption.

[DMB]

I don't think ideology is the bane of intellectualism in the US. I think it's laziness, plain and simple.

In the US, one can be lazy (intellectually and physically) and live quite confortably. As a matter of fact, it's strongly encouraged by the mainstream media and most politicians, regardless of the lip service many pay to education and hard work.

Most people I know, and I work amongst many of the more educated portions of the population, have very little interest in reading or otherwise exploring ideas outside of what's required for their jobs.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or laziness.

It appears to me that Americans generally are very hard working. They remain ignorant and apathetic about social matters because the American educational system is designed to focus their attention primarily on maximizing production and consumption.

How about the problem discussed here (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=2091)?

[Eudaimonist]

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or laziness.

QFT!


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Eudaimonist]

They remain ignorant and apathetic about social matters because the American educational system is designed to focus their attention primarily on maximizing production and consumption.

That's a crock, IMO. Even the Rochester Institute of Technology, where I got my B.S. in Computer Science, which was highly focused on having the skills needed for employment in the private sector, had liberal arts requirements. I chose a liberal arts concentration in Philosophy, where I studied critical thinking, logic, the Greeks, philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, and maybe other subjects. I found all this very interesting.

Education in the U.S. does place some emphasis on producing "well-rounded" people, even though this is balanced against the need for employability. I personally had no difficultly avoiding apathy to anything not directly related to Computer Science. If people are apathetic, it's because they choose to be so, or because they genuinely don't find some subjects interesting, not because of the "system".


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Celsus]

I blame television.

[Free in Freeport]

I think pseudo-intellectual babbling is the bane of intellectual sophistication in the United States.

[Cath B]

I blame television.

The most important thing we've learned,
So far as children are concerned,
Is never, NEVER, NEVER let
Them near your television set --
Or better still, just don't install
The idiotic thing at all.
In almost every house we've been,
We've watched them gaping at the screen.
They loll and slop and lounge about,
And stare until their eyes pop out.
(Last week in someone's place we saw
A dozen eyeballs on the floor.)
They sit and stare and stare and sit
Until they're hypnotised by it,
Until they're absolutely drunk
With all that shocking ghastly junk.
Oh yes, we know it keeps them still,
They don't climb out the window sill,
They never fight or kick or punch,
They leave you free to cook the lunch...


You can read the rest of Roald Dahl's poem here (http://www.poetryconnection.net/poets/Roald_Dahl/19551).

[Eudaimonist]

Without television, there wouldn't be Babylon 5. No, television isn't wrong, it's the choices viewers make, if anything, that are wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark