On ideology: two sides of the same coin

Elections can provide endless entertainment, if you’re into that sort of thing. But there’s enough drama at all levels to provide a source of amusement for most people, not the least of which is to watch ideologues in action. Liberals and conservatives (political and religious) tend to provide the steadiest source of amusement and irk, if only because both camps seem to take themselves so seriously. Despite the content of their messages, they become two sides of the same coin.

Some time after I got my consultation website up I received an e-mail from a woman who commented, rather nastily and at length, on how she would never call on us for a consultation because the only persons on the web page were all white males. I responded that (1) I was Hispanic (a non-white minority), (2) there’s a word for people who judge others on the basis of their race, skin color, or other secondary characteristic rather than on their character or their competence, (3) the lack of female consultants wasn’t for lack of trying—every one we’ve invited had their reasons for not being able to participate as much as they’d wanted to, and, (4) what made her think that I needed, or cared, what she thought?

But, such is the nature of ideologists, they impose their views and values on others and insist on being acknowledged and their views affirmed. Ideology is a form or non-thinking and can be a veneer for the pseudo-self. Like the person who becomes so steeped in a “12-steps” culture so as to work only from that frame of reference—forever a victim, forever “recovering,” perpetually dependent on outside sources of strength of will. I celebrate the success of twelve step recovery programs in helping people cope, but it’s the liability of staying stuck in a perpetually dependent and powerless state that is a risk. Ideology can result in “magical thinking,” rigidity, and a lack of tolerance for others’ self-definition and points of views.

What characterizes ideology is its willfulness. And, it is willfulness that does the harm in relationships and systems. I’ve seen this played out in many congregations related to the issue of homosexuality. How does one church escape reactivity related to gays in the church, while another can make it work? Consistently, those congregations that are able to deal with the issue responsibly and with the least level of crisis, reactivity, and toxicity are those in which there is a lack of insistence on conformity (herding) from all camps, the ability to tolerate self-defining stances, and the role of the leader. In all cases that I’ve observed the leader has been able function in a highly self-differentiated manner: being clear about where he or she stands (self-defining) while, (1) allowing others to do so, (2) not being willful in insisting on conformity, and (3) allowing the congregation to struggle with the issue while insisting on decency and maturity (and dealing with the willful persons as appropriate). Here’s the insight: the principles here are the same regardless of the content of the issue.

Ideologies can be powerful forces because they can function as a religion. By that I mean that they exhibit some common characteristics:

• They contain an explanatory theory of a more or less comprehensive kind about human experience, thoughts, and the external world.
• Because ideologies are rigidly internally logically consistent and coherent it becomes difficult to engage in dialogue. At the end of the day, you can’t “reason” with it.
• They set out a program, in generalized and abstract terms, of social, relational, and political organization.
• Their only repertoire for realizing this program entails a struggle (us against them)
• They seek not merely to persuade others on the merit of their belief, but to recruit loyal adherents, demanding a commitment of loyalty.
• They try to impose their views on a wide public but will tend to confer some special role of leadership on intellectuals, victims, or other category of persons.

Jean Bethke Elshtain wrote, “Ideology, by which I mean a totalizing and closed system that discounts or dismisses whatever does not “fit” within it, has very little use for accurate descriptions of what is going on.” (Just War Against Terror, p. 16)

Regardless of the content of the ideology, liberal, fundamentalist, conservative, religious, political, etc., the main purpose becomes to offer change through a normative thought process (what the world ought to be). Ideologies tend to be abstract ideals applied to reality and, thus, rarely pragmatic.