What Is Ideology?
Some quick thoughts from the first chapter of Terry Eagleton's, "Ideology: An Introduction"
In the aftermath of the election in the United States, many Americans are filled with either delight or despair and it has left many relationships in tatters. Those on either side of an issue suddenly cannot speak to each other and break off contact.
While there are certainly some individuals who genuinely need distance because the election results have emboldened their abusers, (this is real, I’ve heard it firsthand from therapists working with court-mandated abusers, they feel this election result has given them permission for their behavior) the reality is most of the relationships being cut off are between people who get along very well otherwise.
Our nation has become engrossed in an “I-can’t-believe-they-would-think-that-way” posture towards family and friends. It has even led some to delete friends on social media and cancel upcoming holiday plans!
What might cause people to jettison holiday plans with their loved ones? What is at work here? It seems to be the work of ideology.
Introducing Ideology
Over the last year, I’ve attempted to become a student of ideology so as a pastor, I can understand how it infects our lives as Christians and turns us into enemies of each other and our neighbors. I’m currently reading a book on the subject by Terry Eagleton called, “Ideology: An Introduction.”
So what is ideology?
Ideology is EXTREMELY nuanced and has to always be spoken of in caveats. In many ways, ideology is nuanced and complicated because people are complicated. We do not have on/off switches with simple definitions. We are complex creatures. Add in a whole bunch of us with various perspectives, different cultures, and values and well, it gets complicated. Therefore, definitions of ideology become hard to pin down.
Very generally speaking, ideology is a form of thinking that tends to pit one point of view against another in a way that ignores the possibility that my own opinion has blindspots. One can further say that ideology is often used by a dominant social group in a society to further its own agenda (often unknowingly). After weighing many definitions from several thinkers on the subject, Eagleton settles on six, increasingly specific, definitions to help us understand what it is.1
These definitions can be thought of as including all previous definitions. As they move towards the more specific, one also finds that the individual or group with the ideology becomes increasingly blind to the fact that their view may be just one perspective and that it is being used to coerce other social groups. That is important for how ideology works in Eagleton’s assessment.
So how does Eagleton define ideology?
Here are his six definitions with some of my own commentary, followed by a chart that you might find helpful to see how they interact with each other.
This is what I call “Culture” Ideology. Eagleton describes this as “the general material process of production of ideas, beliefs, and values in social life.” Generally speaking, this can broadly be thought of as what a culture is. Every culture has its own way of doing things that is unique and different. That is normal and ok! This form of ideology is relatively “neutral” in the sense that it is not trying to force someone else to agree with them.
“Social Class Worldview" Ideology - In this second definition some “socially significant group” (i.e. rich people, middle class, African-Americans, farmers) within a larger culture might have a worldview related to their particular life experiences that inform their beliefs and ideas (whether true or false). For instance, mid-western farmers may have specific beliefs and ideas that are part of their ideology which are much different from single, affluent, millennials on the Lower Eastside of Manhattan. In principle, these two ideologies are not in conflict and would not have a problem with each other, they are simply different worldviews based on their social group’s placement within society.
In “Conflict Ideology” we begin to experience what the title implies: conflict between these various “social class worldviews”. Here Eagleton says, we find, “the promotion and legitimation of the interests of such a social group in the face of opposing interests.” There are many nuances as one gets deeper into these definitions, however, suffice it to say, at this point, we are still not experiencing an ideology that is dangerous or “bad,” at least not in my estimation. Understandably, some people have hang-ups with conflict, but generally speaking, conflict can be incredibly creative. Consider for a moment, the greek speaking, Jewish widows in Acts 6 who were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. This social class had a worldview - an experienced reality - that they needed to promote as legitimate in the face of being overlooked by the other party: the Hebrew-speaking, Jewish widows. We understand from this story that conflict ideology here is not bad, it simply reveals a problem that needs to be addressed. One final note before moving on. You’ll notice in the diagram below that the first two ideologies are circled with a dotted line. This represents the open and fluid nature of these ideologies without much of a feeling of strife between other people. The third definition has a dashed line - not closed off - but certainly runs the risk of leading to more dangerous ideologies if the conflict is not handled with grace and care.
When we come to “Dominating Ideology” we have arrived at the first of the tragic definitions, in that people begin to make enemies of other people. As you can see, conflict can quickly change from an opportunity for redemptive solutions to domination of one group by another. In this definition, not only does one group wish to promote its interest to the group that is standing in its way - but it also wants to dominate the opposing group with its preferences. This typically is not generated by the group without power, though it could. Rather, the group in power begins imposing their beliefs and ideas on everyone else out of a belief that their ideas and beliefs best unify society. This is often done unknowingly.
When this “dominating ideology” reaches a tipping point we could describe it as leading to “Deceptive Ideology.” Prior to this definition, appeals to a certain way of doing things in society could be done in a fairly neutral way: the Apostles could have suggested to the Greek-speaking widows that there are a lot more Hebrew-speaking widows and it was just the reality of the situation, for example. (Note: this would not make their explanation “just” or “right” but it would be a factual way to explain the situation within the bounds of promoting their own beliefs). Here, however, the explanations of why things will or won’t be done in a certain way are done to “help legitimate the interests of a ruling group or class specifically by distortion and dissimulation.” At this point, it is not just that there are far more Hebrew-speaking widows that need to be attended to, but that in some way, these Hebrew widows should have priority because they are in Jerusalem after all: the center of Jewish culture! The powerful group begins to “naturalize” their reasoning as part of “the way things are.” When a set of ideas and beliefs become naturalized in this dominating way it becomes hard for one ensconced in this ideological perspective to imagine that anyone could think differently. This leads to the final definition.
Sadly, it gets worse. In Eagleton’s final definition, we find, “Blind Ideology.” This is defined as a perspective (ideology) that is so entrenched, that we don’t just see a set of beliefs or ideas as coming from our particular worldview but instead is the way the world is. Thus we are shocked when a close family member votes opposite how we did or has a view on a particular issue with which we are abhored. We cannot imagine how one could go against the “natural order of things” and vote in that way. In this ideology, we deceive others (and ourselves!) with a framework that enshrines our perspective as unquestioningly correct with no conversation needed. It is here that we begin to make enemies of each other and holiday meals get cancelled!
Being With the “Other”
One of the sad conclusions from these definitions is that when someone holds to a deeply engrained ideology that will inevitably contain some false information, one cannot simply be presented with true information and suddenly change. The person’s thoughts on the matter are not “simply a mistake.” Ideology shapes one’s perception of the world including their explanation of events unfolding around them. They do not see it as possible to hold together voting for the other candidate and being your friend. When we are deep in ideology, as the definition suggests, we are blind to our own blindness.
However, Eagleton here does not suggest we let people stay in their ideological strongholds. No, in a very balanced way he wants us to see that, while ideology is deeply formative and is hard to break, we should still put ourselves and our friends in contact with life experiences that might contradict our own or another perspective.
He offers the example of a person holding to the belief (ideology) that “all childless women are thwarted and embittered” and suggests that introducing this individual to many quite happy women who are childless may persuade this person to change their mind.
To put this in more pastoral and theological language, I might say that if we are going to be discipled out of our own ideologies and help others out of theirs, we are going to need to do what all Christians are called to do: be with the other. To love our enemies, to be hospitable to strangers, aliens, and those who are different than ourselves. To be cautious about standing on an issue before getting to know a person and to be diligent about listening, asking questions, and learning about others.
If we trust that Jesus Christ is truly Lord, we have nothing to fear in making space for others. As we sit around dinner tables this holiday season with those who are different from us, we may come away learning about others and ourselves in ways that might surprise us.
Terry Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction, New and updated ed. (London: Verso, 2007), 28-31.
Such a timely word. Thank you brother