essay about ideology

23-May-2024

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years.

— Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

Ideology: The Basics
It is increasingly evident that our world grapples with a profound form of illiteracy. This is not the traditional illiteracy associated with the inability to read or write, but a more insidious deficiency—the inability to engage in thoughtful conversations with those you disagree with. The prevalence of ideology serves as a barometer for this alarming illiteracy, saturating our interactions and shaping our beliefs in ways often imperceptible. Numerous definitions of ideology exist, from those as simple as “the collection of beliefs” to the more technical Marxist interpretations. I will not provide or conform to a specific definition of ideology. The engineering of a definition is Sisyphean as there will always be edge cases. Despite the lack of a provided definition, I trust that the reader will understand what concept of ideology I refer to. The purpose of this essay is not to argue a robust framework for what ideology is, but to underline how ideology perverts modern lines of reasoning. I implore readers to disregard the potential disagreement in examples and focus on the substantive critiques I outline—I believe them applicable regardless of what definition of “ideology” one subscribes to.

While people exist in a world of unparalleled connection, a common observation is that we are more isolated than ever. People avoid conflict, only associating with like-minded individuals and forming echo chambers. An echo chamber is a social epistemic structure where those inside purposefully ignore contrary perspectives. Humans—with our constant desire for consensus and fear of disagreement—experience groupthink. Those who disagree with the expressed prevailing opinion avoid confrontation by remaining silent. Their silence is mistaken for complete agreement, and all members move on believing there is no rebuke to the “majority” opinion. In tandem, since individuals are seemingly exclusively surrounded by those who agree, they are only exposed to new arguments supporting their initial leanings and shielded from rebuttals. As they hear more supporting evidence and as they become more confident from their peers, their views become more extreme and exaggerated. This phenomenon is known as group shift—an explanation for how groups self-radicalize and become ideologues. With modern methods of communication, people no longer need to interact with those they disagree with. Algorithms curate the content consumed to be agreeable to our tastes, and if those around us disagree, we can escape to niche agreeable forums online. The result is the mass production and promulgation of increasingly prominent ideologues. The absence of true understanding and the prevalence of preconceived notions create a breeding ground for misinformation, misinterpretation, and ultimately, the erosion of meaningful communication. An imperative step toward restoring the art of genuine conversation is to recognize ideology—often entrenched in modern reasoning—and its dangerous consequences.

Religion Gone Wrong
Religion provides people with structure in thought and meaning in the world. In the late 19th century, Nietzsche fearfully announced, “God is dead,” and predicted a rise in nihilism followed by identification with ideology. Ideology—human constructions and ideas—would substitute the structure previously inhabited by the transcendent. Ideology is broken religion. It functions as a replacement for God à la the Old Testament conception of “idols.” Ideologues are all worshippers of a small number of gods—axioms and foundational beliefs that must be accepted rather than proven before the belief system can be adopted (for example, “individual property rights are a boon for society writ large” for fiscal conservatives). When accepted and applied to the world, these “gods” provide ideologues an illusion of understanding.

Ideology and religion differ in that the latter’s explanatory power is limited. The center of morality within Abrahamic religion—God—remains outside and above complete understanding. Thus, some boundaries for the religious claims to righteousness and power exist. For the ideologue, nothing remains outside understanding or mastery. Ideology explains everything: past, present, and future. Unlike the self-consistent fundamentalist, an ideologue can believe they have the complete truth. This belief entails the worst excesses of pride and deceit: ideologues believe they have the truth others are ignorant of. Once their ideology fails to explain the world or predict its future—which it inevitably will—they often resort to deceit, obscuring the truth to maintain their believed understanding. The ideologues’ self-righteous moral claims are just as destructive to productive dialogue as the fundamentalist but seldom challenged.

On the Inside: Echo Chambers
Echo chambers emerge from the web of ideology, with those within distrusting all sources that dispute their respective narrative. They undergo groupthink and group shift, self-radicalizing and rigorously conforming to the "majority" opinion. My focus is not on these mechanisms or how ideology heightens the chance of echo chambers forming; I believe those incidents are already well-documented or self-evident. However, I have yet to read an exploration of how intensely ideology warps echo chambers. While ideology does influence the facts and narratives promulgated throughout echo chambers, its control exerts a more substantial impact than many realize on how people communicate. Language—in word choice and meaning—is reshaped by ideology.

In echo chambers, facts are readily accepted or dismissed depending on their relationship to the central ideological narrative. Consider the recent reporting of the Israeli/Hamas hospital “bombing.” The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal cited Palestinian officials and reported an Israeli airstrike killed 500 people at a Gaza hospital.¹ The reaction from opponents of Israel² on social media was instantaneous and ferocious. Hasan Piker³—a self-described leftist opponent of Israel and extraordinarily popular political streamer—posted on X, “IDF bombs the Baptist hospital, death toll at 500 in single worst strike so far, UN school also hit.”⁴ Later, as it became clear that a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket misfire caused the hospital blast, the media slowly issued corrections. Piker responded to a fan questioning his original reporting: “I AM LOSING MY MIND ISRAEL HAS BEEN BOMBING GAZA AND HAS SHUT OFF WATER POWER AND FOOD INTO GAZA FOR THE PAST 10 DAYS, THEYVE KILLED 4200PPL, 1000+ ARE CHILDREN. THIS LAST BOMBING IS STILL NOT INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED, BUT EVEN IF IT IS PIJ, IT WOULD MAKE UP A FRACTION OF THE TOLL.”⁵

In part, ideology explains Piker’s dramatic shift in tone and demeanor. He readily accepts the initial reporting of an “Israeli attack” without substantiation but requires independent verification to absolve Israel. For the ideologue, admitting error in a specific instance may weaken their overall ideological position. As such, they frequently respond defensively or dismissively, even if the contrary evidence is compelling or credible. They may disregard contradictory information to maintain the appearance of consistency or neglect their usual convictions based on their personal affinity or aversion for those involved. These are all common occurrences. Once recognized, they become ubiquitous. I recently attended a lecture titled “The Battle to Preserve Academic Freedom in Florida and the Nation.” I thought the message was critical but was distracted by the overt ideological underpinnings; the lecturer described the “alleged” fentanyl in George Floyd’s system at his death when the presence of fentanyl is a documented fact in the autopsy reports, amongst other similar transgressions.⁶ Further examples are bountiful; the first few that spring to mind are those treating Donald Trump’s mishandling of classified documents as a unique crime while ignoring Joe Biden’s similar mishandling of classified documents, or conservative pundits (self-described free speech advocates) celebrating law firms rescinding a job offer to an NYU law student for “inflammatory comments” on Hamas. These are hallmarks of an ideologue: malleable ethics and endless justifications, accepting breaches of principle only when they align with their ideology.

Cult Lingo
Ideology modifies the definitions of specific words within echo chambers. Language serves as the primary means people convey their thoughts; a shared dialect is indicative of tribal allegiance. It is for this reason that ideologues speak distinct dialects with unique definitions and applications of words. These modifications undermine communication with those outside the ideological tribe but subtly signal their group membership. Within conservative circles, the word “liberal” functions as an insult. Of course, when members within these groups say “liberal,” they are not referring to the dictionary definition. Rather, they refer to second-order attributes they implicitly connect to their stereotypical liberal: weak, lazy, immoral, etc.⁷ Similarly, liberals use the word “conservative” as an insult devoid of its dictionary definition. Within these circles, “conservative” is isomorphic to racist, bigot, ignorant, etc.⁸ These redefinitions make discussions across political aisles complicated and murky. The seemingly innocuous questions “Are you a conservative?” from a liberal or “Are you a liberal?” from a conservative are ambiguous, with numerous implications that the questionee may not agree with. The true question posed is “Are you the enemy, however I may define that?”

The same principle is at the root of ideological slogans such as “Black Lives Matter” and “From the River to the Sea.” These phrases were/are chanted at their respective rallies and by supporters to demonstrate their commitment to the “cause.” However, these slogans are semantically overloaded. The ideologue will never see an issue with chanting their slogan—to be an ideologue is to believe your slogan of choice simply means “correct”—but for others, the meaning of the slogan is not so obviously correct. Set aside personal considerations and focus on the slogan “Black Lives Matter.” It has the literal interpretation of the lives of black people mattering, but it could also be interpreted as a statement of support for the “2020 riots.”⁹ Imagine a hypothetical person who believes that the lives of African Americans matter, but also staunchly opposes rioting—how can this person respond in good conscience if he is asked to repeat the slogan?¹⁰ “From the River to the Sea” is a slogan constantly chanted at Palestinian demonstrations; the literal interpretation calls for Palestinian control from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Perhaps it is naiveté, but I am under the impression that most people are ignorantly enamored by their quixotic vision of “resistance.” They chant “From the River to the Sea” to indicate how supportive they are of “the oppressed” but do not necessarily support the abolition of an Israeli state as the slogan suggests.

This conflation, similar to what occurred with “Black Lives Matter,” works to the advantage of the ideologue and harms all others. Those who refuse to chant slogans are easily labeled as dissidents and those who do chant the slogans are allies. Do not question the slogan, do not question the ideology. Simply accept that it is correct—that you stand on the right side of history. If you question the specific nuances encapsulated by broad verbal platitudes, you are the enemy. Slogans, in this sense, are concentrated manifestations of ideology. It demands homogeneity and obliterates nuance. There is no reaction to a slogan besides agreement or non-agreement.¹¹ To take complicated issues and reduce them to meaningless catchphrases that inform nothing but tribalism is the ideologue’s dream. A functional binary is instilled: “Do you agree with my slogan of choice, or not?”

What Now?
Beware of those who blame one factor for complex problems.¹² The temptation is attractive: simplicity, ease, and the illusion of mastery. However, these benefits are fleeting. Large-scale nebulous goals—such as “fight patriarchy,” “save the environment,” or “reduce government debt”—often rely on blaming a single factor and are functionally worthless.¹³ They lack the necessary detail, providing no actionable steps or plans to reach these goals. These axioms function as gods for the ideological possessed, complete with requirements to repent and proselytize.

Instead, of large Earth-shattering problems, conceptualize issues at a scale that is solvable—not by blaming others, but by trying to solve them personally while simultaneously taking responsibility for the outcome. If we look for them, our flaws are plentiful and could be addressed to our great benefit. Real life is not a children’s story where characters are simply divided into those who are good and those who are evil. Within all people is the capacity for good and evil—the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. We must wrestle with this line, to ensure that we remain on the path of truth in good conscience. We must abandon ideology and embrace humility.