12 ms·
Why ideologies harm individuals
- hirundo 5y agoI think the Russell Conjugation is, I have principles, you have ideologies, they have dogmas. Clearly dogmas harm individuals. So do the wrong set of principles. But does anyone care to argue that we shouldn't have principles? We should have principles, and also ideologies and dogmas, because those are different spins on the same thing.
- visarga 5y agoThe problem is when some consider their ideas even more important than people's lives. Like, in Communism, you could get jailed or killed for disagreeing with the party. Same thing with the Inquisition.
- imwillofficial 5y agoThere are some ideas more important than lives. That’s why we fight wars.
- hammock 5y agoYour notion has a ring of truth and seems to be the strongest repudiation of this entire thread/post.
- andrewflnr 5y agoIs that why? Wars tend to be fought, ostensibly at least, in the principle that fighting them ends/ruins fewer lives than not fighting them, and at least in many cases for the purpose of resource acquisition. In any case, the mere fact that wars are sometimes fought does not begin to imply they're actually a good idea. So if you want to prove some ideas are more important than lives, rather than just that some people with power think so: try harder.
- pmarreck 5y agoAnd how many "just wars" were there, as objectively-reasoned as possible?
- PeterisP 5y agoInteresting, looking at history, I'm not sure if "That’s why we fight wars" is valid at all - perhaps in some exceptions, but almost always not. The dominant reason for fighting wars has always been accumulating power and wealth, enforcing control and removing threats, all kinds of practical political reasons. Often some ideas or ideologies were used to motivate people to support a war or to participate in it, but as a rule they were just a small part a reason for the war itself. For example, various religious conflicts in Europe almost always have very practical reasons for being started, and religious ideas being raised as an artificial justification and motivation; WW2 was not really fought over ideologies (even though it was often framed that way in propaganda), the allies would happily tolerate fascism and holocaust if Hitler had kept to his borders; and in modern times its obvious that people aren't willing to fight wars over ideas but are willing to do so for either minerals or internal fighting to see which "clan" will get to be in power.
- imtringued 5y agoWe mostly fight wars because of deflation (money is no longer circulating) or the inability to represent negative interest rates and a failed land ownership system. Once all people have a place to live in, equal access to resources and the ability to participate in the economy the average citizen doesn't want a war. Of course there are more reasons. Political independence is probably the second most common reason for a war but as you move down this list, the war becomes less and less justifiable. Also, nationalism is known for creating the bloodiest wars in recorded history, so be careful.
- imwillofficial 5y ago[flagged]
- hprotagonist 5y ago”And that's what your holy men discuss, is it?" [asked Granny Weatherwax.] "Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin, for example." [answered Mightily Oats.] "And what do they think? Agin’ it, are they?" "It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray." "Nope." "Pardon?" "There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is." "It's a lot more complicated than that--" "No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts." "Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--" "But they starts with thinking about people as things..." --Carpe Jugulum, by Terry Pratchett. when you get to thinking that your Idea is more important than people, tread really, really carefully. The ground under you isn’t as solid as you think. Usually the more desperately you find yourself wishing things like “if only those idiots would see the light then of course we could Solve Everything!!”, the less solid the ground becomes.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- foogazi 5y agoGreat passage > when you get to thinking that your Idea is more important than people, tread really, really carefully. Was just thinking about this yesterday as I was thinking of how the Catholic world went from Jesus’ principle of "Love thy neighbor" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to a full blown religious wars and the Inquisition Obviously people in power will use dogma to their benefit - but all the foot soldiers have is the cognitive dissonance between their orders and their dogma
- teluride5 5y agoIt's sad to see when individuals' view of history is reduced to snippets of propaganda. Educate yourself on the both sides of the story, or suffer the risk of having your thoughts be manifestations of someone else's consciousness.
- frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago>More significantly, ideologies satisfy the needs of groups, individual needs being secondary. Marx and Mannheim recognized this, underlining the class basis of ideology. I can't speak to Mannheim but aren't Marx's ideas about satisfying group AND individual needs? In that (simply) proles are oppressed the bourgeois and they eventually overthrow them to create a society of only one class. I don't think Marx ever imagined proles would group up behind Marxism to do something that was bad for them on an individual level, he thought enough of them would eventually realize that what was better for them as individuals was the same as what was better for them as a group and so they would do it. Anyways that's just a little specific nitpick but I think it gets at my broader problem with the piece, namely that Individualism is also an ideology, even if it's one that almost feels like air given how pervasive it is in society today. So to put an argument about 'ideology bad' while ignoring the one you're using to frame everything strikes me as a bit suspect.
- Thlom 5y agoAs Žižek says, everything is ideology. Even shit.
- acting-as-if 5y ago(Regie:) 'Not wise nor gods these modern slaves.' 'Controlled, altered, razed... ferventness, limits...' ( um you may enter your possible addiction to individual-ism now ) > (One asking:) 'Somebody surrounding "content-less"?' (Critics:) [Trolling]: 'It Probably may have been an more aestethic approach to not say anything by now...' (-;
- imtringued 5y agoI still don't understand how Marx thought that the "rentier" would simply vanish into thin air by nationalizing everything. What if the "rentier" is in power? Isn't that game over? >he thought enough of them would eventually realize that what was better for them as individuals was the same as what was better for them as a group and so they would do it. Isn't that literally every ideology ever? Even authoritarian rulers that exploit their people think that exploitation is justified for the greater good.
- SavantIdiot 5y agoThis article is a good summary, but I think it still doesn't drive home the point. I didn't really grasp ideology until I watched (don't wince) Slavoj Zizek's "The Pervert's Guide to Ideology." I understood the textbook version of the word, but seeing it explained over and over in multiple film contexts and then calling that back to history really drove home the point: how ideologies are an effective tool in manipulating humans. I highly recommend this film even though it is popular to both adore Zizek and dunk on him (like all people he has his faults).
- mrxd 5y agoZizek’s argument is that cynicism is the prevailing form of “ideology”. Cynicism is a position of doubt, skepticism, seeing through illusions, knowing better than the deluded masses. The view that everyone is manipulated while only you see the truth is the ultimate ideological position because it presupposes a neutral and objective position. The linked article falls into this trap. It sees through “ideology” - meaning political theory - on the grounds that it oppresses the individual. The problem is that this itself a political ideology.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago> The view that everyone is manipulated while only you see the truth is the ultimate ideological position Except Zizek never claims that. Not everyone is claiming "only I see the truth and you are a sheep". Some of us are claiming we are all being manipulated and need to be aware: ourselves included. I think it is disingenuous for you to make that straw-man, to claim people who say ideology is harmful somehow think they are better than everyone else because only they see the truth. That only serves to put a spotlight on your own personal axe to grind.
- mrxd 5y agoIf you remember from the documentary the analysis of the movie They Live, the protagonist puts on the glasses in order to see the truth. For Zizek, the putting on (not taking off) of the glasses is crucial. It is specifically not a gesture of unmasking: “The key feature here is that to see the true nature of things, we need the glasses: it is not that we should put ideological glasses off to see directly reality as it is”: we are “naturally” in ideology, our natural, immediate, sight is ideological.” https://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=397 https://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=397
- javajosh 5y agoThis association between "micro aggression" and "reverse cognitive behavioral therapy" seems pretty accurate to me. I made up a game a couple of years ago called "Take it Personal", which is played between two people and in turn each person makes a statement, and it must express outrage about the last thing said. If you don't express outrage, you lose. There is always a path to outrage. It is an unpleasant game, but instructive.
- fellowniusmonk 5y agoI would love for this to be an actual game.
- erikerikson 5y agoAs an official member of the actual game declarers consortium... I must ask with what authority you deign make such an informal game classification! Join a council for goodness sake! Please accept my condolences at your loss of this round.
- rootusrootus 5y agoHow dare you sully the sanctity of the HN comment section with such a frivolous game!
- DarylZero 5y agoYes, and generally we must give cover to the aggressors because we need them on our side. Cognitive behavioral therapy is about adjusting the individual to society's demands. The individual must be made to tolerate indignity.
- johnNumen 5y agoThe author seems bright and I'm sure he realizes this, but it is of course true that (what I assume to be) the premise of his article--that individual thriving is most important--is itself a core component of modern liberal ideology.
- tablespoon 5y ago> The author seems bright and I'm sure he realizes this, but it is of course true that (what I assume to be) the premise of his article--that individual thriving is most important--is itself a core component of modern liberal ideology. Yeah, exactly. Ideology is baked into pretty much everything, so when you try to get away from it, you end up just finding the ideology that's so core to you that you don't even (fully) realize what it is. The other thing to watch out for is people who push "non-ideological" solutions. They're usually just trying to bake their own ideology into that unexamined part of your brain.
- oroul 5y ago> Ideology is inescapable. To some extent, everyone is under its influence. But that does not mean that all are equally ideological The author makes this point very plainly. The 'well it's all ideology anyway' take is reductive and uses relativism to (poorly) justify people supporting ideas that are harmful to both themselves and to society. In the same way that acknowledging that human conflict is inevitable doesn't justify violence, the existence of ideology doesn't justify structuring one's entire life around it.
- beaconstudios 5y agoBut liberal humanism /is/ an ideology and denying that gets you further from the truth. You can accept that as your ideology or you can say "actually this is just factual reality" but then you're being a closed-eyes ideologue just like the author. It's OK to be ideological because ideology is just the axioms you choose. If you think that equality is good or bad (in some specific situation like access to resources) that's an ideological stance. There's no "non ideological" position. Of course there are better or worse ideologues (and blind ideologues tend to be the most insufferable because they believe they're non ideological but turn out to just be neoliberals), but nobody is non ideological.
- xhevahir 5y agoTerry Eagleton: "...nobody would claim that their own thinking was ideological, just as nobody would habitually refer to themselves as Fatso. Ideology, like halitosis, is in this sense what the other person has."
- andrewmcwatters 5y ago
- betwixthewires 5y ago
- andrewmcwatters 5y ago
- pmarreck 5y ago
- andrewclunn 5y agoYou're totally right. This article is garbage. It fails to do anything to identify the differences between ideologies or a meta framework by which we can evaluated them. It assumes all ideologies work at a group level, when emergence and applied meme theory would suggest that the individual carries the ideas (in the same way that evolution only acts on groups through the genes of individuals). Some ideologies spread parasitically, and other symbiotically, but this article makes no distinction between the two, or has any grasp of the underlying "hows" of ideology. It's pseudo intellectual clap trap for the "oh I'm so smart" person who dominates downvoting, simple coherent comments such as yours because they're not capable of identifying the simple flaws in this piece's rhetoric.
- andrewmcwatters 5y ago
- dang 5y agoPlease stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN, and please don't perpetuate flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- version_five 5y agoJust thinking, ideologies are mostly just what people invoke when they want to get their way. There are far more unprincipled opportunists than ideologues from what I've seen. In politics for example, we have leaders and challengers jumping on trends to try and divide people, get support, and get elected. We have vanishingly fewer principled actors involved (at least in outward behavior) who are choosing their political positions based on some defined ideology. There is always some loose alignment (left/right) but at least imo these have completely strayed from any original meaning or principles around liberal or conservative and are more like two positions defined as the opposite or each others designed as poles voters can be rallied around. I'd argue the same is true in most kinds of activism, it's rarely principled, and more defined by some broad dislike of something that eventually causes some ideological principles to get parroted as justification. All that to say, I think some ideology might be welcome
- fallingfrog 5y agoClaiming to not have any ideology is itself an ideology, but it’s a very dishonest one as it masquerades as absolute objectively. Sorry but you’re a human being like the rest of us, you see the world through the lens of the culture you’re marinating in, and the most honest position is to accept that as a starting point.
- Rd6n6 5y agoI guess somebody should point out that “the primacy of individuals and/or the self” is itself an ideology. Maybe the author only means certain ideologies Is a better title: “ideologies involving self-sacrifice involve self-sacrifice”? This revised title is admittedly less striking than the original
- fallingfrog 5y agoI think this quote best sums up how I feel about this: “I already am eating from the trash can all the time. The name of this trash can is ideology. The material force of ideology makes me not see what I am effectively eating. It’s not only our reality which enslaves us- the tragedy of our predicament when we are within ideology is that when we think that we escape it into our dreams, at that point we are the most within ideology.” Slavoj zizek
- lordnacho 5y agoI think you can pick on some of the specific points in the essay, but the large picture is basically right. You can often tell you're in an ideological debate when the same old points are trotted out over and over. Tax is theft, capitalism is oppression, that kind of stuff. When you talked to a person who has bought in, they always have an answer to everything, and it's the same rehearsed answer squished into whatever thing you're discussing each time: doing X reduces my freedom, having to do Y is the capitalists bullying everyone. The thing that ideology really buys you is a complete weltanschauung. That in itself is dangerous. If you don't have any doubts about what you're thinking, you'll never change it. In fact, you won't even be thinking, just repeating, like times tables. Your fellow travelers will congratulate you when you make a comment they like, but it's like learning a playbook. It simply won't occur to you that you might be wrong, or that other people might have legitimate views. The only way to wean yourself off this sort of non-thinking is to try to seek discomfort. I try to not label my thinking with common labels like capitalism, libertarianism, communism, and so on. Those words tend to mean a wide variety of things to people that they often can't articulate, and once you identify with them you'll be held to account for views that other people think you have that they nonetheless cannot fully explain. You yourself will not be able to fully explain them either, because intellectual history is pretty big and you can't cover everything. I try to just address whatever issue is at hand without tying it to a big idea that will then end up being the source of a stream of what-abouts.
- DarylZero 5y ago> it's the same rehearsed answer squished into whatever thing you're discussing It's a meme! It still may be it comes up at the relevant time and says the right thing for that time. > If you don't have any doubts about what you're thinking, you'll never change it. You're presuming there always has to be something more to think about. That isn't so. > In fact, you won't even be thinking, just repeating, like times tables The times table is an example of where you don't need to keep thinking.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nitrogen 5y agoThere are a lot of comments saying that "avoiding ideology is an ideology" or "preferring individuals over groups is an ideology." These aren't very interesting observations, they don't match the contextual defenition of "ideology" we can infer from the author's usage, and they don't really move the discussion forward. This quote (ignoring the appeal to a desire to be part of the "thinking people" group) is a more interesting point, in my reading, and I'd like to see more discussion about this: > Ideology is inescapable. To some extent, everyone is under its influence. But that does not mean that all are equally ideological; thinking people can adopt flexible stances, mixing traditions. Given the imperfections of ideology, I prefer this approach. It's the "flexible stances, mixing traditions" part that is interesting here. 10-20 years ago, at least in the US, I recall reading that "independent" was the fastest growing political alignment. How did the polarizing elements of society break that trend, and how can a diversity of ideas be restored?
- droptablemain 5y ago"Independent" is a rather vague term. Usually in the U.S. it means that one does not align with either of the approved dominant parties. So an "independent" may very well be a libertarian or a communist, ideologically speaking.
- nitrogen 5y agoSure, but as I quoted, "It's the "flexible stances, mixing traditions" part that is interesting here. Why don't we see more of that?
- droptablemain 5y agoMy perspective is that the Overton window for politics in the U.S. is very narrowly defined between what I would consider to be two center-right parties, economically speaking. If you had more of a political spectrum of representation/viability, then you'd probably see more political diversity as you do in many parliamentary governments around the world. There does seem to be more of this emerging in the U.S., although it's still in very small pockets -- for example, you will find some socialist groups that intermix aspects of social conservatism or traditionalism with leftist economics.
- goodpoint 5y agoThis article is full of statement unsupported by evidence. > Ideologies are associated with cognitive dissonance. This occurs when individuals hold conflicting beliefs, causing discomfort and motivating changes which reduce the dissonance. This statement confuses ideas/ideals with cognitive bias. > psychologists warn against narratives which emphasize threats and remove control from individuals. What about all the ideas around removing existential threats to individuals or societies?
- popilewiz 5y ago
- bjornsing 5y agoI don’t know… Ideologies differ greatly in how much emphasis they place on the collective vs the individual. Bundling Stalinism with liberalism and saying “both are bad for the individual” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
- imtringued 5y agoI would argue that conventional implementations of both are bad for the individual.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoIt just so happens that Wiley just released a new Non Sequitur, that addresses this very topic: https://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2022/01/16 https://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2022/01/16
- more_corn 5y agoIdeology just means belief system. Everyone has one. It’d be impossible for a person to not have one. This is like saying “physics harms people”.