Thread: Why is ideology like a prism?

Why is ideology like a prism?

Webster says a prism is “a medium that distorts, slants, or colors whatever is viewed through it”.

It appears to me that Marx was the first great thinker to have coined the word “ideology”. Ideology is a distinctive form of reasoning about the individual and about the individual in society. Ideology is a systematically biased mode of thinking. Ideologies vary extensively in so far as the idioms used, the extent of bias, the degree of sophistication, the manner in which bias permeates various aspects of theory, and so on.

While ideologies vary widely in certain aspects all ideologies share some common characteristics. An identifiable logical structure is shared by all. This structure includes: 1) a moral dimension, 2) it is biased toward a specific group and is biased against those out side this group, 3) an ideology cannot not directly defend it self because it rests on assumptions that have never been critically examined or even formulated, and 4) Marx believes these assumptions to be “nothing more than the intellectual ‘transcripts’ of the conditions of existence of the social group whose point of view it reflects”.

Like viewing the world through a prism, the ideologue experiences the world in a distorted manner. “What a man does not transcend in reality, he cannot effectively transcend in thought either. The limits of his existence are the limits of his thoughts. His basic assumptions are therefore ultimately nothing but his conditions of existence ‘reproduced’ in thought.”

Quotes from Marx’s Theory of Ideology Bhikhu Parekh

Ideology is like a prism because life imitates itself. Now if we can find that ideology imitates the prism in 7 different ways, now that would be interesting.

The word "ideology" comes to us from the French, and refers to the doctrines shared by a group of people. It has come to have a secondary, more narrow use applied to the doctrines of a group with political goals and the means by which those goals are put in operation. Anyone with a political sense has an ideology. Not because he belongs to a group (passive), but because he identifies with a group (active), and that can certainly be the result of careful thought and analysis.

Originally Posted by coberst

Why is ideology like a prism?

Webster says a prism is “a medium that distorts, slants, or colors whatever is viewed through it”.

It appears to me that Marx was the first great thinker to have coined the word “ideology”. Ideology is a distinctive form of reasoning about the individual and about the individual in society. Ideology is a systematically biased mode of thinking. Ideologies vary extensively in so far as the idioms used, the extent of bias, the degree of sophistication, the manner in which bias permeates various aspects of theory, and so on.

While ideologies vary widely in certain aspects all ideologies share some common characteristics. An identifiable logical structure is shared by all. This structure includes: 1) a moral dimension, 2) it is biased toward a specific group and is biased against those out side this group, 3) an ideology cannot not directly defend it self because it rests on assumptions that have never been critically examined or even formulated, and 4) Marx believes these assumptions to be “nothing more than the intellectual ‘transcripts’ of the conditions of existence of the social group whose point of view it reflects”.

Like viewing the world through a prism, the ideologue experiences the world in a distorted manner. “What a man does not transcend in reality, he cannot effectively transcend in thought either. The limits of his existence are the limits of his thoughts. His basic assumptions are therefore ultimately nothing but his conditions of existence ‘reproduced’ in thought.”

Quotes from Marx’s Theory of Ideology Bhikhu Parekh

I read this last paragraph, and I don't understand the point. Somewhere, somehow, mankind changes. Such an eminently obvious fact that we rise above our origins, our "limits", through the transcendence of thought seems so manifest in our lives, our histories, our science, our art. We moved out of the trees, out of the caves, out of the hovels by the rivers, and have spent nights on the moon and days spinning around the globe, all the while unable to transcend our limited existence?

Originally Posted by Guyker

The word "ideology" comes to us from the French, and refers to the doctrines shared by a group of people. It has come to have a secondary, more narrow use applied to the doctrines of a group with political goals and the means by which those goals are put in operation. Anyone with a political sense has an ideology. Not because he belongs to a group (passive), but because he identifies with a group (active), and that can certainly be the result of careful thought and analysis.

Human behavior is perplexing; especially so when it relates to human behavior when in a group.

I think that we are all ideologues who are often tremendously influenced by group psychology. It appears to me that our political affiliation is just one of the groups that tend to affect our behavior. We all are members of many ideological groups but there is one group which is dominant and we trim our other group allegiances to that dominate ideology.

I might be a Catholic, American, capitalist, gay rights, pro-choice, and Republican. All of these group affiliations must somehow exist under some dominant ideology. I think that seldom is our political affiliation the dominant ideology.

The animals in the swarm follow simple instinctual algorithms. There exists no management in the swarm and it is this fact that is the reason swarms are so effective.

It appears that group behavior is dominated by suggestibility and transference. Transference is what makes hypnotism possible.

Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

Ideologies are layered upon us as we grow from childhood on. We must become critically self-conscious in order to become conscious (focused) of them and then with that consciousness as a base we can begin a slow process of habit change to come to knowledge and understanding and thereby modify these forces. Of course all the while the present plutocratic forces are constantly ingraining other ideologies. We are faced with a constant effort and that is why we need a firm foundation in CT (Critical Thinking).

I think that we can look at this matter from two points of view. The individual finds comfort and security in belonging to a group. It is like the football fan that now lives in a city with a football team. The fan embraces that team and every thing it does is OK with the fan especially as long as it is winning. Then look at the matter from the view of the individual who recognizes this behavior and uses the group as a tool for his own interests.

Religion might be a useful example. Religion can be a great tool for those who know how to use it and religion can be a great comfort for the believer.

There is a fundamental difference between egocentric and sociocentric in that the ego is an apriori essence whereas the socio centric center is an idea created by another human. The group is a human construct with human purpose behind the construct.

Tradition Western thought holds the dichotomy of mind/body. Body is material substance whereas mind is a spiritual non material essence. Ideas are the result of that which is transcendent of material. The world is dominated by ideas especially theoretical thinking. Intellectual, moral, and artistic endeavors are spiritual in nature. And is the essence of humanity (according to Western tradition). These ideas can be analyzed without regard for the material existence of humanity.

Given this view the ideologue reifies (makes objects of these abstractions) ideas, which are the only legitimate objects of investigation. These abstract ideas which are now accepted as objects can be defined and manipulated by the source so as to cause the members to do whatever the source wishes.

Survival is the name of the game. "Ideas" are just what we dress our impulses up in for the prom, while we spend the rest of our time cruising for a quickie in the back seat.

Did the Paris mob storm the Bastille for ideas, or in hunger and rage? Did LBJ fund block grants to placate minorities and keep a lid on riots, or for ideas?

The "idea" that the world is dominated by ideas and not by action, needs way more bolstering from evidence than you've provided here.

Originally Posted by coberst

Human behavior is perplexing; especially so when it relates to human behavior when in a group.

I think that we are all ideologues who are often tremendously influenced by group psychology. It appears to me that our political affiliation is just one of the groups that tend to affect our behavior. We all are members of many ideological groups but there is one group which is dominant and we trim our other group allegiances to that dominate ideology.

I might be a Catholic, American, capitalist, gay rights, pro-choice, and Republican. All of these group affiliations must somehow exist under some dominant ideology. I think that seldom is our political affiliation the dominant ideology.

The animals in the swarm follow simple instinctual algorithms. There exists no management in the swarm and it is this fact that is the reason swarms are so effective.

It appears that group behavior is dominated by suggestibility and transference. Transference is what makes hypnotism possible.

Wo/man worships and fears power; we enthusiastically give our loyalty to our leader. Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.

Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient’s inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.

Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.

The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens. We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is “The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort.”

Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.

People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother. This is the force that acts to hold groups together, intertwined within a mutually constructed but often mindless interdependence. This mindless group think also builds a feeling of potency. The members feel a sense of unity within the grasp of their leadership.

‘Why are groups so blind and stupid?’ Freud asked; and he replied that mankind lived by self delusion. They “constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real.” The real world is too frightening to behold; delusion changes this by making sapiens seem important. This explains the terrible sadism we see in group activity.

Ideologies are layered upon us as we grow from childhood on. We must become critically self-conscious in order to become conscious (focused) of them and then with that consciousness as a base we can begin a slow process of habit change to come to knowledge and understanding and thereby modify these forces. Of course all the while the present plutocratic forces are constantly ingraining other ideologies. We are faced with a constant effort and that is why we need a firm foundation in CT (Critical Thinking).

I think that we can look at this matter from two points of view. The individual finds comfort and security in belonging to a group. It is like the football fan that now lives in a city with a football team. The fan embraces that team and every thing it does is OK with the fan especially as long as it is winning. Then look at the matter from the view of the individual who recognizes this behavior and uses the group as a tool for his own interests.

Religion might be a useful example. Religion can be a great tool for those who know how to use it and religion can be a great comfort for the believer.

There is a fundamental difference between egocentric and sociocentric in that the ego is an apriori essence whereas the socio centric center is an idea created by another human. The group is a human construct with human purpose behind the construct.

Tradition Western thought holds the dichotomy of mind/body. Body is material substance whereas mind is a spiritual non material essence. Ideas are the result of that which is transcendent of material. The world is dominated by ideas especially theoretical thinking. Intellectual, moral, and artistic endeavors are spiritual in nature. And is the essence of humanity (according to Western tradition). These ideas can be analyzed without regard for the material existence of humanity.

Given this view the ideologue reifies (makes objects of these abstractions) ideas, which are the only legitimate objects of investigation. These abstract ideas which are now accepted as objects can be defined and manipulated by the source so as to cause the members to do whatever the source wishes.

Wouldn't your definition of sadism as explained by group dynamics, get undermined by single perpetrators of sadistic acts, as well as by the vastly larger numbers of groups in vastly greater configurations which fail to act sadistically? Maybe I'm getting carried away by CT...

As for the notion that animals in a swarm have no management, it ain't so. While the management of the swarm is much less apparent, and somewhat less complicated than human society, it is indeed the very means by which we keep bees, and not only herd beasts but train other animals to assist us. Manipulation of the queen bee, of her replacements, by human and other agents reveals a hint of the social structure of survival. And that is only more so in humans. Of course, there is a mindless quality to much of what a mob does. But don't you think the individual in a mob is still capable of thinking, "Hey, I can get away with this act of looting, this kick to someone's vitals" and that, not hypnosis, is operative?

I think that President Bush often spoke the mantra of ideology "you are either with us or against us". This either/or view is the view of ideology. Because high tech has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people our species is in great danger.

Actually 'ideology is prison' may be a better metaphor than 'ideology is prism'.

Originally Posted by coberst

I think that President Bush often spoke the mantra of ideology "you are either with us or against us". This either/or view is the view of ideology. Because high tech has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people our species is in great danger.

Actually 'ideology is prison' may be a better metaphor than 'ideology is prism'.

No, it isn't the view of ideology. That is stretching the meaning of ideology backwards from ideologue--something quite different. In any event, the "with us/agin us" notion quite rightly has a place in human interaction. Bush was mistaken in applying it as he did, but there is definitely a point where an ally or friend has to close ranks in mutual support of mutual interests.

We probably are not agreeing in a clear definition and use of the word "ideology" and that is the root of where we differ. Ideology is a harmless word based on the doctrines in common with a group. It applies to any group. I feel you are being more narrow in your use, and applying it with the sense that it is a manipulative construct used by an ideologue or class to attain and hold power.

As for ideology being a prison, I think possibly. But it depends on the mindset of the individual in applying the values within that ideology. My ideology can have a place for mutual coexistence with dictators, or it can be rabidly intolerant of any opposing viewpoint, and I can be on board with every sinew and synapse, or somewhat on the fence with certain particulars. Nazism and fascism would be examples: in the 30's and 40's, they were prevailing ideologies of Germany and Italy--no problem finding adherents during that time, but since then, not so much.