A Post Ideological/Identitarian World
At some level every point of view can become ideology. The lynchpin in bad systems of thought is dogmatism, which can exist in any group or set of beliefs. Even if that system tends towards openness.
Dan Koe on Twitter wrote:
”Free thinkers don't call themselves free thinkers because that would mean it can be defined in a little box, therefore limited, and no longer free. Most "free thinking" is a belief or religion or ideology people preach so others think highly of them and conform.”
I would tend to agree with this, but the broader question then is: how does one define themselves or their thought? Is there a right way to do it?
People collect names and labels like stamps, each adding a piece to their sense of identity, their self-perception, as if what makes them “them” is an endpoint, whereas I see identity through the lens of how you think - a process. For most, however, identities are leveraged through groups - as if belonging to an ideological cadre is the true marker of success, of understanding itself, of being right. Because what is popular must be right.
Right?
There’s a philosophical issue at the heart of democracy that would basically espouse this to be true. The majority candidate wins. If you’re current vein of thought resides within the majority, you’re one of the cool kids. No further thought necessary. But I’m often drawn back to the old adage - what is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right. People understand this intellectually, and yet very few ever apply it to themselves. That lack of self awareness is the issue at hand in our politics today, and in our discourse.
It seems to me many people make claims without being able to even describe what they’re talking about, and usually do so on the basis of fixed identities, not reason. “Conversations” break down into people attempting to assert their view’s superiority over another, with no attempt to understand the other person’s perspective, or really even their own. Parrots, mimicking sounds and words, talking past each other, but understanding none of it.
Everyone believes they are right, and therefore our thoughts and society, never change. This is largely because people, at base, are social animals - we live and die by how we organize into groups, for self protection and communal betterment. It’s because people have fixed notions of self, and are intellectually dead. They’ve never attempted to define themselves for themselves, but always through the lens of of how others’ view them. This is why so many get offended when called out, despite the fact that we teach “sticks and stones may break my bones, yet words can never hurt me” to children. It would seem the “adults” in the room have yet to learn the lesson themselves.
Has anyone stopped to ask why there is a “Left” and a “Right” in the first place? Has anyone ever stopped themselves to question why they accept certain views as true? Or why one can only think politically on a limiting, horizontal line that was created by other fallible humans? Why most people are stuck arguing over 20th century economic views?
What I find funny is that an American “Liberal” is basically now just a “Leftist”, while the word liberal in a broader political context is actually about the notion of freedom - liberty - and the balance between “freedom from” and “freedom to” - and yet too often Leftists increasingly would use the power of government to curtail free speech, without a thought as to the long-term repercussions of conveying the power of what can be said in society to a government that can change hands.
At the same time, people on the Right call themselves “Conservative”, but never ask what exactly it is they want to conserve. As an interesting aside, the word “conserve” is at the root of “ecological conservation”, which tends to be a Leftist talking point politically. Everyone, no matter their affiliation, wants to conserve something. But in a like vein, the Right also attempts to ban speech by banning books, and passing laws about what people can and cannot say in classrooms, for example. They decry the tyranny of government, and yet use it’s power when expedient, at the cost of being consistent on their view of the uses of government.
It would appear to me that about 60% of the United States that identifies with either group is hypocritical. I would also argue that both sides are conservative when it comes to notions of identity and human nature, both bent of fixed points of view instead of dynamic change - which is the basis for all life, and inner and outer evolution. I would say either side seems to be willing to go against their own principles in the pursuit of cultural power, but they have no underlying principles for their beliefs in the first place. As I’ve gotten older, it’s very clear to me that age does not beget wisdom for most. Skepticism, humility and honesty do. And both Liberals and Conservatives carry out the very same selfishness and political power-plays that they pretend to hate.
Imagine a plank stuck both in a Conservative’s and Liberal’s eye, only to find that it’s attached in the middle, each forced to move when the other does. Does this not sound like a bad arrangement?
The loudest people on either side are often the least aware, and are the last people we should be listening to. And yet these are the voices that get amplified online. People are aware that fear and animosity sell clicks and views, and yet participate in this political doom spiral none the less, seeing their views as “right” or “superior”.
What’s interesting is that these problems have always existed, in every society. The Founding Fathers of the United States warned against such issues of faction, such as in Federalist Paper 10, in which this issue is described ad-nauseum. However people only ever think this issue applies to the other side. “If only people would think like I do”, say mortal enemies.
Meanwhile, most people do no research on topics that need serious discussion and nuance. “Platform politics” - a societal ill in which I could guess 95% of what you believe knowing nothing other than the party you vote for - is accepted wholesale. Both sides vastly generalize one another, dehumanize one another, at the cost of real conversation, connection and needed change. Many people have been led to believe that there’s a massive division in this country, usually by the media they consume, all of which is controlled by corporations who desperately want to avoid people realizing we’re all human, and have a lot more in common than we think.
While we’re “divided”, we can’t solve the issue of corporate money in our political system, or the vast pipeline of federal workers that find themselves later as comfy, corporate shills, or vice versa. Most policy is written and enacted in the interest of those who donate the most money to campaigns - which are becoming increasingly more expensive, making it harder for decent people, or independent minds, to run for office.
If most of us know this is the issue, then the bickering back in forth between people with no individual identity seems pointless. Much less, the best people suited for public life generally stay away from it for every reason above.
You can also frame this conversation through the lens of other factions - the attempt to pit men against women, “white people” against “people of color” - in which every human has pigment in their skin, the irreligious vs. the religious, etc. ad infinitum. Except all of these groups have a common root - their human nature, their innate self-awareness, and our vastly similar physical experience as people on a finite planet.
Every human on the planet is 99.99% genetically identical. And yet look at the diverse array of mental difference that can occur based on location and circumstance. It’s amazing to me to think that every human on the planet is a unique permutation of the universe we are sprung from, and yet when compared to everything outside our skin - we are vastly similar. We can hold both to be true, and in fact must do so, in order to be congruent with the reality of the world as it is. Different and yet the same.
At risk of calling people out (which I’ve certainly done in the above paragraphs), I’d argue most people are intellectually lazy. If you’re offended by this, then I’ve clearly struck a chord on what is your own insecurity around this topic. I won’t lie and say having an understanding of your own philosophies is easy, and most people just want to live their lives. But those people take for granted every effort that has come before them that enables their freedom to think for themselves, as meager as it may seem sometimes.
It might seem to be a given in our society that we’re free to speak our minds, that we can say what we want (without inciting direct harm). But I’d argue that our freedom has to be constantly safeguarded, and knowing history, must be protected from faction and from government as much as possible.
Instead of debates, we need to have “dialectics”, in which instead of one person attempting to prove they’re “right” with a fixed position, people instead are engaging with the purpose of getting closer to the truth, and being willing to change their minds given better arguments or evidence. We need to focus less on fixed identities, and more on process of thought. Another trite saying (but they’re often true): how you think is more important than what you think. Because how informs the what. Many people can echo these words, yet barely apply it to themselves.
I sincerely hope this finds people well, and I don’t apologize if I offended you. Maybe your anger should be self-directed instead, lest you offend yourself.