Identity By Ideology

[rocketman]

You are simply wrong here; there was plenty of ideology - even if it was so well accepted that it wasn't recognized as such. The American Dream, Puritan Work Ethics, Patriotism, and the ideologies of Freedom and Prosperity. And when we went to war, we waged war in the name of Freedom & Prosperity - to topple dictators and establish freedom and the free market!

It is true that we didn't initially engage in the World Wars for the purpose of spreading our ideologies; but that doesn't mean they weren't there, being used as propaganda to enlist the people. Furthermore, American Ideology also played a HUGE factor in the Cold War, in the tension and animosity between America and Soviet Russia.



This depends upon the ideology & the individual in question. If one believes that disagreement with their beliefs is some kind of heresy worthy of death - then yes you are going to get this kind of extremism. Or if the ideology simply labels various groups as outright evil that needs to be purged, etc. In other words, if the ideology is extremist you will see these kinds of behaviors.

However, just because someone holds to an ideology - that is to say, they hold certain principles, beliefs, and values as important and thereby define who they are - does not mean that you will see this behavior. A Christian, for instance, who actually holds to the teachings of the scriptures, is not going to display hate and bigotry. Instead, they will love their enemy.



And there you go - ideology: you just fail to recognize it as such.

This is really just another stellar post csuguy, I owe you some rep...:thumb:

Given that you say in your affiliation that you are "more left than right" I would concede that we are opposing in our ideological viewpoints or at least to some degree but, I have to applaud your astute observation and intellectual honesty when you describe the ideological differences that have always been part of mankind. I think purex is trying to promote a "can't we all just get along" ideology without knowing that his viewpoint is in itself an ideology. :chuckle: Though it may be noble it is absolutely absurd, being we can see that ideology has been with humankind since the beginning and surely will not just go away...it is part of who we are as human beings. Great post again.

 

[patrick jane]

i have commented somewhat on what purex said. i don't think he's saying - let's all get along. - it's labeling and/or defining people and things in a few words. there is so much information coming at us at all times, our minds tend to sum things up quicker these days, assumptions and general assessments are easier. we can just shrug things off and dismiss things outright, and justify it with a quick phrase or label. all too common now. no time for anything else. we're all doing it right now !

 

[csuguy]

This is really just another stellar post csuguy, I owe you some rep...:thumb:

Given that you say in your affiliation that you are "more left than right" I would concede that we are opposing in our ideological viewpoints or at least to some degree but, I have to applaud your astute observation and intellectual honesty when you describe the ideological differences that have always been part of mankind. I think purex is trying to promote a "can't we all just get along" ideology without knowing that his viewpoint is in itself an ideology. :chuckle: Though it may be noble it is absolutely absurd, being we can see that ideology has been with humankind since the beginning and surely will not just go away...it is part of who we are as human beings. Great post again.

Thanks

Politically I'd like to be "None" or "Other" - but the Admins didn't provide such an option for some reason. As far as I'm concerned both the right and left are corrupt. Even where the rhetoric is right, or close to it, they don't live up to it.

 

[rocketman]

Thanks

Politically I'd like to be "None" or "Other" - but the Admins didn't provide such an option for some reason. As far as I'm concerned both the right and left are corrupt. Even where the rhetoric is right, or close to it, they don't live up to it.

That is pretty much the deal, the actions to back up the rhetoric just is not there.

 

[PureX]

Defensive for us (the U.S.) maybe but, make no mistake Hitler was posing an ideology as was Stalin, and Tojo so, in a sense it was ideological from the standpoint that we were repelling/defending ourselves from an ideology that we were not willing to concede to by force. It seems your view of ideologies is rather tunnel visioned purex, or at least you are wearing blinders to the entire nature of conflicting ideologies in general. They are, and always have been there if you take the time to investigate.

You are missing the whole point of the OP, and the thread. I'm not discussing the existence of ideology. I'm discussing the phenomena of people who adopt their ideology as the defining factor of their identity. People used to define themselves by what they did in life. Now many are defining themselves by what ideology they adhere to. Can you understand the difference? Sorry if I was misleading in my attempt to explain my observations.

I can't personally remember, in almost 60 years of my life, Americans doing this to the degree in which people are doing this, today. And historically, I don't believe it's happened in the U.S. since, maybe, the Civil War.

 

[PureX]

… And there you go - ideology: you just fail to recognize it as such.

You are completely missing the point of the OP and of the thread. It's not about the existence of ideology. It's about Americans identifying themselves by the ideology they subscribe to. Can you understand that there is a difference?

In the past, a man would be likely to think of himself as a bus driver, and a father, and a husband. His ideology didn't enter into his idea of himself as a primarily condition. Now days he's more likely to think of himself as a representative of some religious or political or social ideology first and foremost, and as a bus driver, father and husband secondarily. This is a significant cultural change that's occurred in the last 25 years or so. And it's dividing us as a people, and as a nation.

This is the subject of the OP and of the thread. Not that ideology does or does not exist. I'm sorry if I was misleading in my attempt to explain my observations.

 

[PureX]

Thanks

Politically I'd like to be "None" or "Other" - but the Admins didn't provide such an option for some reason.

The fact that those aren't options is an example of what I'm writing about.

 

[patrick jane]

You are completely missing the point of the OP and of the thread. It's not about the existence of ideology. It's about Americans identifying themselves by the ideology they subscribe to. Can you understand that there is a difference?

In the past, a man would be likely to think of himself as a bus driver, and a father, and a husband. His ideology didn't enter into his idea of himself as a primarily condition. Now days he's more likely to think of himself as a representative of some religious or political or social ideology first and foremost, and as a bus driver, father and husband secondarily. This is a significant cultural change that's occurred in the last 25 years or so. And it's dividing us as a people, and as a nation.

This is the subject of the OP and of the thread. Not that ideology does or does not exist. I'm sorry if I was misleading in my attempt to explain my observations.

i get what ur saying purex. maybe people feel better or more important, if they first state their core belief or faith. or even their political or social affiliations. people put more emphasis on their agenda. things change. times change. i'm 45 so i'm kinda in between. my earlier post may sum it up better

 

[csuguy]

You are completely missing the point of the OP and of the thread. It's not about the existence of ideology. It's about Americans identifying themselves by the ideology they subscribe to. Can you understand that there is a difference?

In the past, a man would be likely to think of himself as a bus driver, and a father, and a husband. His ideology didn't enter into his idea of himself as a primarily condition. Now days he's more likely to think of himself as a representative of some religious or political or social ideology first and foremost, and as a bus driver, father and husband secondarily. This is a significant cultural change that's occurred in the last 25 years or so. And it's tearing the country apart.

This is the subject of the OP and of the thread. Not that ideology does or does not exist. I'm sorry if I was misleading in my attempt to explain my observations.

You are making an error by separating ideologies from action here; one acts in accordance with the beliefs and values that they hold dear. If someone claims to believe/value something but doesn't act accordingly - then it really isn't important to them.

Your father might not have been terribly religious/political, but rest assured he had some set of beliefs/values that guided him. The way you describe him: he was a simple man who valued his family. He valued you-all and so he made the effort to take care of you-all.

That is all anyone does - they act in accordance with the beliefs and values that they hold dear. And when one person threatens whatever is valued by another, conflict arises. More likely than not, your father would have killed to protect you-all if the need had arose.

At any rate, the problem is not that people have ideologies - you and your father had/have ideologies even if you fail to recognize them as such. Rather, the reason there is so much tension is due to the fact that the ideologies held by citizens are so much more conflicting than they once were. Just look at this presidency: it is defined by the branches of government fighting against each other so that nothing can get done.

We aren't united as we once were - the interests of the people are divided. This is exacerbated by the steady decline of the middle-class and the ever-growing divide between the upper and lower classes. It is the same pattern as seen throughout history: the one's who have lots decide to take even more from those who have nothing. Eventually a line is crossed and the people decide enough is enough.

 

[PureX]

You are making an error by separating ideologies from action here; one acts in accordance with the beliefs and values that they hold dear. If someone claims to believe/value something but doesn't act accordingly - then it really isn't important to them.

No, you're right, it wasn't that important to people in the past. That's my point. What used to be important to a man was being a contributing member of society by working every day, being a father and a husband by providing for his family, being a good son or brother or friend. And because this is how one spent his days, this is who he saw himself as being.

Ideology was secondary. It did not define us as human beings. Our humanity defined us as human beings.

But now days ideology is over-riding our humanity, and even our idea of who we are as individuals. We have become obsessed with it.

Your father might not have been terribly religious/political, but rest assured he had some set of beliefs/values that guided him. The way you describe him: he was a simple man who valued his family. He valued you-all and so he made the effort to take care of you-all.

That is all anyone does - they act in accordance with the beliefs and values that they hold dear. And when one person threatens whatever is valued by another, conflict arises. More likely than not, your father would have killed to protect you-all if the need had arose.

Yes, but because my dad was not an ideologue, he understood that when someone else disagreed with him, they were not "attacking his family", or "attacking his religion", or "attacking his way of life". He understood that they were just people who believed differently. And because ideology was not the lens through which he perceived everything, their ideological differences didn't concern him much.

At any rate, the problem is not that people have ideologies - you and your father had/have ideologies even if you fail to recognize them as such. Rather, the reason there is so much tension is due to the fact that the ideologies held by citizens are so much more conflicting than they once were.

I don't think they are. I don't believe people's ideologies in the past were any more homogenous than they are, now. I just think we have become so personally identified with our ideologies that we can't tolerate the idea or existence of dissent. We take the rejection of our ideology as an attack on ourselves, as if our ideology and ourselves are one and the same. Because we have become 'ideologues'. We see ourselves as manifestations of our ideology, and therefor we see everyone else that way, too.

We aren't united as we once were - the interests of the people are divided. This is exacerbated by the steady decline of the middle-class and the ever-growing divide between the upper and lower classes. It is the same pattern as seen throughout history: the one's who have lots decide to take even more from those who have nothing. Eventually a line is crossed and the people decide enough is enough.

Yes, greed festers and becomes criminal while we're all busy bickering over the righteousness of our ideology. I understand why the criminal elite foster all this ideological bickering to the degree that they can. I just don't understand why it's working. I don't understand why so many of us are becoming obsessed with ideology when we should easily be able to see that it is being fostered and used against us by a criminal elite. And when it should be easy for us to see that our doing so is tearing everything we hold dear (family, community, and country) apart.

 

[TomO]

"It's not that I condone fascism or any 'ism' for that matter. Ism's, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an 'ism,' he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: 'I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me.' A good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off of people."
~Ferris Bueller's Day Off, 1986

 

[chrysostom]

it looks like purex is just talking about himself

 

[Aimiel]

A man IS identified by the thoughts and intents of his heart:

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

God doesn't look at our accomplishments, He looks deeper:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[Quincy]

You are missing the whole point of the OP, and the thread. I'm not discussing the existence of ideology. I'm discussing the phenomena of people who adopt their ideology as the defining factor of their identity. People used to define themselves by what they did in life. Now many are defining themselves by what ideology they adhere to. Can you understand the difference? Sorry if I was misleading in my attempt to explain my observations.

I can't personally remember, in almost 60 years of my life, Americans doing this to the degree in which people are doing this, today. And historically, I don't believe it's happened in the U.S. since, maybe, the Civil War.

I agree with you that categorization among idealists is higher than it's been in anyone alive's lifetime. There are groups of Americans who see themselves more as representative of a label than an individual. It's not as pervasive as the internet or media would make it seem though. Only 57% of Americans voted in the last presidential election and that one was a very important one. So yea, lots of idealists are taking sides but I think most people here are not ideologues.

 

[PureX]

I'd say the increase in the news media's reach due to the 24/7 news cycle has been the biggest player in this. People are divided over ideology because they witness people on TV argue and belittle each other over labels. Every single segment of a newscast is full of labels where one group demonizes the other in a game for the biggest ratings. How do you create enough content for a 24/7 news channel? You flame the ratings war, which incites and brainwashes people into fighting a cultural war.

I don't think it's that simple. I have no doubt that the media inflames ideological argument for the sake of ratings, but that doesn't explain why we go along with it: why we allow ourselves to become 'inflamed'. It doesn't explain why we volunteer to become 'ideology warriors', ourselves.

And it's hard to ask this question here on TOL because this is a site designed for ideological warfare. The people who use this site tend not to be able to see themselves as the extreme ideologues that they are.

In the end, it's not as bad as it seems. The media makes it out to be bad. Like you said, most people are not privileged enough (or have the time) to concern themselves about various types of ideology. Once you get out into the many communities in the country, you'll find more people who, as the song says, are all just drunk Americans.

I agree that the media has created the illusion that all aspects of American culture are engaged in a 'battle royal' over ideology. Which simply is not the case. Yet our electorate is very closely divided and has been for a long time. Our politicians ARE engaged in a constant, ongoing 'battle royal' for power, which it pretends is ideological in order to stir up and manipulate the electorate. But I still think they couldn't do any of this without our own willful participation. In the end it's we who have allowed ourselves to be so manipulated. It's we who now see ourselves as soldiers of our ideology. And it's our own well-being that we are destroying as a result of it.

I guess I have a hard time believing that so many people are that stupid, that they can so easily be manipulated. Are we humans really that easily herded?

 

[chrysostom]

I guess I have a hard time believing that so many people are that stupid, that they can so easily be manipulated. Are we humans really that easily herded?

I have this feeling you will keep trying to control them

 

[csuguy]

No, you're right, it wasn't that important to people in the past. That's my point. What used to be important to a man was being a contributing member of society by working every day, being a father and a husband by providing for his family, being a good son or brother or friend. And because this is how one spent his days, this is who he saw himself as being.

Ideology was secondary. It did not define us as human beings. Our humanity defined us as human beings.

You missed my point - there is no true distinction between one's ideology and what is important to an individual. When something is truly important to an individual - they act on it, and it thereby defines who they are. People were just as ideological then as now.

You are pushing forth an ideology without even realizing it: family, working hard, being united as Americans, etc. These are your values, your ideology.

 

[TomO]

I guess I have a hard time believing that so many people are that stupid, that they can so easily be manipulated. Are we humans really that easily herded?

 

[Ktoyou]

I have been puzzling, lately, over the modern (mostly) American phenomenon of intertwining self-identity with ideology. I'm referring to the steady and significant increase in the number of Americans who conflate their own identity with some particular ideology, both on a personal level and in groups.

Fifty years ago, very few Americans would have thought of themselves as being republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, religious or agnostic, capitalist or socialist,


Any thoughts?

People is past times did consider themselves republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, religious or agnostic, capitalist or socialist; however, they did NOT see this as identity! In many cases, they did not see it as ideology either, except utopian ideology, such as Walden- Communism-socialism, in minority in USA

 

[rocketman]

You are pushing forth an ideology without even realizing it

That was pretty much what I was pointing out...