Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tunnel Ism's avatar

This conversation is a really thoughtful deep dive into the inescapable nature of ideology, and I appreciate how it challenges the idea of being "ideology-free." Blakely’s analogy of ideologies as world-making maps is especially compelling, illustrating how our beliefs shape not just our understanding of the world but our vision for how it should be. It’s a nuanced discussion that encourages us to see beyond simplistic labels and recognize the deeper commitments that drive our political perspectives. Just, great.

Expand full comment
Joe Panzica's avatar

This discussion touches upon “identity formation” which is perhaps “defined” as something like: “developing an ‘image’ or ‘map’ of one’s ‘self’. BUT…, of course, our mental “maps” or “images” are embedded in (and generative of) “STORIES”. And stories tend to be developed, molded, and refined within cultures or subcultures that can be as small as a family, a tiny little ‘in group’, or a cult. All such groupings can utilize stories and symbols to build unity and to guide actions. The “Identity formation” of cultures, groups, and subgroups (such as families or cults) may also involve processes for defining “others’ whether those be other groups or other individuals who are simply non members. These kinds of ‘exlusionary’ stories can often be woven into the stories that are generative of the subjective identity of the “in group”.

Symbol making and story telling as they are related to group solidarities are human processes that are much older than religions as we know them, never mind secular ideologies. ‘World religions’ and secular ideologies are actually pretty novel in terms of our species “homo sapien” even if we were as young as only 150k years. World religions and secular ideologies are arguably even ‘younger’ compared to “civilization” which, however defined, has been around for less than 10K years. Those cultural phenomena have an interesting relationship to ‘empire” (“world” government?) both in terms of rationalizing and celebrating its potential AND in reacting to its power and violence which is both potently symbolic and too often atrociously bloody and destructive.

Identity formations are always somewhat ‘exclusive’ in that they define boundaries (either of selves or groups). We know that, under certain conditions, these exclusionary processes CAN be detrimental or conflictual. We also know that they are not always detrimental or even conflictual and that many forms of conflict, when they arise, can be managed (often in terms of an overarching set of cultural symbols and stories) so that they might not only be NON violent but even generative of certain forms of human flourishing. Still, when discussing ideologies, religions, or cultural identity formations with all their symbols and stories, it is important to recognize how their associated stories and symbols are ‘sacralized’ which means investigating how these symbols and stories are linked to fears about violence (threats from out-groups AND from the authority of ‘gubmint or “empire) and hopes for “redemption” from these threats.

We shouldn’t fail to think about violence in its many aspects (including the psychic violence when one’s sense of identity or status are threatened) as part of the necessarily “exclusive” process of identity and group formation when we try to understand either “world religions” or “ideology.” Violence may even be more primal than culture or humanity. But culture can also be viewed as a set of processes that include vital processes for managing violence (including psychic violence). In terms of how we “define” humanity though, we need to look at the “cognitive turn” in the modern sciences associated with thinkers and investigators like Noam Chomsky who in the 1950s began to try investigate how thought and language are related NOT ONLY to each other but also to deeper modes of calculation conducted in our brains. This means trying to determine what kinds of calculations our brains are capable of, how those calculations are made (how “binary” or ‘dichotomous” are they?), and what are the limits of our ability to calculate and understand. (What are the limits and dangers of our stories and symbols in how they “map the world”?) It also involves trying to understand how our brains can support “minds” which unlike brains are not confined inside skulls or even bodies, but represent (and ‘embody’) how we (our “selves”) are dependent upon and essentially porous (and vulnerable) to others.

Expand full comment

No posts