Yesterday I blogged on the Charles-Nigella contretemps at that fancy London restaurant. For several days before that I blogged on the G8 and partifularly on Obama and his drone-bomb-driven foreign policy which is resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocents, including women and children. Guess which blog attracted between three and four times as many pageviews? You got it: the multi-millionaires nose tweak/throat grab. In the words of that compassionate and loving British PM, Margaret Thatcher: it’s a funny old world.
Let us move on. This morning on BBC Raidio Uladh/Radio Ulster, I heard Education Minister John O’Dowd accused of having an educational policy that was ‘ideology-driven’. O’Dowd is one man who’s capable of looking after himself and noted - quite rightly - that his accuser had his own ideology.
When did the notion of having an ideology become something shameful? Maybe from the idea that, if we try to see the world constructed in a certain way, or of being in need to be constructed in a certain way, we’re being naive. The real world demands either bits of a range of ideologies or no ideology at all. The second of those two is impossible: everyone has an ideology. It might be “Responding to events as they happen, without forethought or any system of beliefs, is best” or “I decide what to do in the light of how many votes it’ll bring me, nothing else”. But it’s still an ideology - a belief that this is the best way in which to conduct political business/personal affairs. The second of the two - that you form a ragbag of different philosophies and approach the world with its eclectic reach is equally daft, if for no other reason than that some ideologies directly contradict other ideologies.
What those who denigrate ideology want you to believe is that anyone who sees society and politics through the lens of a thought-out system of beliefs is offering pie-in-the-sky and is out of touch with the real world. They also want you to believe that their way of doing things is the natural, only sensible way of working. They want to present their approach as the way that’s unwarped by any of these sinister ideologies.
There’s a word that’s similar to ‘ideology’ which could be used about such people. It’s ‘idiots’.
Jude
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with ideology is that when reality contradicts ideology people tend to prefer their ideology. It is difficult to accept that ones deeply held beliefs (as with religion) may not be correct so one must stand on ones head to make the world fit the ideology.
And ideologues have a habit of dismissing those who disagree with them as 'idiots'.
Gio - why assume 'reality' will contradict an ideology? If it's robust and accurate enough it should be able to absorb reality - or are you suggesting a viable ideology is impossible? Your religion example is about the worst you could have chosen, since religion is based on faith, not factual evidence. That's why it's called faith. So of course to measure religion against 'reality' as we know it is to set up failure. Or head-standing in the case of some eejits. And you tell me ideologues are in the habit of dismissing those who disagree as 'idiots'? Cheesh. How rude. But I don't think boorishness is a necessary condition of embracing an ideology. Give us an example of someone who uses such haughty behaviour.
ReplyDeleteJude
ReplyDeleteReality may not always contradict ideology but certainly it will sometimes. Do people adjust their ideology or do they try to interpret reality to fit their beliefs? Often it is easier to hammer at the facts until they fit your ideology, rather than discard your whole belief system.
And although a political ideology may have its basis in facts there is clearly an element of faith involved based on differing interpretations of the facts, otherwise we would all share the same ideology.
Ideology, not in all cases but in some, can blind people to the truth and become zealotry.
I am not saying religion is exactly like a political ideology but I see similarities. By the way I agree that religion has nothing to do with reality, but that is another debate.
As for the 'idiots',well it was you who suggested that anyone denigrating ideology could be described as such.
I understand what you mean by it's impossible not to have an ideology, even if you're not aware of it. I wonder if, when talking about pragmatism, the distinction is about knowing when the constraints imposed by a rigidly adhered to ideology may be preventing you from noticing and / or responding to important events taking place. I think this is summed up well by whoever said 'In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory: in practice, there is.'
ReplyDeleteThe one ideology that not too many seem to want to criticise and that has caused many wars ,absolute misery and destitution on a global scale for billions of humans on this planet is Capitalism,it is a deeply flawed ideology that can only sustain itself by the blood, sweat and tears of the many for the benefit of the few.
ReplyDeleteThis comment is geared toward your "funny old world" first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the "Charles-Nigella contretemps" is less important than the G8? Or that Domestic Violence is less important and affects less people than politics? Reducing acts of violence against women to silly little "nose twerks" de-legitimises domestic violence. Violence against women is a very real threat, and not something to be made light of.
This comment is geared toward your "funny old world" first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that the "Charles-Nigella contretemps" is less important than the G8? Or that Domestic Violence is less important and affects less people than politics? Reducing acts of violence against women to silly little "nose twerks" de-legitimises domestic violence. Violence against women is a very real threat, and not something to be made light of.
In regards to your first paragraph about our "funny old world", you seem to be suggesting that the act of violence committed against Nigella is not as news worthy as the G8. Is this a correct assertion?
ReplyDeleteThis is careless. When you reduce incidents like this to a silly little "nose tweak" you de-legitimise violence against women as a very real threat.
Anon 12:57 - First question - answer is Yes. Second question ( X2) : domestic violence and its effect vs 'politics' - if as we're told everything is politics, it stands to reason politics will be more widespread than domestic violence. I haven't reduced 'acts of violence against women' to anything.Allow me this final word and then I'm going to shut up about it - the refusal of people to deal with what I wrote is just too dispiriting. OK - listening? I think domestic violence is WRONG. Cowardly. And should be punished. I also think there are levels of domestic violence - there are women (almost always women) who are hospitalized and in some cases killed. What we had at that expensive restaurant was a bullying rich bastard publicly humiliating his wife (who happens to present a ghastly TV programme). She wasn't physically damaged as far as we could see, she wasn't hospitalised, and unlike thousands, millions probably of other abused women, she has huge financial resources to fall back on. If the attack/humiliation had occurred between Joe Bloggs and his wife, nobody would have given a damn. The massive public interest in its makes clear how celebrity-cent
ReplyDeletered British (and Irish) society is.