Numerous philosophers have argued over the impact that ideology has had on the academy, power structures, politics, society, and philosophy itself. Typically any word ending in -ism (conservatism, Marxism, nationalism, modernism, patriotism, environmentalism, etc.) has been seen to highlight a particular ideology. It is not clear, however, that any of these -isms are automatically an ideology. While I would argue that many different ideologies are present, especially in American culture, it is not the case that every person who advocates for a position using an -ism term is arguing for an ideology. Ideology merely shows that its proponents are not sufficiently prepared to fully argue for their position; they merely spout slogans and sound bites to "justify" the ideology.
It is clear, then, that many people are firmly embedded in ideology, only seeing the world through the lenses of the particular ideology. Hence, the confusion of nationalism for patriotism. Patriotism is an appreciation and love of the local and of a sense of place, whereas nationalism is the mistaken view that your particular nation is in the right, no matter what. There are also -ism words that can be used as an ideology, here I am thinking of the term "conservatism." Someone who today in America espouses ideas associated with "conservatism" would not likely find much in common with those who called themselves or their political views as being "conservative," especially since such "conservative" thinkers as Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk explained that their very views were specifically anti-ideology.
How have we reached this point in regards to ideology? Answers will be explored later.
No comments:
Post a Comment