[Note: this Post integrates and extends bits of prior posts, here, here, here, and here.]
Few people would describe themselves as ideologues - it’s a pejorative term and almost always describes the other guy. Telling someone they’re an ideologue rarely ends well. The term is just too loaded and categorical. Besides, people are more a shifting collection of tendencies than pure types. And many of us have ideological tendencies. I think it’s useful to recognize these tendencies, the better to weaken their hold on our thinking.
I’ll start this exploration with my long-standing definition of ideology as “an army of convictions about how the world is and how it ought to be.” This definition is remarkably similar to one provided by Cory Clark and Bo Winegard in their paper, Tribalism in War and Peace: The Nature and Evolution of Ideological Epistemology and Its Significance for Modern Social Science:
“By ideology, we mean, roughly, a mental model of the world and the social order that is both descriptive (how the world is) and normative (how it should be); and by sacred value, we mean, roughly, a value that is held particularly fervidly and that one is incredibly reluctant to relinquish.”
So what are ideological tendencies? Ways of thinking and reasoning that distort reality and which are motivated by ideological beliefs. Some examples:
Motivated reasoning: reasoning that follows a conclusion already reached. Such reasoning is motivated by the desire to justify or rationalize what one already believes is true. As Clark and Winegard (2020) put it, “Reason, from this perspective, is more like a lawyer defending a particular position than a dispassionate scientist searching for the truth.”
Motivated skepticism: being hyper-critical or nitpicking when confronted with information that doesn’t support one’s ideological convictions.
Motivated credulity: embracing information that supports one’s convictions, no matter the quality or source of this information.
Motivated certainty: a tendency to be overconfident, insensitive to counterarguments, and unwilling to acknowledge the downside of one’s political opinions, such as unequivocally supporting open borders.
Intolerance of Ambiguity: a tendency to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in one’s beliefs when confronted with information or arguments that challenge these beliefs, i.e., to become even more certain one is right and that the evidence one is right is unambiguous. Intolerance of ambiguity explains a perplexing phenomenon in my debate club: after hearing strong arguments in favor of (or against) a policy position, some of the more ideological club members would respond “now I’m against (or in favor of) that position more than ever”. Say what!! Basically, people double-down on their political biases when confronted with credible information or arguments against these biases. Under threat of doubt, reaffirm one’s faith.
Sacred Values: ideologues tend to hold their values with a quasi-religious fervor. Per Clark and Winegard (2020) sacredness “appears to trigger motivated certainty, reduce utilitarianism, and …increase imputations of “evil” motives to those on the other side of the sacred value debate.” Hence, ideologues tend to dismiss pragmatic, incremental approaches to problem-fixing (too utilitarian) in favor of “the right thing to do”.
Categorical Mindset: the tendency to reduce people and ideas into simplistic categories, which facilitates name-calling and labeling - the better to dismiss people and ideas one disagrees with. Having a categorical mindset reduces appreciation of the world’s complexity, exaggerates Us-Them differences, fossilizes thinking and undermines creative problem-solving.
“Ideological Square” Thinking: ideologies are often fueled by a sense of threat - kept at bay through a fortress-like structure called the ideological square (Van Dijk (1995), a nifty construct consisting of two exaggerations and two minimizations. The Square comes in many flavors, such as:
Basic 'Us versus Them' Square
Exaggerate our wonderfulness
Exaggerate their awfulness
Downplay our flaws
Downplay their virtues
Incompatible Views of Reality Square
Exaggerate how awful things are now
Downplay how good things are now
Exaggerate how horrible things will be if current trends continue
Downplay how much better some things will be if current trends continue
Incompatible Visions of Possible Futures Square
Exaggerate how great things will be if we prevail
Exaggerate how awful things will be if they prevail
Downplay the potential harm if we prevail
Downplay the potential good if they prevail
Here’s a Square used by Green New Deal supporters at my debate club a few years ago:
Other ideas for combating climate change are timid and insincere offerings meant to protect profits and the capitalist system.
Nothing significant is being done to combat climate change
There is no serious alternative to the Green New Deal
The Green New Deal is our only hope to avert catastrophe
Paranoia: When one is utterly certain in one’s vision of the world as it is and should be, it makes little sense that others would disagree in good faith. Therefore, they’re either dumb or have a hidden agenda.
Magical Thinking: Pure hearts, right thinking and political power will achieve the glorious future that awaits. We already know what needs to be done.
Ideologies are typically inspired by utopian visions entailing a radical overhaul of the existing order - what I call the Big Solution. Problems like intrusive government, poverty, and environmental harm may drive initial attraction to a Big Solution, but in time the relationship between problem and solution changes. That is, where once the Big Solution was seen as a means to fixing problems, it eventually becomes an end in itself - one that requires Big Problems to justify. That’s because Big Solutions typically involve painful sacrifice (the darkness before the dawn). And that pain had better be worth it!
As I stated at the beginning of this post, people tend to be more or less ideological rather than pure ideologues (or utterly nonideological). Wherever you are on the continuum, if you want to be less ideological, here are a few tips:
Expose yourself to contrary views. Don’t unfriend someone simply because they hold different political views or support a different candidate. Get out of your information cocoon.
Embrace the spirit of science - which is, first and foremost, the spirit of humility in the face of what one does not know. The scientific method is a corrective to motivated certainty and ideological thinking.
Recognize and resist ideological tendencies in yourself. Loosen those chains of certainty and be willing to change your mind.
References:
Cory J. Clark & Bo M. Winegard (2020) Tribalism in War and Peace: The Nature and Evolution of Ideological Epistemology and Its Significance for Modern Social Science, Psychological Inquiry, 31:1, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233
“The 3 dangers of our categorical thinking” by Fred Kimball/Medium April 16, 2020
Van Dijk, TA (1995). Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2): 243-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006