How Thinking Cures Ideology

Make Conversation Healthy Again

THE KOINOS PROJECT is an online educational platform building community through studying community: a place for the intellectually curious, but educatedly stunted searching for something more—for a true mythos. Subscribe now to stay up to date on all our offerings.

WHILE MOST SAY that politics and religion ought to be excluded from “polite” conversation, I have always found myself a bit bored when forced into one for too long. Such conversations are fine at dinner or when reconnecting with an old friend, but speech is the defining characteristic of us human beings and it seems wasteful to me to always be hiding behind such niceties. Speaking is a serious affair. It is through speaking with others that I have gained many of my most valuable insights into the world and into myself. Thus learning to speak well about serious things would almost seem to be our humanly duty.

My college days were spent looking for anyone who wanted to argue some point, be it political, religious, or philosophical. I was always surprised how many people were starved for these sorts of conversations, but moreover, how readily an ideological opponent could be turned into a friend by openly examining large questions. The potential for these sorts of friendships, however, vanished in 2016. The prohibition against certain discussions ceased to be a mere dictate of manners and became a necessity of keeping any sort of peace. Open political discussion came to be seen as an existential threat.

The upheavals our society is experiencing today seem to me to be the consequence of this prohibition. What it has created is a certain type of thinking. However, it is probably unjust to use the word “thinking” here because those who abide by it do no more than regurgitate slogans or headlines given them by others.

THE PROPER NAME for this pseudo-thinking is ideology: a systemization of ideas created in the mind that is then imposed upon the world. Its appeal is its utter simplicity. By taking just one or two ideas—be they freedom, equality, justice, race, gender, nation, tradition, tribe, etc—and using them as a pattern to interpret concrete reality, you can understand how the world works. The ideologue, with this worldly knowledge, it is believed, can then “solve” all the problems of the world. This simplicity especially appeals to those who find the world distressing.

Thinking through all the implications of any one political problem is difficult, and those with an intensely felt desire to “change the world” rarely have the patience to do so. They are thus forced to simplify the world, hoping that this will narrow its problems—yet the problems remain. They have not accomplished their goal, but have given up their mind to a base passion: winning at any cost. The ideologue who set off to change the world with ideas is instead reduced to mere political instinct. The result is what we see today: a political environment driven primarily by rage.   

The great tragedy in this mindset is that it always spills over into a bloody history.  The twentieth century is a monument to the violence that follows in the wake of mass ideological movements. The main problem with the world, according to each movement, is that not everyone accepts their ideological system. It follows that the “other” must change their way; but the “other,” by definition, refuses to change their way.

IF WE AMERICANS were to reduce our own ideology down to its most basic elements, we would find to two ruling ideas: freedom and equality. By examining the broad strokes of these ideological fixations, it becomes easier to understand the ideological mindset in general.

It may go without saying that you can scarcely have freedom without equality, nor equality without freedom. However, there is clearly a tension between these two: freedom seeks to exalt itself above equality, while equality strives to pull freedom down below its potential. As a result, many feel compelled to choose one, largely to the exclusion of the other. Once this choice is made, all facts are then made to fit their chosen cause. “Science” and “reason” cease their independent search for truth and become tools for power. This reduction of the world will, in turn, cause them to ignore all normal standards of ethics. What an ideologue calls good is simply what is expedient for their party.

Here is where the difference between authentic thinking and ideology begins to emerge. Does a tension between two thoughts necessarily mean they are mutually exclusive?

In fact, if all people are free, then we find there is a sort of equality between all; and if we are all equal, then a sort of freedom is established. The lover of equality will neither seek to exalt nor be exalted because such an act would render others unfree. The lover of freedom will not use their freedom to destroy a baseline equality, for in doing so they may lose their own freedom in the process. Such was a common way of reconciling these two ideas until recent times. I suspect this reconciliation is still latent in the hearts of most Americans, but we feel ill at ease to express it. We may, however, still be able to recognize the beauty and balance of a mind that makes the attempt.

On the other hand, it may be that no perfect balance can be struck. Perhaps these two ideas must find their place in a hierarchy of many like ideas: justice, truth, wisdom, piety, moderation, fraternity. It is not here my intention to decide, but to invite others into open discussion to weigh their respective values.

THINKING CAN ONLY cure ideology if one is willing to think seriously—which means dedicated time to study that cultivates a love for the subject at hand. This is not an idle process, but a difficult endeavor filled with many pitfalls and deadends. Ideology is simply thinking gone wrong and then put into practice. The best environment for ideology to thrive is one where the voice of reasonable and concerned people is never heard. This is not just the fault of the ideologue, but also of otherwise well meaning people who avoid the difficult task of speaking together—either out of politeness or perhaps more sinister motives.

But ultimately, thinking can only cure ideology if it is accompanied by speaking. Thinking in isolation can lead one to strange and dark corners of the mind. When many come together to think together, there is a chance that the truth of things can emerge to illuminate those dark corners. Truth is not the private possession of an individual mind, but where minds meet. This is what I found again and again during my conversations with others in college: knowing why someone thinks what they do allows you to appreciate, and even love, those who hold differing opinions than yourself. And who knows, maybe it will even compel you to change your own mind.