Now that the economy seems to be tumbling down around us, more of us
may be questioning the “common wisdom” which has evolved to guide much of our
country’s national decisión making for close to forty
years. What have evolved in the US among
those in power (and those on the extreme right) have been a beliefs in the
virtue of unfettered markets: in absolutely minimal regulation; that the best
government is tiny government when it comes to the economy (but not, please note,
when it comes to abetting powerful economic players, including those in the
arms industry); that profit-making is a valid motive for just about anything;
that taxes are evil and should be kept as small as possible; that we bear minimal responsibility for those left behind
(it’s their fault)(worriers about the poor are sometimes considered too
soft-hearted); that the “market” will
work just about everything out. Even those of us not on the right have absorbed
a lot of these beliefs as truths. I remember a discussion with a fellow book
indexer once in which he said there was no point fighting indexing jobs moving
to India: profits decided everything.
As I write this, I imagine some of you saying, “But what’s the
alternative? Socialism? I would suggest moving as far away as possible from a
black-and-white view of these things.
Managing the world economy is a complicated matter, best done as
un-ideologically as is possible. Saying
that, as Americans, Democrat as well as Republican, I doubt there are too many
of us who don’t essentially feel that markets and entrepreneurship and
competition work pretty well, at least for a lot of stuff. So I think we can do away from assuming right
and left have nothing in common.
At the beginning of this post, I mentioned “common wisdom.” By common wisdom, I mean the basic
assumptions shared by a particular group: assumptions that guide our
decision-making, our evaluation of ideas, our choice of candidates, our choice
of which house to buy. A huge number of
Americans form the group who shares the “common wisdom” that encompasses the
above more extremely anti-government ideas about governing, economics and
society. Throw into the “common wisdom”
mix, too, the cheering for “rugged individualism,” which in its less thoughtful
forms is also in need of repair and the peculiar forms of Christianity
(Christianism, as Andrew Sullivan calls it) which call for war, not peace;
selfishness, not compassion.
But liberals (or progressives if you want) have their own common
wisdom which can veer into rigid and unbending rules.
We could call some collections of common wisdom ideologies. Now ideology often has a negative connotation: think Karl Marx.
But let’s not.
Instead, let’s look at some descriptions of what ideology can be
considered to be.
In its excellent article on ideology Wikipedia cites David W. Minar’s
six different ways in which the word has been used (words in brackets are mine):
1. As a
collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative [that
is to say, pertaining to how things ought to be];
2. As the form
or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set, [or collection of,
in this case people, who have something in common or belong together in some
way];
3. [As] the
role of certain ideas in human-social interaction
4. [As] the
role that certain ideas play in the structure of an organization
5. [As a
group of ideas or assertions] whose purpose is persuasion
6. As the
locus of social interaction, possibly. [This is a little peculiar. I presume it is what draws people together]
Wikipedia goes on to cite Willard A. Mulllin’s list of the basic
characteristics of an ideology:
1. It must
have power over cognitions [the mental process of knowing, including aspects
such as awareness, perception, reasoning and judgment; that which comes to be
known as through perception, reasoning, intuition, knowledge….American Heritage
Dictionary of the English language, 2003]
2. It must
be capable of guiding one’s evaluations;
3. It must
provide guidance towards action;
4. It must
be logically coherent.
Clearly there can be a lot of different kinds of ideologies. Here what would be good to remember is
1. Ideologies
guide how we live
2. We can
be guided by ideologies without being aware of it.
3. We sometimes
make assumptions that ideologies we are guided by are true, or are the only way
to do or understand something without any real evidence that this is so.
4. Ideologies
become mindsets in many areas. Even
scientists can be subject to the ideology of scientism. As we are learning all
too well, economics is very definitely subject to being interpreted
ideologically
5. Ideologies
are tools we use to organize the world, to justify our behavior, to maintain “valued
interpersonal relationships.” They aren’t necessarily good or bad.
Interestingly enough, political ideologies have for a long time been
seen on a left-right axis, or as left wing vs. right wing. Americans might find
it surprising to learn that in much of the rest of the world liberalism refers
to the right wing. This stems from the
Enlightenment which led to notions of private property, free will, etc. We
think of the Enlightenment as, well, enlightened and enlightening. And it was.
These private property, free will notions were a sharp break from
rigidly hierarchical societies in which one did what one was told, in a manner
of speaking. In the US, Conservatives have absorbed these “liberal” ideas and
carried them in different directions, some good, some not. Liberals in the US are not opposed to these
ideas (we have some room for discussion across party lines here) so much as
they tend more towards communitarianism than individualism.
At the national (or even local) level, political groups shape
ideologies. Dominant groups shape
ideologies to maintain and justify their power, whether the groups be on the
left or on the right.
People adhere to
ideologies or their less formal sibling, common wisdom, sometimes simply out of
habit, or out of intellectual laziness, or just because they don’t want to rock
the social boat or because they’ve always done things that way.
We also cling to
ideologies and common wisdom to avoid seeing what we should see. Dean Baker, the economist, recently said in
his blog, “The problem is that the Federal Reserve Board and the economics
profession as a whole functions more like a fraternity than a real forum for
debate and truth seeking. Those whose views are taken seriously mimic the views
of those with status and power within the profession, they do not think
independently.
Now when we move on to look at globalization, the Mexican economy, and immigration, you can keep these thoughts on ideology and common wisdom in mind and remember it will be necessary to challenge your beliefs (I think).