Thinking Clearly in an Age of Ideology

We live in an age of ideology. The world is complex, so we look for a theory of everything. Instead we need cultivate a philosophical attitude and avoid the temptation to politicize religion.

We live in an age of ideology. The world is complex and hard to understand. We are bombarded with information and propaganda. This can lead us to look for a grand theory to help make sense of things. It is understandable. In the past we made sense of the world through cultural and religious traditions, but the world has become simultaneously more more secular and more connected and complex. Our awareness of complexity has increased while religious and cultural traditions have weakened. People feel unmoored. The internet, constant information, and social media only make it worse. We exist with a heightened sense of uncertainty and insecurity. This insecurity can create a desire sure footing, for something to hold on to. All of this creates the conditions for ideology.

Ideology, of course, is not new. The 20th century was a battlefield of competing ideologies such as Nazism and Communism. And while ideological fervor was quelled for a time, many of the conditions that foment ideology remain and infect us all—right, left, secular, or religious. We find ourselves only one generation after the end of the Cold War and the supposed “end of history,” and people are still grasping for some theory of everything.

What is Ideology? People will often use the term “ideology” to refer to a a set of beliefs or guiding principles. But that’s not exactly right. We all need principles and ideals to go through life. By ideology I mean a theory that purports to explain all of reality — a lens through which to see everything in life - and an inability to consider different perspectives.

If, for example, all life and relationships are defined by power, then marriage, friendship, work and religious belief are simply a facade for power and manipulation.

If everything is about self-interest then even a mother’s love or a stranger’s act of kindness, mercy, or even heroic rescue is reduced to what self-interest and making us feel good.

Ideological thinking blinds us to ideas, experiences, reasons, or interpretations that do not fit within our vision. Ideology ultimately prevents us from engaging reality because every experience has to pass through our preconceived filter. This is not only an error. It makes our little selves or our group the arbiter of reality. And it creates the conditions for unhappiness, and even violence.

How sad it is to think that marriage is not a partnership for life; not a call to communion, self-donation, and mutual love, but just a power play - a trap for the man or “legalized prostitution” to control the women. What joy and opportunities we miss if we think everything is determined, and we are prisoners to random evolutionary forces. The more committed to our ideology we become, the more our vision gets narrower and narrower.

There are only good guys and bad guys - and at some point it all begins to make sense: the bad guys must be eliminated because they are the source of all that is wrong with the world. Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains the danger that lurks when one succumbs to ideology.

Macbeth’s self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.

Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination….

Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, not suppressed. How, then, do we dare insist that evildoers to not exist? And who was it that destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago."

Solzhenitsyn: The Gulag Archipelago - “Bluecaps”

Ideology vs Philosophy

One way to understand ideology is as the opposite of philosophy. Philosophy—philo-sophos—is the love of wisdom and the pursuit of truth. A philosophical attitude approaches reality and tries to understand it. The goal of philosophy is wisdom and truth, which Aquinas defines as “conforming the mind to reality.” Philosophy has a reverence before being and is open to being shaped by reality.

Ideology, on the other hand, tries to fit reality into its preconceived idea. The Greek myth of Procrustes provides a good image of ideology. Procrustes was a monster who had a hotel with a one-size bed. If the guest was too short for the bed, Procrustes would stretch him out to make him fit; if he was too small, he would cut off his head or his feet to make him fit. Nassim Taleb uses this same image to explain vision of many contemporary social planners.

This is not to say that ideology has no philosophical basis. Often it begins with an insight into a problem. Karl Marx, for example, saw the problems of the working classes and tried to understand them. But his ideology locked him in an intellectual cage. Everything was explained by his theory. There could be no dissent from his “scientific socialism.” With ideology, philosophy is ultimately dispensed, and theory trumps reality. Anything that undermines or conflicts with the theory is ignored. A hallmark of ideology is the suppression of questions. Intellectual coherence is unimportant when ideology reigns. As Eric Voegelin and others have noted, when pressed with questions about parts of his theory that did not cohere, Marx argued that this was no longer a question for “socialist man.”

G.K. Chesterton uses the image of the maniac—the man who moves from a genuine insight, which is why ideology is so attractive — to seeing this insight as the key to all of reality. This idea becomes a dogma that cannot be challenged. Though it may appear highly rational and internally coherent like Marxism or Darwinism, it ultimately rests on an erroneous premise — for example philosophical materialism or class struggle — that is no longer held by reason and the intellect. It becomes an attachment of the will and desire.

An obvious example of ideology is racism. The idea that one race of people is inferior simply because of skin color is clearly irrational when seen from the outside. But for the racist, it all makes sense. He will use anything and everything to bolster his position.

The same is true with communism. All problems can be traced to the evils of capitalism, private property, the family as an oppressive institution, and religion as an opiate to distract the people with promises of the afterlife. This is why, no matter how much we show someone that communism fails; no matter how we much we explain the mass murder, the suffering, and the crimes committed by communist regimes, it does not matter, because the theory—the idea—is an attachment of the will. Reason cannot reach the ideologue, and ideology ultimately becomes violent because it cannot withstand questions. This is why the East German communists had to build a wall in Berlin to keep everyone inside the workers’ paradise.

Philosophy in contrast always remains open to truth. This does not mean that philosophy never comes to solid conclusions about reality. Aristotle argues in his Metaphysics for the immutable law of noncontradiction:

A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

But where a philosophical attitude can lead us to firm views about the nature of reality, its openness to being, and the search for truth always allows for refinement and the encouragement of questions.

It is important to note that a philosophical attitude is different from being a skeptic. Taken to its conclusion, skepticism holds that knowledge is impossible. Philosophy in contrast, holds that we can know things with certainty, but that we must be humble in recognizing that our knowledge may be partial, whereas with ideology there is a hubris that claims it has discovered the key to reality.

The Temptation of Ideology

Western man is especially susceptible to ideology because of the deep influence of the Jewish and Christian traditions. This is quite complex, and it would take too long to develop in detail, but one example is the idea of linearity of time —that time has a beginning and an end, and it is going toward an eschaton where the Messiah will set everything aright. This idea has penetrated deep into the Western psyche. Even when the West became secularized, this idea of the perfect kingdom remained, but instead of being realized by the Messiah, it will now be realized through a technical, political solution. The kingdom of God can be realized by man. Eric Voegelin calls this the “immanentization of the eschaton.” We saw it its most virulent forms in communism and Nazism.

We can tend to focus on Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and think that ideology is gone, but strong ideological tendencies still remain in the West. Alexander Solzhenitsyn identified a deep-seated philosophical materialism that was not radically different from its Soviet counterpart in its view of man and God. In the early 1990s, Joseph Ratzinger already argued that though the Soviet Union fell, relativism did not die but combined with a desire for gratification to form a potent mix, and that

“we must of course be aware that Marxism was only the radical execution of an ideological concept that even without Marxism largely determines the signature of our century” (Joseph Ratzinger, A Turning Point for Europe, Ignatius Press, 129-130).

What Enables Ideology?

How does ideology emerge? What are the conditions that enable ideological thinking?

One, as I have noted, is complexity. The world is complex, and human beings don’t like complexity, Ideology provides the comfort of a sure answer. A second is the temptation of hubris - especially of the social critic and the public intellectual: a genuine insight becomes the key to understanding everything. And third, in our contemporary world with social media we don’t want to discount money and the financial benefit from becoming a guru.

Other important influences that may sound counterintuitive include empiricism, moral relativism, and of course the influence of thinkers such as Freud, Marx, and Darwin, whose singular explanations of the world normalized the idea of a theory of everything. Let me address each of these in turn.

The Dictatorship of Relativism

In a homily just before he was elected Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger, said that we live under what he called a “dictatorship of relativism.” At first glance, this can seem the opposite of ideology. After all, relativism seems to be a theory of tolerance and lack of hubris in the face of absolute questions. But it does not turn out that way. Relativism is a rejection of truth, So it ultimately closes the door to philosophy, that is, to the love of wisdom. Because there is no truth outside the mind, it is no longer possible to quest for wisdom. Relativism closes us off from being shaped by reality, from conforming our minds to reality. Our minds and our ideas become the arbiter of truth and reality. If there is no truth then ideology is all that is left. Education becomes reduced to indoctrination. Relativism can only be a dictatorship, because instead of liberating the mind, it closes us off from truth and traps us in ideology which allows no dissent.

Empiricism

Similar to the problem of relativism is that of empiricist rationality or positivism. Empiricism holds that in order for something to be reasonable—within the realm of reason—it must be empirically verifiable. This creates two major problems: First, the empiricist position is incoherent on its own terms. The claim itself cannot be empirically verified. It is merely an assertion that, when questioned, has no answer. Nor, on a deeper level can it demonstrate why reason or empirical evidence is good in the first place, or why rationality is better than irrationality.

This leads to irrational rationalism - to scientism. As Harry Ballan explained people say they follow the science – but they are not open to an argument about what is true.  Again, questions must be suppressed. This became very evident during the Covid debates. The passionate calls to “follow the science,” and “I believe in science” were combined with the suppression of of any dissent. Scientists using data an empirical evidence like

Jay Bhattacharya

were labeled “fringe” and silenced in the name of science.

Second, empiricism takes the most fundamental human questions—love, beauty, goodness, right, wrong, forgiveness, mercy, and justice—and relegates them to outside the realm of reason because they are not empirical. Love is thus reduced to a chemical reaction. Mercy is simply self-care. And as Ratzinger has noted, this causes a major problem for politics. Politics, he argues, is “in the realm of reason,” with the goal of creating a just society. But if justice is just an ephemeral feeling separated from reason, then politics is reduced to efficiency and ultimately power. Empiricism mixed with relativism sows the seeds of ideology and ultimately violence, since any objection must be suppressed through coercion and force.

Theories of Everything

The third major influence in our ideological age is the predominance of theories of everything, especially in thinkers like Marx, Freud, and Darwin. These are some of the most influential intellects of the modern period, and each of them presented the world with powerful tools that purport to explain reality. Marx’s theories explained politics, economics, and human action though class and power. He promised a perfect society of equality and the withering away of the state. Freud’s theories explained human relationships as manifestations of subconscious sexuality and desire. And Darwin explained not only the origin of man, but psychology and society through evolution and natural selection. Today there are major disciplines like evolutionary sociology and psychology that use Darwinian and neo-Darwinian frameworks to explain everything from love, marriage, and family structure to economics, art, and culture. Each of these theories captivated the minds and imaginations of modern people and provided a framework of how to understand the world.

The power of the theory of everything is so captivating that even those who reject such explanations almost feel the need to provide their own theory of everything to refute it. As a Catholic, I have seen this ideological tendency manifest among serious Catholics. Several times I’ve proposed the idea that while I believe Catholicism to be true and a reliable guide to operate in the world, it is not a theory of everything. The reaction was a reticence and discomfort to admit this. “But Catholicism does give us the answers …”

Well, it gives us some, but it surely does not explain everything. And I don’t just mean chemistry or mathematics. It doesn’t give the answers to a lot of things including complex political and economic problems. It gives us guidance and principles to be sure, but no program or policy document. There exists a resistance among some Catholics to the idea Catholicism has limits. I feel it too. I think it is the sense that if we do not have our own theory of everything, we can’t compete in the tournament of ideas. Critiquing Marx or evolutionary psychology is not enough. We feel we need to have our own full-fledged alternative. This is how the ideological nature of our age can infect us. But we don’t need to compete in a false game. We can put ourselves at ease. The world is complex. There are lots of trade-offs, and we can never establish perfect justice. There is no theory of everything. Not even the Bible promises that. Jesus is not a technical messiah.

Is Religion Ideology?

This leads to a serious question. Is religion different from ideology? Couldn’t one argue that religion is just a type of ideology that purports to explain the world? There is always a temptation for religion to become an ideology - especially when it gets connected to politics. The politicization of religion is an ever-present danger. It is harmful for many reasons, and as Ratzinger has noted, ultimately leads to unbelief. But properly understood and practiced, religion is not ideology, because by its very nature, it is open to revelation. Religion is a response and an attempt to address reality. The religious response may not be correct, but like philosophy, religion is a response to something outside itself, whereas ideology is a closed system. As John Paul II wrote:

The truth made known to us by Revelation is neither the product nor the consummation of an argument devised by human reason. It appears instead as something gratuitous, which itself stirs thought and seeks acceptance as an expression of love. (Fides et Ratio)

Second, religion - (and here I am specifically addressing Christianity and Judaism) does not claim to explain everything. God creates us, and calls us to participate in, and complete creation. We are in a covenant with Him; He gives us commandments, sacraments, and instructions how to worship. We also get key insights about life, marriage, family, government, business from the Bible and the tradition. But we also have to figure things out on our own. We have to use our intellects to engage in philosophical and scientific discovery. There is no pre-made solution to the problem of life.

Third, it is not utopian. Jesus does not proclaim to be a technical messiah who solves all the problems of evil, sin, suffering, and death through political means. Indeed, the message of the gospel is that Jesus dies for our sins and defeats death. But as we see in the Gospels, he had to rebuke his disciples numerous times for their attempt to make him king, for their attempt to make him a political messiah. The Gospels do speak of the final times when Jesus will come again and establish the Kingdom of God. But this is the key. It will not be political victory of man. Jesus will establish the new heavens and the new earth. But in the meantime, we are called to participate in his redemptive work. There is no perfect ordering of society that will solve the problems of life. That is only something that God himself can arrange. From the builders of the Tower of Babel, the French Revolution, the Nazis, and the communists, to the transhumanists of today, the desire to create heaven on earth is a recurrent theme. But Christianity rebukes the idea of a utopian political order.

As Ratzinger observed in Truth and Tolerance:

Within this human history of ours the absolutely ideal situation will never exist, and a perfected ordering of freedom will never be achieved. An ordering of things that is simply ideal; that is all around right and just will never exist. Wherever such a claim is made, truth is not being spoken. … Everything else, every eschatological promise within history fails to liberate us, rather it disappoints and therefore enslaves us.

Fourth, while Christianity does proclaim certain absolute truths, dogmas, and doctrines, and requires submission of the intellect and will, it does not suppress questions, something Eric Voegelin identifies as one of the marks of ideology. The asking of questions and wrestling with complexity is embedded in the Jewish and Catholic traditions, from Abraham’s and Moses’ discussions with God to the debates in the Talmud, as well as the disputation method of medieval theologians such as Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas. While religious compulsion has no doubt been practiced, the attempt to compel belief is a departure from the original vision of Christianity and its intrinsically voluntary character. As I noted in another essay, Benedict XVI explains how the Enlightenment critique of religion was in part related to Christianity’s failure to live up to its standards.

In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin, and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith, whenever Christianity, against its nature, and unfortunately, had become tradition and religion of the state.

Faith and Reason

At its core, ideology is an attachment of the will to an error that will admit no challenge to it. While it can be highly “rationalist” in a self-contained manner, it rejects truth and a broad vision of reason, that Christianity affirms. John Paul II explains the relationship between faith and reason in Fides et Ratio

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.

So, yes, we must always be on guard against making religion into an ideology. We must be careful not to politicize religion or conflate it with politics. This is a persistent danger. But if we avoid the allure to politicize religion, it is precisely Christianity’s openness to reality and revelation, its affirmation and defense of reason, and its rejection of “man as the measure of all things” that can be the antidote to the ideological temptation that poisons our time.

A shorter version of this originally appeared in Religion & Liberty Volume 33.3 at Acton.org

Photo Credit: Simon Scionka