The Limits of Ideology

If ideologies become our primary source of meaning and identity then we are headed down a dangerous path; one that makes it easier to push aside compassion, justify unempathetic behavior, and treat others as means to reaching our ends.

The 1994 film “To Live” depicts the life of a Chinese family under Mao’s communist revolution. In one scene, the town cadre arrives to collect the family’s metal belongings. Jiazhen, the wife of the main character, timidly asks the local leader, “If you take all our pots away, how will we cook?” He cheerfully responds, “We’re racing towards communism, and you worry about food?”

This brief exchange hints at some of the deceptive and dangerous limitations of ideology.

Ideologies are structured sets of political beliefs. They help us make sense of complex situations and organize our values into coherent political goals. They are, however, useful only in as far as they remain tools, helping us to orient ourselves politically.

If ideologies become more than this—if they become our primary source of meaning and identity—then we are headed down a dangerous path; one that makes it easier to push aside compassion, justify unempathetic behavior, and treat others as means to reaching our ends.

This occurs because ideologies are inherently utilitarian. They judge the morality of an action based on whether it advances a political goal. As progressivism, conservatism, or any other -ism, becomes the principal source of meaning and identity in one’s life, morality ceases to be absolute, and instead, is determined by whether an action conforms to an ideological worldview.

Sergey Nechayev, an influential Russian anarchist, epitomized this attitude. He wrote, “morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its way.” This ideological extremism was certainly manifest in those who justified arson and looting in the name of Black Lives Matter, as well as those who violently confronted security officers as they desecrated our nation’s capitol under the pretense of a stolen election.

As could be seen in these events, allowing ideological arguments to justify immoral behavior can blind us to the suffering of others, just as ideological obsession blinded the town cadre to the hardship of Jiazhen and her family.

The simplified worldview that ideologies create can prevent us from seeing people as unique individuals, deserving of mercy and understanding. Instead, ideologies encourage us to define others by political belief, skin tone, class and other arbitrary categories, allowing us to exploit other’s identities to validate our ideological narratives.

I fear that as political ideologies occupy an increasingly large role in our thinking and our relationships, we’ll become less like the ideals we aspire to and more like the violent and polarized politics that we hate. We will become less compassionate and more willing to justify immorality as long as it is done by someone ‘on our side’.

Immanuel Kant, an 18th century philosopher, put forward a theory of ethics that stands in stark contrast to the utilitarianism of political ideology. He wrote, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” He claimed that any action which justified treating another individual as a means to achieving your personal ends was immoral. For Kant, the dignity and respect due each individual was more important than any result you could wish to bring about.

This philosophy elevates humanity above political goals, and in doing so hints at some transcendent and absolute morality that we have yet to articulate. Though it is difficult to know how to respond to and solve the societal problems we face, it is best for each of us to avoid ideological narratives and focus on the good we can do while respecting each other’s inherent value, never treating anyone “simply as a means.”

As we recognize the limits of ideology we must, at the same time, recognize the immense influence of personal morality. Instead of trying to change the whole world as part of a woke movement or patriotic uprising, we should focus on what we have immediate control over; first working to change our own heart and character and then seeking to help those in our family and community.

I firmly believe that morality depends on our small, and not so small, daily actions, not on our political affiliations, intersectional status, or social media posts. Though political activism has an essential place in democracy, kindness, I think, can be more powerful than a protest, and a thoughtful text more influential than a politically correct tweet.

As you seek to be a better individual, confining ideology to its proper role, you will find yourself vilifying your enemies less and loving those who curse you. You will stop victimizing yourself and will take up your cross and walk. You will cease to treat others as means to achieving your ends, and, instead, will treat all you meet as “an end in and of themselves.”

Log in to leave a comment below! Please continue this conversation by sharing your opinion in the comments section and sharing this blog post with your friends.