October 3, 2024
By Jesse Smith
In a recent post on X, progressive linguist George Lakoff declared, "The language we use in politics is not just about policy; it is about values. It is about what we care about, what we believe is important, and what kind of society we want to build." This insight, seemingly sound and even uplifting, was immediately followed with: "Always use your own moral frames and words—never use the opposition's frames or words." What at first looked like an appeal to our better nature thus quickly transformed into a strategy for the rhetorical annihilation of our rivals. In less than 280 characters, Lakoff effectively captured the spirit of American political conflict in the 21st century.
In Lost in Ideology: Interpreting Modern Political Life, political theorist Jason Blakely provides a perspective that fully accords with Lakoff’s first sentence but is radically at odds with the second. Blakely argues the reason political conflict has become so intractable is because ideological fragmentation has rendered us unable to intelligibly communicate with one another on contentious matters. Though we use a similar vocabulary of terms like "equality," "freedom," or "justice," we do not mean the same things by them, so that they serve as barriers to understanding rather than shared principles. This problem stems from our inability to grasp the nature and function of political ideologies. In this readable and ambitious work, Blakely offers a theory of ideology that he believes can help us better navigate the ideological wilderness.
Though "ideology" often serves as a pejorative term indicative of dogmatic and biased thinking, Blakely takes a more benign view. He encourages us to think of ideologies as cultural meaning systems that help us make sense of a messy and complex social reality. In the running metaphor employed throughout the book, he likens ideologies to maps we use to orient ourselves in the political landscape. Like maps, ideologies shed light on some aspects of that landscape while leaving others obscure. Some ideologies hold together better than others, and they can be applied with varying degrees of effectiveness. But to decry "ideologies" per se is misguided. They are an inescapable feature of modern life; our responsibility as political actors is to learn how to use them properly.
If ideologies are cultural meaning systems, then any given ideology can only be properly understood from within, just as a point on a map only has meaning in relation to that map's other features. To make sense of what the adherents of conservatism, progressivism, feminism, or fascism believe and why, we must attend to the concepts, assumptions, and visions of the good embedded in each ideology and see how they fit together. For instance, a conservative and a progressive cannot understand what the other means by "equality" without some knowledge of the dimensions on which each believes we should be equal. Understanding ideologies (others' as well as our own) is ultimately an interpretive endeavor, requiring effort, intentionality, and temporary suspension of one's own commitments. This effort might be rewarded, first, by genuine understanding of what animates ideologues of different stripes, and second, by the possibility of more fruitful dialogue across perspectives.
What, then, does it mean to become "lost in ideology"? This occurs when we fail to recognize our ideological commitments as cultural systems, but understand them simply as descriptions of the way things are. If we believe our own views are the natural product of observation and common sense, we will see anyone who does not share them as some combination of stupid, evil, or mad. In so doing, we allow our ideological map to overwrite reality itself, mistaking the particular lens through which we see the world for the naked eye. If a progressive viewpoint is taken as naturally correct, conservatives can only be understood as racist authoritarians, and in turn, conservatives can only see feminists as man-hating anti-traditionalists. Such simplistic assertions may offer us a comforting sense of moral certainty, but ultimately reflect the blank or distorted portions of our ideological maps blocking us from real insight.
However, Blakely warns, it will not do to try to opt out of ideology entirely, for existing ideological streams inevitably inform our thinking. Suppose we become disenchanted with partisan discourse and declare that from now on, we are only supporting policies that maximize our financial interests or limit government intrusions in our lives. Here we would be unknowingly drawing from the ideological maps of utilitarianism and libertarianism. To claim to opt out is simply another way of becoming lost in ideology.
Since ideology cannot be avoided, there is nothing left but to dive in and try to make sense of the various ideological traditions surrounding us—an act of cultural interpretation. "[T]he goal of this book," Blakely states in the conclusion, "has been to allow readers (even if only momentarily) to be less in the thrall of their own ideology and grasp why someone else's ideology might be attractive." If this undertaking cannot definitively resolve our political discord, it might at least allow us to disagree more knowledgeably, charitably, and fruitfully.
Blakely's central argument here is both compelling and concise, as he spells out his thesis in the first ten pages of the book. The bulk of the text is spent putting these interpretive principles into practice, taking readers on a tour of the primary ideological strands marking American political thought: liberalism, progressivism, conservatism, libertarianism, and fascism, among others. Though the book is meant as more than a field guide of political ideologies, those who want to use it for that purpose will find much of value. Blakely is skillful in reviewing some of the main thinkers, tenets, and tensions of various ideologies, in a way that is simultaneously brief and erudite. Readers should come away with at least a glimpse of what is compelling in each tradition, and a sense that a deeper dive would reward their curiosity.
A key point Blakely makes is that ideologies are not isolated or static. They evolve, produce variants, and borrow from one another, sometimes creating unexpected hybrids. For instance, though we associate environmentalism with the progressive left, he shows how it has in fact featured in a variety of traditions. Conservative pastoralists, fascist atavists, or green libertarians each have their own versions. Furthermore, sometimes traditions otherwise in opposition can find unexpected common ground. Growing bipartisan agreement around more generous family policy might be one example; the one-time alliance of religious conservatives and feminists against pornography is another. This is a helpful corrective to the "left-right spectrum" view of politics that dominates much of our thinking. Blakely’s more qualitative and interpretive understanding offers a better description of politics as it actually occurs.
As this cultural tour of American ideologies concludes, however, readers might reasonably wonder: Does this willingness to enter into the inner logic of any and all ideological systems not amount to relativism? If not, how should we go about choosing (or perhaps crafting from available parts) an ideology by which to navigate the promises and perils of the American political landscape? Blakely’s response to these questions is minimal and not altogether satisfying.
Against the charge of relativism, Blakely argues that a willingness to provisionally entertain a variety of ideologies does not mean we should regard them as equally meritorious. We may evaluate them, first, based on how well they accord with observable evidence, and second (and more centrally, in his view), how well they hold together as self-aware cultural meaning. Indeed, he holds the latter point up as a kind of ultimate criterion when he writes: “A true ideology must be able to affirm and recognize its own cultural and historical nature. It must be able to self-narrate as an interpretive and worldmaking project. Any ideology unable to justify itself in these terms […] is negated." He thus asserts not merely the value but the supremacy of a cultural and interpretive approach to political ideology.
This creates something of a tension. Blakely asks readers to provisionally inhabit a range of ideological systems, but then to judge them by a criterion that would generally be alien to those systems. For the founders and adherents of ideological traditions do not typically set out to determine what is meaningful, but rather what is right in the context of the challenges confronting their societies. To be sure, questions of rightness presuppose systems of meaning, but Blakely's emphasis on the latter seems misplaced given the book's subject of political ideologies. For politics is ultimately the business of making decisions, allocating resources, or distributing and exercising power. The open-ended hermeneutic journey Blakely recommends may be a worthy one, but it offers limited guidance when we are confronted with pressing questions of what we ought to do in the political sphere.
Here Blakely's argument falls victim to his own metaphor. He likens ideologies to maps, and devotes most of his book to examining the key features of these maps so as to expand the range of our insight. But of course, most of the time we use maps not to learn what we can from them, but because we want to get somewhere. Readers may emerge from the book with a deeper knowledge of the national ideological landscape, and perhaps a greater degree of intellectual humility. This is no small profit. But with regard to political commitments, they may well find themselves very close to where they began.
To some extent Blakely acknowledges this, as he emphasizes that there is no "view from nowhere" and that eventually, we must retreat to what he calls our own ideological "Towers of Babel"—a rather more dismal metaphor. When he notes in the conclusion that “[a] cultural approach offers temporary escape from our towers by granting us greater fluency and multilingual ability” [emphasis added], he is articulating the limitations as well as the benefits of his approach. Readers hoping for guidance on how to become unlost in ideology may find this conclusion frustrating.
None of this, however, should be seen to detract from the book’s real accomplishments, only to put them in perspective. As a theory of ideology and an overview of the American ideological landscape, Lost in Ideology may be read profitably by anyone with even a passing interest in the topic. There can be little doubt that a public discourse informed by Blakely’s perspective would bear better fruit than one guided by Lakoff’s. If the book cannot offer a cure for our political ailments, it at least offers us a deeper insight into our condition.
Jesse Smith is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Benedictine College.
Σχόλια