More On Ideology

In order to respond to the question posed at the end of my last post, it is necessary to look at the topic of ideology in a little more depth.

I noted in my first post on this subject that the word "ideology" need not always be inflected with the quality of being "false" or "distorted." Rather, I use the term in the more general sense of being a "point of view" - albeit with a distinct relationship to particular human institutions and social structures (therefore, not just any random opinion that a person happens to have).

That being said, I recognized before, and I think it is important to emphasize again, that ideology very well can be a purposeful distortion of a perceived reality, for the express aim of encouraging desirable attitudes and behaviors. This strategy is often pursued through the creation of ideal types, in order to obscure the nature of reality.

Thus, we hear:

-monopolistic entities extolling the virtues of the "free market" and competition.  Capitalists desire open competition only when they, individually, are exempt.   In other words, they all wish to monopolize monopolies.   Furthermore, the idea of the "free market" and the illusion of an equal playing field are useful to sustain the inequalities that are necessary for (as well as a consequence of) capitalist gain.  Hence, while capitalists do not abide by "free market" values in principle or in actual fact (profit would be minimal and unsustainable), they find it useful to promote neoliberal rhetoric and policies in order to sustain conditions that actually defy neoliberal principles.  The "free market" has never existed, but it is very useful to pretend it does.

-imperial powers invoking "democracy" to justify unilateral military action.  Once again, "democracy" is merely a strategy that some dominant groups can afford to employ in order to channel potential resistance to their rule into activities that support it.  The state has never existed for the purpose of keeping peace or protecting individual rights.   It has always been a tool for dominant groups to maintain inequalities and control the distribution of resources.  The concept of "democracy" conceals global and national power structures.  The equation of "democracy" with the ability to vote and express dissenting views is an ingenious way of creating the illusion that democracy actually exists.   Furthermore, the strength of people's emotional attachment to the idea renders it an easy way to justify all sorts actions (including the death of civilians in wars that further capitalist aims).  The United States' efforts to support democracy around the world only appears sporatic and inconsistent if one accepts the surface explanation for these acts.

-those in control of repressive state machinery celebrating "liberty."  The concept of "liberty" works in much the same way as "democracy."  The emotional attachment to "liberty" may even be a bit stronger.  If one really thinks about it, though, the concept of "liberty" becomes nonsensical.  What does it mean?  It is empty, vapid.  Clearly complete and absolute freedom is undesirable (we conceive of this hypothetical situation as the epitome of chaos).   Submission to rules is a requisite for the existence of society.   Is the issue then which rules and how many rules we should have to follow? These are complex questions, and the concept of "liberty" does not even begin to address them.   If anything, the concept prevents us from asking these questions, diverting our attention elsewhere so that we never fully examine the foundations of our society.

When ideology is viewed in this light, the United States' cultivation of Islamophobia and the inconsistency of this action with actual U.S. relations with Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Islamist groups, may become more understandable.

The creation of "enemies," internal and external, is widely useful.   It is obvious how this tactic diverts attention, responsibility, and blame... in addition to the fact that fear is a wonderful motivator.  Islamophobia is only the latest incarnation of this longstanding tradition.  Since some Islamist groups are questioning the basis of U.S./Western hegemony, turning the tables and portraying Arabs/Middle Easterners/Muslims/Islamists (usually undifferentiated) as irrational, unpredictable, uncivilized enemies of "modernity" undermines valid critiques of global political/economic structures of dominance. Therefore, as one would expect, Islamophobia serves a dual purpose.