The ironic part about ideology is that it has existed within me for the whole of my 21 years of living. Yet having finished reading it’s dedicated chapter in Nealon & Searls Giroux’s The Theory Toolbox, I realize this is the first time it’s been introduced to me as a field of study. All this time I’ve been participating in a number of social-ideological discussions and I hadn’t even been aware of the contribution I was making in such a heavy school of thought. The Theory Toolbox offers an example on the topic of binge drinking on college campuses, reiterating (what seemed to me) logical reasons that I’ve considered so often that they’ve become almost subconscious knowledge. The example then challenges the reasons, asking the reader what credibility they hold without using ideological thinking. Taking a step back, I’d point out that ideology in this sense, is an inability to see real conditions because they are masked by false ideas. But in this example, I wouldn’t just call these reasons, “ideas.” They’re all plausible explanations. This is where the definition of “real” is taken very seriously. We can generalize all the plausible reasons for excessive drinking on college campuses, but unless we study on a case-by-case basis we will never be able to produce a real reason. Working this all through, I’ve come to decide that ideology is something we need. It’s the common ground, the base, the foundation of all reasons- plausible or real. Because ideological thinking produces reasons, it also produces something much more important- questions. Without preconceived thoughts, we couldn’t produce reason, and without reason, we couldn’t achieve knowledge.
In the article attached, Eliane Glaser challenges the negative connotation often associated with ideology in politics. It’s an interesting and controversial look into English politics, and offers a perspective on the importance of ideology.http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/why-politicians-should-stop-dismissing-importance-ideology
Very interesting reflection. I agree that there needs to be a “common ground,” but one also has to view it as provisional and revisable, rather than natural. That environment will lead to the kind of openness and questioning you value in “ideology” as a necessary starting point. Also, fascinating article: “The “death of ideology” thesis is a highly ideological confidence trick designed to render the tools of democratic challenge obsolete.” I think Nealon and Giroux would approve!