Questions related to Ideology
Often around the world we see nations battling with their own cultural ideologies, particularly between the West and Eastern Nations. Often when one nation sees their policies, humane reforms as valid. It is viewed differently by international community. In most cases excessive ideological beliefs can be a fallacy. The culture, ideological beliefs in the West is different than in other countries. But due to conflicting interests in human rights, we observe the world as divided. A global caste system. The danger stereotypical beliefs is that it is not always right. It is fair to say that all countries have their fair share corrupt leaders ,and mistreatment of local communities. The west have exploited a lot resources from the developing nations. The developing nations have not done much to improve their countries with a much needed exchange diplomacy with the West or maybe due to fallacy of local customs, their development vision is different. I may be wrong. However, many things are not clear when you don't directly observe it. News are businesses and they will often spread misinformation. Ideology nowadays is used as a means to justify political agenda. The line between serving and gaining is not clear. I would like to get your views regarding this matter, but please keep your discussions friendly. Your kind answers are highly appreciated.
This discussion can be sensitive philosophically for some people. The philosophy of science is based on Eurocentrism and western culture excessively from time to time. In other words, this means that the philosophy of science relies on western culture and aspects too much. However, science should be objective and not involve a single philosophical view and culture, as this can lead to only one direction biasedly. So, how can we avoid and improve this matter in science? I want to know the international perspective on this. For example, the Aztecs, Mayas and Incas did not have the philosophy of European science, but they built great architectures and had well-developed Astronomy based on their scientific methods and philosophy.
P.S. This has nothing to do with academic staff and students, including my supervisor, in our department. I personally, always, try to seek to improve philosophical methodologies in science for understanding our nature with open-mindedness. Therefore, I put this discussion in Researchgate.
Totalitarianism and ideologies have often ensured that political, historical, philosophical, scientific, and artistic ideas conform to what the rulers consider correct. This has led to scientific impostures and rewritings of history, which are ethically questionable if not unacceptable. Illustration: Skulls from the collection of Samuel Morton, one of the American fathers of "scientific racism", illustrate his classification of humanity into five races (fruits, according to him, of five divine decisions), which today are outdated. Left to right: Black American woman and white man, Native Mexican man, Chinese woman and Malaysian man, PHOTOGRAPH BY ROBERT CLARK/ UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MUSEUM OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
This forum is intended as a platform for discussion and exchange on the topic where all examples and illustrations are welcome.
Think about it, science is supposed to be an open environment, one where if ideas are shown to be lacking or inappropriate or wrong, they are either improved or discarded. A system where if assumptions about reality turned out to be wrong, it will shift to catch up with the actual, now new reality leaving the previous reality/previous knowledge behind. That would be consistent with the thinking of Popper and Kuhn.
That was the expectation after the 1987 Brundtland commission said business as usual model has not worked as the assumptions on which it has been based were wrong, and that was the expectation after 2012 RIO + 20 when the UNCSD commission said to go green market, green growth and green economy was the shift to go….to internalize the wrong environmental externality assumption found in the business as usual model...
If that science expectation does not happen and invalid ideas and/or previous paradigm ideas are used to address the new reality, which by now everyone knows or should know is a reality not consistent with those previous ideas, is that still science or is this now an ideology?.
Which raises the question, at what point science, in general or economics in particular, becomes an ideology?
What do you think? Please express your view through answering this question.
Does anyone know how to use the Conflict Tactics Scale short form (CTS2S; Straus & Douglas, 2004)? I am working on my master thesis and I am looking at Gender Role Ideologies as a significant predictor for Domestic Violence. Unfortunately, I am having troubles understanding how to use the CTS2S. I don’t know how to classify my participants from perpetrators or victims of domestic abuse. I have red several articles and these suggest to use the “prevalence” method of scoring, however, I don’t understand how to group these variables and get a final score on them.
I will greatly appreciate your help!
Thank you in advance for your time!
I wonder if there are studies of how an individual can shape collective behaviour and to what extent. What I mean is the opposite of social influence where a group member obeys collective behaviour, but vice versa how an individual (a politician, a journalist etc.) shapes group behaviour according to his preferences. For example, the capitol riot on 6.01.2021 in Washington and Trump's behaviour -- how Trump manipulated the crowd?
We claim ideas as if they were our own, but is it possible they belong to another class, another generation? Can you impose critical thinking on your own ideas?
Last years a have an arising question based on my experience from different academic and scientific activities. The contemporary humanism, obviously very good and peaceful, including everybody, is more and more changing its approach towards a truth as to something that actually equals consensus of a largest possible (inclusive and democratic) group. It seems so, that we have somehow forgotten a mission or quest of the past centuries, that there IS some Truth and we are to discover it or at least come one step closer than our predecessors. Now, we tend to be more and more satisfied with "having OUR truth" about something, actually a mere consensus in particular group. We are a bit confusing this consensual semi-truth with the general truth (not speaking about Truth as eternal spirit or even person). In humanities it is as usually more visible. The theory of firm Truth is understood as something "ideological" and thereby dangerous, potentially threatening by some kind of mis-use in the service of political party or religious authority. Are we still able to know this? Or is the comfortable consensus already here as "the truth"? Is it SUSTAINABLE?
I submitted one book manuscript and am starting another. This time on Nietzsche's critique of ideology. Work title: Beyond Priest and Slave: Nietzsche's Psychological Critique of Ideology. I ask if anybody is aware of strong recent works in that area. Key terms would be Nietzsche-psychology, Nietzsche-subject, Nietzsche-Priest/Slave, Nietzsche-criticism of Ideology, Nietzsche-Political Criticism. I probably know the classics, but don't pretend to know the entire Nietzsche library. Pointing me towards relevant works would be much appreciated.
I'm writing a book about managerialism as an ideology and I would like to have the most comprehensive and diversify perception of the phenomenon. Can you recommand me some readings to improve my knowledge about it? Academic literature (or not) in French, English or German will be welcomed and very appreciated
How would he describe:
a) The economy in relation to social class; who would be the Bourgeois and who the Proletariat?
b) The economy in relation to Ideology?
c) Ibo religion as a function of Ideology?
What evidence would Marx site from TFA to show that colonial Christianity functions as Ideology?
Conversely, how might a Marxist argue the colonial Christianity in Ibo culture represents the historical dialectic of revolution?
Ideology is a term that grew up in the womb of philosophy, but it was nurtured by the criticism of creativity and acceptance. There is no innocent reading, and it is impossible to find an innocent writing to be able to understand the text away from ideology in all its religious, political, social and economic forms.
"Cognitive Dissonance" is where our beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes are in conflict, and to avoid the discomfort, we use minimizing and coping tactics to deal with this "disharmony." For example, those who "text while driving," where many know it's dangerous, but proceed to do it anyway.
Following along the same lines:
If you held strong moral and political beliefs that aligned with a particular political candidate you supported, or one already in a position of power, and knew they had a long history of corruption or views that marginalized and hurt others, would you:
A) Continue to support that person, and either say nothing or defend them 100%.
B) Default to "they have evolved or will evolve, and they are not the same person," knowing they have not.
C) Continue to support them, but question and hold them accountable for their actions, hoping they will evolve.
D) You have had enough and start to speak out, making sure they are never elected (or re-elected), but risk alienating those who align with your moral and political beliefs.
I am currently investigating the political/ideological implications of the pursuit of a native school of Translation Studies (TS) in the PRC as part - or consequence - of a broader ideological cultural/academic soft power project aimed at repositioning China on the global intellectual stage.
I have found some interesting insight in the existing literature, and most recently in Baumgarten and Cornellà-Detrell (eds.) (2018), Translation and Global Spaces of Power.
However, I am looking for further sources on the following topics, preferably but not necessarily in connection with China:
- the role of academia and the power (or lack thereof) of academics in relation to politics;
- the implications of the pursuit of native academic disciplines, schools, theories etc. in order to assert a nation's global cultural power and relevance;
- the position of TS as a discipline within such an ideologically-charged project.
Are there any studies which relate personal values (e.g. Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values or Rokeach) to gender ideologies? In particular I am looking for studies that relate personal values to attitudes towards gender roles within the family.
I´m developing a Brazilian Mood Project that is basically to build an index for Public Opinion and Ideology, so that I intend to see whether there is correlation between these two variables as well as the correlation between Ideology and some issues, such as abortion, privatization and immigration
Political commentators often refer to the wave of populism that has engulfed many of the world’s democracies as ‘Post Truth Politics’. The general definition of this suggests that political decisions in voting and selecting of candidates is now more related to emotional or purely ideological impulses than rational selection based on policies and economics.
Is this in reality anything new and was there ever a time when political pragmatism really influenced the mass of the electorate? Was telling the truth ever more important than getting elected and are truth and political ideology ever compatible?
Is there any valid research or reliable investigative journalism about the ideological, moral, or economic connections between new religious movements (such as new age religions, Buddhist or Hindu-based cults, late trends in Evangelicalism) and free market and neoliberal ideologies?
Ideology, which contain basic values very consider as an essential and fundamental of every human activity and thought including in each level, individual through organizational scope. In fact, is it true? Althusser, Shoemaker and Reese, could be other theorists in faith of this thought and it is make-sense even there is the possibility that term of ideology should be rethink and reread contextually including in our current era.
One could argue that any ideological spiritual pathway is suspicious of those whose religious beliefs and practices are unlike their own, intolerant of "the other," and does not account for new ways of understanding reality. Do you agree or disagree?
In his Río conferences in 1973 (La vérité et les formes juridiques), Michel Foucault chastises, without mentioning any specific author, a so-called "academic Marxism" according to which the appeal to sociohistorical explanations of discourse would only be possible in the case of "ideology", understood as "error", but not for truth itself; "external history" would not possibly account for true statements, only for "distorted" ones. But, does any actual Marxist fit that description? I thought of Althusser as a plausible candidate, but I haven't found in his writings any commitment to the idea that "external" social relations only bring about false, distorted statements.
churning out students with little critical thinking ability and prone to ideological manipulation.
In Nepal, the Maoist attempted to incorporate “cultural nationalism” in Maoism. The Maoist set up a collective identity (ethnicity, region, etc.) based Adar Ilaka to recruit indigenous nationalities in their insurgency. But identity, ideology and Maoism contradicted each-other, thus, later “identity has been instrumental component” to form ‘Identity Ideology Political Parties”. I am presenting a paper “Social Movements in Nepal: Identity Ideology and Non-conventional Security Challenges Within and Across Its Neighborhoods” in an international conference claiming “identity ideology”. Therefore, it would be highly apprecited if anyone can suggest or pay critique in this issue.
The question is a main part of my current research about religion and exclusion of dalits in India. I am trying to figure out how the issue of politics of exclusion could be studied looking at it from religious and meta-religious perspectives.
I am trying to uncover the various reasons why 'right-wing' ideology often fails to gain the same public acceptance (as 'morally correct') as liberal/left ideologies. I am looking at the communication of ideology per se, that is, through narratological tools. I am focusing on magazine and newspaper articles from the Indian subcontinent specifically, and how they sway the reader towards a 'correct' conclusion. However, I am at a complete loss as to how to ground this research. Are there any suggestions for research conducted on the intersections between ideology and narratology, specifically focused on political communication?
Dear colleagues! We know that the two ideologies are very similar (pan-Arab nationalism, socialist ideas). Yet I have read that Baathism was more radical, more left, since it did not confine itself to the agrarian reform, but aimed at creating an overwhelming state sector in industry. But I can object to this, pointing out that the share of that sector in Egypt under 'Abd-un-Nasir reached 85%. Does the difference boil down to the simple fact that Nasserism centred on a certain leader, while Baathism did not? And that Nasserism centred on Egypt, while Baathism "was divided" between Syria and Iraq? Or were there indeed any serious socio-economic differences in the programmes?
Politics is an indispensable human interest. It is also compelling as every country requires a government. Monarchy is out of date. Various political parties have come up espousing different social philosophies. While ideology is the basis of a political party, it is seen that politicians are engaged in political activities in order to occupy power and further self-interest.
How do you explain the fact that liberalism does not have success on the party level these days? What should be done to make it look once again cool? Is there a need for some self-criticism on the part of the powerful elite usually labelled as "liberal intellectuals"? Should liberalism become more pragmatic and realist? Should it turn back to earlier notions like nation, religion? How should it relate to present day populism? Should there be a return to the "founding fathers"?
Does anyone know if the question of circularity in CDA has been answered?
E.g. “We seek to analyse language critically, exposing the workings of power and ideology within the use of language. But how can we do this, if we have to use language in order to make our critical analyses?” Billig, (2008), p 5.?
According to Woolard (1998), the ideological representations of individuals can be determined in three particular situations: (i) language practices, (ii) explicit metalinguistic discourse, (iii) implicit metapragmatic strategies. While the first two concepts are easy to understand, I do not clearly get what she implies by implicit metapragmatic strategies. Your help will be very much appreciated.
New Public Governance seems as having wonderful principles, but still lacking concrete implementation methods. In contradiction to NPG, New Public Management had both - principles and methods how to implement these principles. Can such propositions about NPG and NPM survive in academic public administration world? And the most important - can they be somehow tested?
The contemporary European model of nation-state is based on the ideology of one state, one nation and one language, so we can follow many conflicts involving nationalism and multiculturalism. How can we overcome this contradiction and to ensure equal rights for all? After all, multicultural environments, today and in the past (before the European model of nation-state), are a reality.
I am conducting a research on inheritance rights of women, laws are there but in practice, it is almost non existed. I am interested in deconstructing the belief system in the culture that create obstacles. Any one can guide me how to analysis this phenomenon.
I tried to find such papers, but I was able to find dozens of papers addressing only the turnout of the poor, not their ideological inclination or voting preference. Could anyone suggest paper where they link economic status and ideological affiliation and party association?Thanks in advance!
Political realism is a term with a long history in international relaitons. However, until recently it has not played a major role in political philosophy? Why do you think it became topical, and what are the key novelties it provides in mainstream political philosophy? Perhaps the most popular explanation is that it is a reaction to the abstract normativism of American-type liberal theory, as represented by Rawls and Dworkin. Do you agree with that description? Where would you position political realism on the palette of political ideologies?
The letter by Economics students from 65 organizations and 20 countries (International Student Initiative for Pluralist Economics http://www.isipe.net/) indicates that different types of Economic paradigms are not being taught except at a small number of educational institutions. It leads me to believe the solution may be in having different instructors from different institutions (with different ideologies) teach parts of the same course, and the students will gain from different perspectives. I have seen examples of cross faculty collaborations within the same institution, but inter-institutional collaborations are rare particularly in online courses such as MOOCS where many institutions presumably are protecting their brand. Institutional brand protection through limiting course delivery to academics from only one institution does not necessarily benefit the students. Some promising alternatives for institution independent collaboration can be found on Peer To Peer University (https://p2pu.org/en/), and Wikiversity (www.wikiversity.org/). Any others?
After Rawls British political theory is not in its best mode. Although we have got theorists like John Gray, Michael Oakeshott and Roger Scruton, surely, one should take into account other authors and oeuvres as well.. How would you sketch a meta-narrative of contemporary British political philosophy?
I am looking to do a semiotic analysis of the ideology and positions adopted in the sustainability discourse by using Greimas semiotic square. The aim is to analyse the meanings attached to sustainability in the last 3 decades – i.e. how the discourse is constructed, by whom and how it has evolved. This study will aim to update views and understandings in the Design for Sustainability field.
Political decision-making about increasingly global conflicts is always influenced by non-governmental 'experts' and opinion-makers. Sources of relevant 'knowledge' might be based in social science research findings or on-the-ground experience. The various forms of evidence, and evaluating political, moral and ideological claims associated with state actions in the international arena, pose particular challenges for the public intellectual, who can be expected to apply reliable and consistent methods of analysis. Is the voice of the intellectual heard? Do intellectuals have a responsibility to speak out? Do they speak out enough? If not, why not?