Ideologies, ideologies, will they ever not oppress us?

 Tool’s article Standpoint Epistemology as Ideology Critique explores a very intriguing idea, to which I do not have a direct comment, rather, my curiosity was piqued in two different ways, which I want to explore in this blog post.  

 

First is the idea of ideologies themselves. Tool in her paper provides a number of examples of the roles that ideologies play (legitimising narratives, justifying behaviours) as well as pinpoints to who creates them (the ruling classes). Through doing so she is showing the oppressive nature that ideologies play and the idea that the ruling classes will not want to dismantle the system they have created because it gives them power. This idea leads me to think if there is even a possibility of a society without an ideology that would act as an oppressing force? I am not convinced that there can ever be an idea that would not oppress any of the social classes. While Marx is trying to show such a world is possible; I believe that his ideals are only ideals and will never be able to fully materialise in the real world. I would argue that when there is an ideology inherently there is oppression of a group in a society. However, I might not be seeing nuances that will allow us, as a society, to construct an ideology without oppression. Or maybe we can even create a world without an overarching ideology?

 

Second point also connects to the idea of ideology and how oppressive a force it is. Tool calls for ideology critique that can successfully dismantle the unjust social conditions which are upheld by the oppressive ideologies. However, maybe we are a lost cause? Perhaps we got to a point when we historically have created so many different forces that keep the marginalised communities in their false consciousness and devised tools that only allow them to see what the ruling class wants them to see. This way the ruling classes perfectly developed an oppressive mechanism without a way to dismantle it. I only partly believe that pessimistic story, but I think that to change the system that we have in place, we are in desperate need of people who will see beyond the ideological lines and can foster a new way of looking at the societies we inhabit. And such individuals are hard to find in oppressive societies. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the social reality imply a natural reality?

I’m very interested in understanding where the boundary between what we might consider the (or a) ‘natural’ reality and our ‘social’ reality occurs. Professor Toole offers a compelling account of how the ideology of the ruling class shapes the body of knowledge and the conceptual tools available to understand social reality. Professor Toole’s account seems to imply the impossibility of social structures as being ‘natural.’ That is, the term natural social structure or formation would be an oxymoron. She writes, “social structures are…constituted by our choices and actions,” (4) which seems to indicate that social structures are the result of human choices and actions, and so they cannot exist in the absence of them. This also seems to suggest a division between our ‘social’ reality exclusively defined by and dependent on human action and choice and a ‘natural’ reality of things not affected by humans, say the ocean and uranium. I am interested in the boundary and relationship between t...
Read more

Is cancel culture democratic (with a small "d" even though it is also Democratic with a big "D")?

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...
Read more

Better Model?

     On page 54, Beitz says that human rights are like natural rights in that they are "critical standards" not determined by legal rules, but unlike natural rights in that they do not presuppose one view about their justification. He seems to be basing this off of Maritain's conclusion that human rights are a common ground for action despite different reasons for justification for different people. He uses this to say that human rights are not "out there" as natural rights are and continues the argument on 57. He argues that there seems to be no good reason for why we should  conceive of human rights as natural ones.      Beitz points to natural rights theorists like Locke, conceived of natural rights " formulate constraints on the use of a government’s coercive power in circumstances of religious and moral diversity" (57). While I suspect that Locke would argue that he had other reasons for posing these as natural rigthts and this was a just a desira...
Read more