I know more than a few people who often dismiss certain folks as "ideologues." It is almost said reflexively. At times it seems a curious habit. The disparagement is always done with great facility and, perhaps, felicity. And I never quite understand it. Definitions in some of the older dictionaries I own show that, first and foremost, an ideologue is an expert in ideology, which is defined as "the body of doctrine, myth, symbol, etc., of a social movement, institution, class, or large group." The secondary meaning is that of a person who deals with systems of ideas. And the tertiary meaning describes a person "who advocates a particular ideology." (The Random House College Dictionary, 1975).
Curiously, more recent definitions are rather blunt. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary is utterly matter of fact:
ideologue (noun): An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology
And the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives us this definition for ideologue:
1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
It is interesting to note how unnuanced these online definitions prove themselves to be. I wonder if this is the trend in computer age diction, where words become more rigid, lacking subtlety, posited in all their raw black-and-white glory. Computer users are, after all, in a hurry.
My observation -- provincial as it is -- about the word in question is that the man denouncing another chap as a "mere ideologue" is usually himself something of an ideologue. With that said, I, of course, admit that my comment lacks subtlety. I promise to make amends in a forthcoming essay on the topic.
For now, two things. First, I would love to hear what you think "ideologue" means: what does it connote and who does it denote? Second, I urge you to read one of my all-time favorite essays (fragmented as it is) by C. S. Lewis. After reading his capital essay, Bulverism, this morning, I am reminded -- again -- how careful I must be.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.
2 comments:
Haven't read the CSLewis SA yet, but your comment reminded me of a "conversaition" a group of us had on Dan's blog regarding the definition and meaning of "appeasment" a few weeks ago.
My point (similar to yours, I think) is that there seems to be a trend to define words (and symbols etc) more strictly, stripping away the finer points of connotation, etc.
Emawkc,
I, too, have been involved in several recent on-line debates in which the strategy du jour (other than the ad hominem), is to obsess about definitions. Everyone seems intent on pinning things down. On the one hand, we all realize that clarity is a good thing. But on the other, demand for too much clarity bogs things down: it is paralysis by strict literalism, and, I believe, it is often meant to detract from a particular interlocutor's argument (it is to suggest that he is vague, clumsy, amphibolous or stupid, i.e., it's a veiled ad hominem), or it is meant to draw attention to oneself, one's needs, or one's dizzying and exacting intellect.
I am reading a biography and analysis of Immanuel Kant and his work. One interesting note is that the biographer, himself a philosopher, believed that Kant's ideas would have been forever forgotten had he submitted his inquiries to a pseudo-scientific demand for absolutely clear terms. Kant himself suggested that he, and his colleagues, were actually arguing towards clarity: they were working towards their terms as they dialogued. To suddenly interrupt a conversation with demands for absolute precision actually impedes progress. The only real reason to so interrupt is if someone has indeed spotted some equivocation, some ambiguity, that is germane to the matters at hand. Otherwise, meaning is nearly always shaped by usage, usage is understood by context, and as such requires work on the part of readers. That people don't want to work is often true; and that people don't want to slow down and understand exactly what is being said, in total, adds to the problems associated with misunderstanding.
Recently I spoke to a friend I have known for 25 years. He is extremely literal. I said with a heart full of sincerity:
"Bert, how ARE you?"
To which he replied:
"What does that even mean?"
So, we continued.
"Well, Bert, I think it at least means that I hope you are doing well, that you are happy."
"'Well?' 'Happy?' I don't even think in those terms. Such terms don't apply to me. I don't even know how to answer that."
Sadly, neither do I. But I could if I was speaking to nearly anyone but Bert, my strict literalist friend; the man who, truly, demands a verbal precision I cannot pretend to attain.
Instantly, our conversation came to a halt. It's a good thing I didn't tell him to jump out of the way of a speeding train.
"'Jump?' 'Train?' What do you even mean?"
If Bert would just jump, maybe we could keep walking, toward clarity -- together.
Peace,
Gnade
Post a Comment