The Ghosts Dominating the Ideologues’ Discourse
Ideology could be loosely defined as the prism through which people perceive and experience the world.
Ideology as a concept has been assigned a broad array of meanings over the past century. It could be loosely defined as the prism through which people perceive and experience the world. One line of thought, following a Marxist philosophy, claims that the world we inhabit is mainly dominated by ideology.
The concept’s underlying premise is that there’s something akin to a grand conspiratorial plot employed by the ‘ruling class’ to intentionally create false consciousness (a term that is often associated with Marxist philosophy) with the sole aim of manipulating the masses.
This axiom, ironically, created a self-feeding circle that has slowly been dragging societies down a very dark abyss.
The assumption that pop culture, politics, and academic institutions operate with a dogmatic underpinning have prompted the proliferation of stances that embraced a worldview devoid of truth and value (what would Nietzsche say!).
Instead, while attempting to break free from the shackles of ideology, the intellectual discourse not only left the ideological cave, but was also suspicious of the sun as the only source of truth (Plato would be disappointed). This created an upheaval instigated by academic institutions to promote a stance that accepted any account, worldview, or narrative as potentially true in its own right.
Several philosophers and academic scholars played an influential role in this radical shift. It would be very difficult to pin down the reasons that triggered such a radical change; however, the consequences reveal a lost, narcissistic, paranoid, and angry world.
In search of a proper answer to the question of identity, fields like art and humanities found the rugs pulled from under their feet. Standing on loose ground in search of a more secure land forced the implosion of such fields and made way for the participation of anyone with a ‘compelling’ narrative, no matter the content.
For example, any object or piece could potentially be considered an artwork if the artist bestowed upon it such an elevated status. Within this frenzy, the public were encouraged to construct a personal interpretation of the works, because at the end of the day, no opinion was in any way better than the rest.
Such a “participation-award-for-everybody” mentality created a vacuum engendering a monochromatic movement that spread its tentacles over several fields including politics, academia, and art.
Against the lack of a clear set of values, this movement has committed itself to defend the values of everybody else under the pretense (among other things) that every voice deserves to be heard.
With a sneaky grin the gods of irony bought first row tickets to this petty farce. As it turns out, this movement has been successful at penetrating cultural discourse, spreading to Universities and cultural hubs, razing any opinion that stood AGAINST it to the ground.
The irony lies in the fact that against the backdrop of nihilistic preaching, this movement gloated about its moral superiority in comparison to all the other intellectual movements that favored other stances.
With such a twist of events, the category-void world paved the way for a rampant extremism not in anyway dissimilar to other forms of widespread terrorism (religious or otherwise), falsely claiming that their path is the only right one to live a moral life.
Such deplorable extremism is the result of copious ideology (or is it?), which is taken to act as the precondition of any experience of the world.
Falling victim to their own argument of the omnipresence of ideology, advocates of this stance couldn’t help but see things that were not really there in the first place. For example, ALL cinema, and every other outlet, becomes a potential tool of deception that could only be properly interpreted with the presupposition that it is ideological.
To combat that, they, therefore, set a clear IDEOLOGICAL agenda that has been the ONLY permissible one insofar as the narratives followed their meticulously construed and well-accepted values.
I don’t know about you, but this only seems all too familiar to other despicable movements, which have wreaked havoc amongst people who wanted nothing other than a safe space to debate ideas and question premises that have long since been adopted as divine. Slowly, the ghosts are dominating the ideologues’ discourse.