This here is a paper that aims to address, in a philosophical manner, the question on whether an individual’s ideologies oblige him to enjoy or sulk in happiness. Drawing on the conclusions made in the assigned readings and other significant philosophical texts, the author of this paper tries to answer the main question in a close ended but evidence-based manner.
In order to do this, a working definition of the term ideology must be provided first. There are numerous ways how one can define ideology. Within a philosophical framework, ideology can be defined as a collection of beliefs, doctrines, and perceptions that is both consciously and subconsciously shared by the members of a certain group. One key term to consider in that philosophical definition is group because there are certain ways how a population can be stratified. A population can be stratified using factors such as race, ethnicity, social class, political and social ideologies and centeredness, gender, and religion among others. History would prove that these groupings and ideological differences have only led to divisions (i.e. ideological) and conflict. A significant example would be how the ideological differences (from a political perspective) led to a conflict, a violent one at that, between left and right wing supporters. There are, of course, a lot of other examples.
Then again, the question is, were those people obliged to activate their confrontation mode and engage in conflicts just because the other group or groups (at least from their perspective) were having the wrong set of beliefs, perceptions, and opinions about something, as if there is a dire need to liberate those people and that there is a sense and reward of enjoyment by successfully doing so. The author of this paper supports the idea and therefore makes use of the hypothesis that suggests that ideology indeed equates to enjoyment and happiness; but that it should not obligate people to enjoy.
This particular response to the current philosophical question can, in fact, be followed up by another question; one that asks whether people are obliged to be in a state of delectation all the time. The answer to which, as many people well-versed in the various philosophical theories and paradigms would agree, would be a yes. This consensus on the follow up question (whether people are obliged to be in a constant state of delectation) basically answers the main research question too. So yes, ideology indeed people to enjoy.
It is important to provide a logical and unbiased answer to this one question. So, in order to do that, one has to look at it from all sides. The ones who would say that ideology indeed obliges people to enjoy would often resort to political and social theories, like the ones found in Lewontin’s book about the relationship between biology and ideology. To give credit where it is due, Lewontin tackled numerous logical and sensible arguments that explained his main thesis which basically revolved around the idea that humans, no matter how hard they try, are bound by the laws of genetics (i.e. the Doctrine of DNA) and biology; and that their being so can be used to explain why certain people behave in certain ways. Majority of the key arguments he raised in his book supports the notion that ideologies indeed oblige people to enjoy and therefore goes against what the author of this paper is trying to prove. For example, Lewontin (90) stated that biology and genetics (i.e. the DNA Doctrine) “in some sense, justify how we come to have these particular genes rather than some other genes that might have given us quite a different human nature” and that “the human nature described is inevitable”. These excerpts basically support the position that suggests how people are basically shackled by the inevitability of having a sense of enjoyment that is directly correlated on a subconscious quest for uniformity. In this case, that uniformity pertains to ideological uniformity.
Another part from Lewontin’s book that cements his inclination to the idea of ideological uniformity being directly related to a person’s being obliged to enjoy (i.e. sense of enjoyment or happiness) can be found in page 88 where he referred to Thomas Hobbes’ idea about human beings being human beings. In it he said “human beings, like other animals, were self-enlarging, self-aggrandizing objects that simply had to grow and occupy the world; but the world was a place of finite resources, and so it necessarily would happen that human beings would come into conflict over those resources as they expanded and the result would be what he called the war of all against all” . It has to be taken note that Hobbes’ and therefore Lewontin’s idea about the inevitability of man to try to conquer the world for he be it through ideological, political, or whatever means may be necessary conclusively places them in the pro side of the current philosophical question.
There is, however, a loophole to the arguments that were selected and presented from Lewontin’s book. Firstly, the idea that humans are creatures that are bound and shackled by their DNA and other genetic predispositions is starting to be considered outdated by many sociologists and scientists. Humans are creatures capable of being domesticated and civilized. This is why there are laws and rules on almost everything; and why government entities, particularly justice and law enforcement departments are among the most heavily funded entities in a civilized society—to maintain constant peace, order, and political and social stability.
Lewontin knew about this loophole in Thomas Hobbes’ argument about human nature and its relationship with the conflict and conflict creation. He, however, did not acknowledge this loophole in a confrontational manner. Instead, he did so indirectly and discreetly. Notice how he used the past tense when he curated Hobbes’ ideas to support his own. That can be interpreted as him recognizing the being outdated of that notion about the human DNA. So, despite the valid and sensible arguments that he pointed out (which they are), it is not strong enough to prove that ideology has obliged and should oblige people to enjoy or be in a constant state of delectation.
Another important source that should be referred to in this case would be Zizek et al.’s (01-348) book entitled Mapping Ideology. In it they mentioned different philosophical theories that, according to them, can be used to explain man’s behavior when it comes to the different processes involving ideologies, from the adoption, acquisition, and even protection. One of the most relevant philosophical theories mentioned in the literature was existentialism.
Broadly, existentialism is one of the philosophical movements that focused on the concepts of freedom, choice, and individual existence. During the period where it got popularized, people started to develop a sense of self-entitlement—they started to believe that they or at least their group was unique, special in some way; and that at some point, they deserve to have and experience something better compared to what they currently had. Needless to say, people became more narcissistic and egocentric.
In Mapping Ideology, existentialism was portrayed a bit more specifically. According to Zizek et al. (98), existentialism must be judged by the account it gives of the subjective dilemmas which it has indeed given rise to: the freedom which never claims more authenticity than when it is within the walls of a prison; the demand for commitment, expressing the impotence of a pure consciousness to master any situation; the voyeuristic-sadistic idealization of the sexual relationship; the personality which realizes itself only in suicide; the awareness of the other which can be satisfied only by the Hegelian murder”.
So far, among these existentialism-related propositions, the one that appears to be most relevant to the current case is the demand for commitment. Existentialism, as mentioned in that part of the book, forces humans to commit to whatever idea or entity they have decided to establish an alliance with. Within the context of ideologies, this can be explained by their happiness being the direct result of their success in imparting ideologies, as if there is a constant thirst for concordance and uniformity. With existentialism, those feelings get highlighted. As a result, people or groups of people become more emboldened and motivated to impose their ideologies and perceptions to other groups.
The latter, on the other hand, with an equally egocentric and existentialistic ideology, would most likely not yield to the efforts of the imposing party. In fact, there is reason and evidence (i.e. the readings) to think that they would behave the same way as the first party that was just described. In that scenario, what one would see would be two groups of people who each have its own ideologies trying to influence the other group. This is what leads to discords and conflicts and history as well as the philosophical readings that were reviewed and quoted serve as evidence that this has and is indeed the case.
Karl Marx’s writings also prove to be on the same side as the two previous authors. Broadly speaking, Marx is a proponent of the idea that suggests that society’s dominant ideology is important to its existence, stability, and superstructure. It is important to note what actually constitutes the term dominant ideology according to Marx. These may refer to the religious, legal, and political ideologies that exist in the overall system.
All of these are meant to keep the status quo. Discordance in ideologies between the different groups that make up the system, according to Marx, would almost always lead to conflicts. In Marx’s work entitled Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (01-243), he discussed various ideas related to economics, politics, and society. Among the concepts he discussed were communism, socialism, and capitalism (as stages of evolution of the human social and economic relations), fiscal and monetary policies, and private property.
According to his work, communism is and would most likely emerge as the final stage of evolution of the human social and economic relations, with capitalism being the earliest stage of evolution, followed by socialism which he described as a fundamentally lite version of communism. Marxist did not really discover or invent a new ideology. His objective was to merely apply the existing ideologies during his time into the field of economics and politics, which he did successfully. However, one can sense a bias towards communistic and socialistic concepts—this can be evidenced by the fact that he suggested that capitalism must be overthrown in order for the human socioeconomic system to evolve into greater heights—the last stage of which would be communism. That can be likened to saying that communism is the ideal ideology and socioeconomic setting.
Narrowing the concepts that he discussed in the manuscript further, the author of this paper found the concept of conscious life activity to be directly relevant to the current issue on ideology. According to Marx (63), “conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from the life activity of the animal; only thereby is he a species-being; or rather, he is only a conscious being, that is, his own life is an object for him—since he is a species-being; only on that account is his activity free activity; alienated labor reverses that relationship in that man, since he is a conscious being, makes his life activity, his essence, only a means for his existence”.
Marx, in that part of his manuscript supported the notion that man is different from animals in that they can make rational and conscious decisions. They are not all that dependent on their genetic and biological dispositions in order to function and exist-as what the previous two works’ authors suggested. Therefore, if one is to focus entirely on what Marx said about life activity, man has control over practically everything. He can make the conscious decision to stop equating his enjoyment and sense of delectation to his success and or ability to conquer other people politically or ideologically. To say that the belief that man’s ideology obliges him to enjoy can therefore be equated to saying that man is a specie that is not a conscious and rational being, capable of making voluntary changes to the way how he thinks and behaves and purely reliant on what his body and genes dictates.
Marx has proven to be a proponent of an objective world; one that is governed by reason, basically things that support’s man’s nature as a conscious being. Of the three literatures reviewed in this paper so far, Marx was the only one who disproved the author of this paper’s hypothesis about ideology’s ability to oblige people to enjoy.
In conclusion, if one is going to base it on what the literatures say alone, the answer to the philosophical question on whether ideology obliges man to enjoy would be a yes. It is so far two against one. However, just because the literatures say it is currently the case does not mean people should apply it in real life. So, should people, being the conscious beings that they are, allow their existing ideologies to oblige them to enjoy?
The answer to that follow up question is a no. History has proven time and again that man has an insatiable thirst for influence, imposition, and domination (be it via ideological means or whatnot). However, it is also this tendency and behavior that set the stage for the huge conflicts and wars that led the huge losses of lives and economic and societal destruction that the world has experienced so far. So, the conscious and rational thing to do would be to put a stop to that ideology.
Works Cited
Lewontin, R. "Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA." Harper Perennial (1991): 01-144. Print.
Marx, K. "The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist Manifesto." Prometheus Books (1988): 01-243. Print.
Zizek, S., et al. "Mapping Ideology." Verson (2012): 01-348. Print.
