Ideological feminism is the direct heir of both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. From the former it takes the theory of class conflict, merely substituting “gender” for “class” and “patriarchy” for “bourgeoisie.” From the latter it takes the notion of nation or even race, focusing ultimately on the innate biological differences between women and men. The worldview of ideological feminism, like that of both Marxism and National Socialism—our analogies are between ways of thinking, not between specific ideas—is profoundly dualistic. In effect, “we” (women) are good, “they” (men) are evil. Or, to use the prevalent lingo, “we” are victims, “they” are oppressors.
Most of their criticism is aimed at feminism, but if you think about their description of ideology, it’s not difficult to see the same problems in any political movement. Here are the features they relate to ideologies:
Dualism (see above)
Essentialism (“calling attention to the unique qualities of women”)
Hierarchy (“alleging directly or indirectly that women are superior to men”)
Collectivism (“asserting that the rights of individual men are less important than the communal goals of women”)
Utopianism (“establishing an ideal social order within history”)
Selective cynicism (“directing systematic suspicion only toward men”)
Revolutionism (“adopting a political program that goes beyond reform”)
Consequentialism (“asserting the beliefs that ends can justify means”)
Quasi-religiousity (“creating what amounts to a secular religion”)
I would be interested to know how these features relate to your experiences with ideologies.
I recommend these books to anyone who is interested in biases, group psychology, and ideologies; their books give excellent philosophical discussions of these subjects that go beyond the particular examples of feminism and misandry. They also attempt a philosophical exploration of what “political correctness” is, and what’s wrong with it, and they examine deconstructionism.
I haven’t read the books by Nathanson & Young, but looking at their tables of contents, I can say that I am well familiar with these topics. However, it’s important to immediately note that the notion of ideology that you (and presumably N&Y) have in mind is narrower than what I was writing about. This might sound like nitpicking about meanings of words, and clearly neither usage can claim to be exclusively correct, but it is important to be clear about this to avoid confusion.
Ideology in the broader sense also includes the well-established and uncontroversial views and attitudes that enable social cohesion in any human society. (This follows the usage in Burnham’s text I cited; for example, in that same text, shortly after the cited passage, Burnham goes on to discuss individualism and belief in property rights as key elements of the established ideologies of capitalist societies.) In contrast, your meaning is narrower, covering a specific sort of more or less radical ideologies that have played a prominent role in modern history, which all display the traits you listed to at least some extent.
One book you might find interesting, which discusses ideology in this latter sense, is Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology by the LSE political theorist Kenneth Minogue. I only skimmed through a few parts of the book, but I would recommend it based on what I’ve seen. Minogue is upfront about his own position (i.e. ideology, in Burnham’s sense, but not his), which might be described as intellectual and moderate libertarianism; in my opinion, this is the kind of topic where authors of this sort usually shine at their brightest. You can find an excerpt presenting the basic ideas from the book here.
I’ll check out these books by Nathanson & Young in more detail, and perhaps post some more comments later.
Vladimir, have you read Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry by Nathanson & Young? They’ve done some of the best work I’ve read on the subject of ideology. Here is their description of ideological feminism:
Most of their criticism is aimed at feminism, but if you think about their description of ideology, it’s not difficult to see the same problems in any political movement. Here are the features they relate to ideologies:
Dualism (see above)
Essentialism (“calling attention to the unique qualities of women”)
Hierarchy (“alleging directly or indirectly that women are superior to men”)
Collectivism (“asserting that the rights of individual men are less important than the communal goals of women”)
Utopianism (“establishing an ideal social order within history”)
Selective cynicism (“directing systematic suspicion only toward men”)
Revolutionism (“adopting a political program that goes beyond reform”)
Consequentialism (“asserting the beliefs that ends can justify means”)
Quasi-religiousity (“creating what amounts to a secular religion”)
I would be interested to know how these features relate to your experiences with ideologies.
Other notable sections in Spreading Misandry:
Making the World Safe for Ideology
The use of deconstructionism by ideologies
Film Theory and Ideological Feminism
I recommend these books to anyone who is interested in biases, group psychology, and ideologies; their books give excellent philosophical discussions of these subjects that go beyond the particular examples of feminism and misandry. They also attempt a philosophical exploration of what “political correctness” is, and what’s wrong with it, and they examine deconstructionism.
I haven’t read the books by Nathanson & Young, but looking at their tables of contents, I can say that I am well familiar with these topics. However, it’s important to immediately note that the notion of ideology that you (and presumably N&Y) have in mind is narrower than what I was writing about. This might sound like nitpicking about meanings of words, and clearly neither usage can claim to be exclusively correct, but it is important to be clear about this to avoid confusion.
Ideology in the broader sense also includes the well-established and uncontroversial views and attitudes that enable social cohesion in any human society. (This follows the usage in Burnham’s text I cited; for example, in that same text, shortly after the cited passage, Burnham goes on to discuss individualism and belief in property rights as key elements of the established ideologies of capitalist societies.) In contrast, your meaning is narrower, covering a specific sort of more or less radical ideologies that have played a prominent role in modern history, which all display the traits you listed to at least some extent.
One book you might find interesting, which discusses ideology in this latter sense, is Alien Powers: The Pure Theory of Ideology by the LSE political theorist Kenneth Minogue. I only skimmed through a few parts of the book, but I would recommend it based on what I’ve seen. Minogue is upfront about his own position (i.e. ideology, in Burnham’s sense, but not his), which might be described as intellectual and moderate libertarianism; in my opinion, this is the kind of topic where authors of this sort usually shine at their brightest. You can find an excerpt presenting the basic ideas from the book here.
I’ll check out these books by Nathanson & Young in more detail, and perhaps post some more comments later.