Ambivalent
Previous Understanding of Ideologies
Lacking a clear definition of ideologies, I tend to believe they are the belief systems of people, dissatisfied with the status quo, who take religious, political, or philosophical beliefs to extremes. Ideologies appear to be a framework that their adherents believe will set the world to rights if only everyone gets on board; therefore, violence is justified as a means of implementation. Some specific examples include many “isms” like Marxism, Nazism, and Islamism. Christian Nationalism could be included here via the January 6, 2021, events in Washington, D.C.
I am unsure whether socialism is an ideology. Still, I recall Stephen Hicks’ thesis in Explaining Postmodernism that postmodernism a response to the failure of socialism to live up to its ideals.[1] Postmodernism carried to its extreme is often labeled “wokeism,” which seems like an ideology that results in different forms of violence. First, there may be a typical rioting type of violence, as in Portland, OR, during the summer of 2020. Second, there may be violence against oneself, perhaps emotional, physical, or a combination, when rejecting one’s God-given identity. Having grown out of philosophical roots, ideological postmodernism now aggressively attempts to shape politics and religion. My evidence for this belief is the constant pressure on politicians and clergy to phrase their comments in a non-offensive manner. This practice becomes increasingly difficult, even ridiculous, considering the numerous vocal groups and intersections of groups demanding protection from the speech of others.
Most recently my understanding of ideology has been shaped by Jordan B. Peterson remarks about ideologies being like “crippled religions.” [2] He commented that people are attracted to them for the sense of security and identity they provide, but that ideologies are like a “parasite” sitting on top of something good and right and true. He portrayed ideologies as “warped and bent” replacements for the goodness of proper religion. I noted at the time that his language was ominous and conveyed a sense of evil that I connected with satan, the father of lies. (John 8:44)
Challenges and Affirmations
Enter Gad Saad and The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. The book’s title immediately reveals the author’s extended metaphor of identifying many popular ideas as dangerous pathogens, potentially as deadly as HIV, plague, and Ebola.[3] Despite his hyperbolic writing style, as an evolutionary psychologist, Saad comes to his topic of “parasitic pathogens of the human mind” with the scientific chops to be taken seriously as a potential source of empirical truth.
The Parasitic Mind focuses primarily on a specific set of “isms,” not particularly born from religious or political extremism, but the thoughtways born from philosophical postmodernism in the incubator of academia. While reading Saad, there were moments when I thought, “Wait! Are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater there?”[4] But going back into it, most of his seemingly questionable points were clarified by reading the book entirely. One topic from the realm of religion did leave me wrestling between my previous belief that Islam is peaceful primarily and only sometimes (rarely) leaning over into radical ideology vs. that it is fundamentally ideological at its core. I looked for a discussion on religion, but found its location in the text curious.
Near the end of the book, Gaad promotes the strategy of developing a mountain of scientific evidence, or a nomological network, to overcome mind parasites. One of the ideas he takes on as an example of a false narrative needing to be refuted is that Islam is a religion of peace and that only the fringe are dangerous extremists of the type I had in mind when I suggested “Islamism” is an ideology in the opening paragraph. The evidence presented from the sacred texts of Islam, from terrorist activity, and other markers of tolerance presents Islam as decidedly less than peaceful. Saad was careful to say that these facts do not represent individual Muslims, but pertain to the analysis of the Islamic ideology as a whole.[5] His arguments make sense in terms of justifying some degree of “profiling”, but did not specifically differentiate between radical Islam and your everyday Muslim housewife. I am concerned that his tone lends itself to meme creation, which can be used by people who simply want to justify their own prejudices.
In an argument that I found compelling, Saad points out that in the West, the ideologies of identity politics, among others, have failed to create equity but have succeeded in creating oppression of the groups they rail against. In common-speak, the pendulum has swung. Saad illustrates this with a comparison from Islam. According to Saad, when identity politics are codified into law, the result is more like Islamic Sharia law, (which compensates crime victims who are adherents of religions other than Islam far, far less than a Muslim.)
Application
Although bathed in sarcasm, The Parasitic Mind highlights the lunacy that has resulted in the self-censoring of opinions out of fear of cancellation from one’s circle of influence, be it political, educational, collegial, or familial.[6] He posits that we must begin to hold the ground of truth with the tenacity of a “honey badger” and without fear of giving offense.[7] I have recently begun experimenting with suggesting that “women’s clergy” groups are counterintuitive to their supposed aims of empowering women clergy because they tend to foster a victim mentality. Throughout the book, Saad repeatedly highlights the underlying victim identities that support the formation and maintenance of parasitic ideologies. Here is my challenge: Do I stay connected to these groups and influence them from within by maintaining my own less-anxious presence and firm stance that excellence and results are prerequisites to higher levels of leadership? Or, do I bow out because the very existence of the groups continues to promote an ideology of oppressed victimhood (though nothing at all like radical feminism)?
[1] Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Ockham’s Razor Publishing, 2011), 4.
[2] Jordan Peterson, “Introduction to the Idea of God,” Biblical Series, YouTube video, May 20, 2017, Jordan B. Peterson, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w. 12:45
[3] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense, (New York: Regenery, 2020), 17.
[4] An example is his reconstruction of the acronym for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) as “DIE” and classifying it as a “cult” among universities. Gad Sad, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense, (New York: Regenery, 2020), 61.
[5] Sad, The Parasitic Mind, 168.
[6] Sad, The Parasitic Mind, 20.
[7] Sad, The Parasitic Mind, 183.
About the Author
Julie O'Hara
3 responses to “Ambivalent”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Julie, Thanks for mentioning Saad’s use of Islam in his writings. Living in a country that acknowledges Sharia law, I agree with much of what he says, but I agree with you that his tone can be misleading.
Thanks for sharing about the dilemma with the women’s clergy group. Regardless of your decision, I know you will be an example of a leader who chooses to be well-differentiated and not a victim.
Hi Julie, I really appreciated how you worked through your previous understanding of ideologies. I also found your comparison to Islam particularly compelling, especially the way modern ideologies can begin to resemble something like Sharia law in their expectations and consequences.
I often find myself hesitant around ideologies that “destroy” or ostracize anyone who chooses to walk away. That’s a real fear for many of my friends who wonder what would happen to them if they ever left their religion.
You mentioned women’s clergy groups—what do you think the response would be if you chose to bow out?
Julie, thanks for your blog. You mentioned women’s clergy groups could foster a victim mentality. I’m glad that you are challenging this mentality. You also proposed either staying as a non-anxious presence or bowing out. I understand why you’d be tempted to bow out but would encourage you to stay and be the non-anxious presence until a better solution could be found.
How might you begin to change the perspective of a support group for women to a development group for women?