A Reflection on Modern Ideologies and Their Impact
What About Modern Ideologies?
A few years ago, a rumor circulated that schools were placing litter boxes in bathrooms to accommodate students who identified as furries[1]. I wasn’t living in the United States at the time, so I didn’t track how it all unfolded. Whether true or not, it’s telling that public discourse was stirred by a topic like this. The fact that news involving furries and litter boxes in schools—or anything equally bizarre—says a great deal about the cultural moment we’re living through.
We inhabit a postmodern narrative that often elevates the fluidity of identity and dismisses the notion of objective truth. In such a context, arguments made by individuals who self-identify as furries and advocate for accommodations like litter boxes (again, whether fact or fiction, the example serves a purpose) don’t seem as implausible as they once might have. This reflects a broader cultural shift toward relativism—where truth is no longer grounded in anything fixed, but is instead shaped by personal perception. The rise of phrases like “this is my truth” epitomizes the mindset of our time, where the rejection of universal truth in favor of subjective experience opens the door for nearly any claim to gain traction, regardless of how disconnected it may be from reality.
Modern ideologies—Postmodernism, Neoliberalism, Identity Politics, Environmentalism and Climate Change Activism, Populism (to name a few)—are constantly evolving. They overlap, fracture, and re-emerge in new forms, making them difficult to keep pace with or fully understand. I won’t attempt to unpack each one here, as that falls beyond the scope of this reflection. But I’m convinced that at their core, many of these ideologies are rooted in a reimagined—and ultimately distorted—understanding of liberty.
Patrick Deneen contrasts ancient and modern liberty, describing the former as a form of just and appropriate rule—freedom ordered toward virtue. He notes, “This liberty, the ancients understood, was subject to misuse and excess: the oldest stories in our tradition, including the story of humankind’s fall from Eden, told of the human propensity to use freedom badly.”[2] He goes on to lament how modern liberty, rather than imparting the wisdom of the past to cultivate self-restraint and civility, “becomes synonymous with hedonic titillation, visceral crudeness, and distraction, all oriented toward promoting consumption, appetite, and detachment.”[3]
As I reflect on the modern ideologies shaping our time, Pilate’s mocking question to Jesus—’What is truth?’—echoes in my mind. And today, we answer: ‘Whatever we want it to be.’
My Convictions Confirmed
“In The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas are Killing Common Sense, Saad confirms that “these [infectious ideas] are composed of thought patterns, belief systems, attitudes, and mindsets that parasitize one’s ability to think properly and accurately.”[4] Ultimately, we have abandoned reason. Saad argues that these idea pathogens have permeated and taken control of academia, government, corporations, the media, and society at large. The result is a growing tendency to base judgments about truth not on reason, but on emotion.
While Saad acknowledges that both emotions and reason are essential for decision-making, he argues, “The problem arises when domains that should be reserved for the intellect are hijacked by feelings.”[5] Haidt echoes this by asserting, “The head can’t even do head stuff without the heart.”[6] He also describes the Jeffersonian dual-processing model[7], where emotions and moral reasoning operate as separate processes—each capable of making moral judgments independently, sometimes competing for dominance.
Philosopher Stephen Hicks adds that post modernist thinking claims, “Reason is artificial and dehumanizing— and that one’s feelings and passions are better guides than reason.”[8] Saad sees this ideological shift as deeply concerning, warning that, “Political tribalism fueled by emotional indignation superseded logic, science, and reason.”[9] If we continue to elevate emotion over reason in the realms that demand clear thinking, we risk losing our ability to engage with intellectual integrity, think critically, and solve problems that require more than just how we feel.
My Convictions Challenged
Although I found many of Saad’s arguments compelling, I struggled with the harshness of his tone—particularly in how he addresses the acknowledgment of historical injustices. He uses the term ideological self-flagellation to describe what he believes progressives view as the only acceptable path to redemption for privileged white Westerners: atoning for the perceived sin of not having been born poor or non-white in the developing world. He writes, “They [white Westerners] must atone for the sin of not having been born poor persons of color in the third world; thus, they might seek penance in a form of ideological self-flagellation.”[10] While I understand Saad’s critique of the damaging effects of collective self-loathing, particularly among Westerners, I am equally convinced that a posture of humility and acknowledgment of historical harm is essential.
Graham English captures this balance well in his blog post Let’s Not Go Back to Year Zero:
As a pastor, I have encountered individuals who bear the emotional scars of growing up in these brutal environments. I have met people who were forcibly removed from their families during the 1960s and placed in Caucasian homes…Indigenous elders have recounted stories of their people receiving blankets intentionally infected with smallpox, aimed at causing harm. The history and the wounds are real, and Canadian history should not be interpreted in such an insensitive manner.[11]
For English, repentance and a willingness to confess personal and cultural bias are necessary steps toward healing. As a follower of Jesus, this approach resonates more deeply with me than Saad’s sharp rejection of what he calls ideological self-flagellation.
In reflecting on modern ideologies and the growing tendency to prioritize emotion over reason, I am reminded of the warning in Judges 21:25: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” As we navigate our complex cultural landscape, it’s vital that we resist the temptation to define truth and justice based solely on personal perception or emotion. Instead, we must strive to uphold reason, humility, and accountability, grounding our understanding in a deeper, objective framework.
[1] Furries are people who enjoy anthropomorphic animal characters—animals with human traits like talking or walking upright. Many participate in a creative fandom where they design original characters (called fursonas), create art or stories, and sometimes wear costumes (fursuits). It’s a community focused on imagination, self-expression, and connection.
[2] Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (Politics and Culture; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 115, Kindle Edition.
[3] Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, 39, Kindle Edition.
[4] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2021), 17, Kindle Edition.
[5] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind, 27, Kindle Edition.
[6] Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Pantheon Books, 2012), 41.
[7] In contemporary discussions, “Jeffersonian dual processing” might refer to how people navigate complex information by balancing logical reasoning with personal values, passions, and emotional responses, especially in a political or democratic context.
[8] Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition; Ockham’s Razor, 2011), 197, Kindle Edition.
[9] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind, 33, Kindle Edition.
[10] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind, 116, Kindle Edition.
[11] Graham English, “Let’s Not Go Back To Year Zero,” Doctor of Leadership in Global Perspectives: Crafting Ministry in an Interconnected World, February 13, 2025, https://blogs.georgefox.edu/dlgp/lets-not-go-back-to-year-zero/
About the Author
Elysse Burns
11 responses to “A Reflection on Modern Ideologies and Their Impact”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Elysse,
Thanks for the post. Not feeling much like a furrie but I am a pastafarian and attend the church of the flying spaghetti monster. https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
Seriously now, I am wondering about your trip back home to what many refer to as the “left coast.” Did you see or hear anything that made an impact on you. Something perhaps that confirms what Saad is talking about. In asking this question I assume that where you currently are there is maybe less of a parasitic mind influence, but I may be wrong.
Hi Jeff, Thank you for introducing me to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster—I had never heard of it before! I didn’t observe anything particularly impactful during my time in California, but something that stood out to me at LAX was the noticeable presence of transgender individuals. I can never quite tell if I’m simply more attuned to this now because I’m so used to the conservative context of North Africa, or if the visibility is genuinely increasing. Either way, it caught me off guard. I also sensed an increasing polarization in my own family—sometimes it really does feel like a blessing to live on a different continent.
While North Africa isn’t facing the same kinds of parasitic ideas seen in many Western contexts, I’ve noticed a rising trend toward religious universalism—the idea that we all serve the same God and are headed to the same place. That argument really gets under my skin, especially because I know their religion is founded on exclusivist teachings. I feel like this narrative is an attempt to reframe the religion in a way that appears more inclusive. My question to them is this: If we are all serving the same God and ultimately headed to the same destination, then why does leaving the religion carry such severe consequences—even to the point of being punishable by death?
Elysse,
I love that you quoted Mr. English. It is interesting to note how you have traveled between North Africa and LA. Two extreme different places. Were there aspects of Saad that you struggled with as you live in another context?
Hi Adam, Mr. English definitely deserves to be quoted—thanks for the great question! As you know, California and North Africa feel like two entirely different worlds. One thing that really caught me off guard was Saad’s harsh tone when discussing Islam. While you can probably guess my general views on the religion, I found his approach jarring. I have many open-minded Muslim friends I deeply respect, and I honestly wouldn’t feel comfortable recommending this book to them because of how strongly his words came across.
That said, I completely understand where he’s coming from—his personal history is a complicated one, and his critiques are clearly shaped by deeply rooted experiences. Still, I think many in our cohort would agree that his tone has the potential to alienate a wide range of readers. Then again, I get the sense that he’s not particularly concerned about that.
Hi Elysse, I appreciate your closing where you talk about upholding “reason, humility, and accountability” and being grounded in an objective framework. Your reference to Judges 21:25 highlighted disorder and chaos, something that I think is related to postmodernism. As you consider how to engage individuals who might be more inclined to reject objectivity in their thought processes, how can you engage with them as Saad talks about in his call to action, without succumbing to his caustic ways?
Hi Diane, Thank you for your question. I must admit, I often feel stuck when engaging with those who reject the concept of objective truth. Interestingly, the conversations I encounter here in North Africa differ significantly from the discourse prevalent in Western contexts. Topics like transgender identity or radical feminism are nearly nonexistent. Instead, issues such as Palestine tend to dominate discussions—this is just one example. Religious universalism is another topic frequently raised.
Even in these conversations, I observe the dynamic Saad describes—emotions often taking precedence over reason. Rather than simply “choosing a side” and digging in my heels, I’ve started introducing the idea that we need an alternative. I’ve found this approach helps to diffuse tension, especially when both sides acknowledge that neither holds all the answers. However, I recognize that this is the best-case scenario, and not every conversation follows this pattern. Still, I believe this shift in focus—from defending positions to exploring alternatives—opens up space for more constructive and thoughtful dialogue.
Hi Elysse,
It is interesting that Saad notes the emotional state underpinning so much of belief and then he goes on to suggest arming oneself with facts to counteract postmodern ideologies. What process do you envision possibly helping shape a conversation with an emotionally charged person when you want to offer another point of view?
Hi Julie, Thank you for the thoughtful question. I can think of several instances where I completely missed the mark in responding to emotionally intense situations. One thing I’ve come to recognize is how much growth I still need in this area. If I’m not careful, I can become totally derailed during high-emotion conversations—not by fighting back, but by shutting down and retreating.
What I’m learning to envision for myself is the ability to resist the “fight or flight” instinct and remain relational and grounded in those moments. I want to move forward—not just in the conversation itself, but in my own emotional maturity—by choosing curiosity, calm, and connection instead of emotional reactivity. I’ve reached a point where I can recognize my default responses, but now I’m working toward the ability to quickly reframe my thinking and engage the other person in a constructive way. I’ll be sure to let you know if I ever reach that point!
This is great Elysse, thanks for your cogent analysis.
In your critique of ideological self-flagellation, how can we acknowledge historical injustices without falling into the trap of emotional extremism that you warn against?
Hey Elysse. I appreciated your post and how you highlighted Graham’s take, he definitely presents a powerful perspective. Your post also mentions the abandonment of reason. How do you suppose we as leaders can better handle this area?
Hi Daren, Thank you for the question. One thing I’ve come to recognize this semester is just how many reconceived definitions exist for concepts like liberty, humanity, and others. As leaders, we need to have a clear and confident understanding of what these terms mean—and where those meanings come from. Part of our role is helping others engage with accurate definitions or, at the very least, understand the historical context behind them. It’s easy to rely on buzzwords without really understanding the substance beneath them. I believe we can approach reason more effectively when we’re able to define terms that are increasingly treated as fluid or purely subjective.