In a message dated 6/24/00 7:44:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Justin is arguing that "Marx argues that, e,g., ideology
promotes ruling class rule." I think that's an empty statement in that
there is no way that persons with radically contradictory standpoints
can argue it one way or the other. >>
I have no idea what this means. Suppose you accept my rough definition of
ideology as belief systematically distorted by class (or other group)
interest, one offering a charcteristical kind of distortion Marx calls
inversion, e.g., confusing the social with the natural, the contingent with
the necessary, etc. Now why can't people with "radically contradictory
viewpoints" argue the claim that belief of thsi character promotes ruling
class rule six ways from Sunday? I mean, Elster, who believes in ideology but
not in functional explanation, can say, well, maybe suxch belief promotes
ruling class rule, but that doesn't explain why it exists. Cohen can argue
that it does explain it. Etc.
Or is your idea that this notion of ideology doesn't allow people to have
"radically contradictory viewspoints," that it assumes that if one has
ideological views one's brain has been washed and the ruling class has
totally colonized one's thoughts? Of course it implies no such thing. I
recall back in the first Jesse Jacksom campaign there was stir when a
Wisconsin union leader welcomed Jesse on the picket line with the the remark
that "We need more spearchuckers like Jackson here." This is a classical
contradictory consciousness. The racism in the "spearchuckers" epithet is
systematically distorted beluef that, moreover, promotes ruling class rule.
The welcome to Jacksom points to a different and better set of beliefs. one
that is not ideological. People can have beliefs that are ideological side by
side with ones that are scientific.
You seem to want to jettison the notion of ideology. Who am I to complain,
since I would jettison a lot of Marx--the labor theory of value, inevitablism
as far as he is stick with it, the rejection of morality in general and
jsutice in particular, etc. Except that I think the concept of ideology is
really valuable and defensible, if it is properly understood (my way, of
course).
--jks
