> "ideology"'s a funny loaded word these days. are all "ideologies" inextricably totalitarianising? ... is that intrinsic to "ideology"? what's a definition of "ideology"? what are some ideologies that are absolutely not totalitarianising? Your question touches on a deep and often contentious topic in political philosophy, sociology, and cultural studies. Let’s break it down step by step: Definition of "Ideology" The term ideology has evolved over time, but at its core, it refers to a systematic set of ideas, beliefs, or values that explain and justify social, political, economic, or cultural arrangements. Ideologies often provide a framework for understanding the world and can shape how individuals or groups perceive reality, morality, and action. Marxist view: Ideology is a tool of the ruling class to maintain power, often masking inequalities as "natural" or "inevitable." Neutral view: Ideology is simply a worldview or a lens through which people interpret the world, not inherently oppressive or liberating. Critical theory: Ideology can be both a tool of domination and a means of resistance, depending on context. Is Totalitarianism Intrinsic to Ideology? No, totalitarianism is not intrinsic to ideology. However, some ideologies—especially those that demand absolute conformity, suppress dissent, and seek to control all aspects of life—can become totalitarian in practice. This often happens when an ideology is monopolized by a single party or leader and enforced through coercion, propaganda, and repression. Totalitarian ideologies (e.g., Stalinism, Nazism) are marked by: A single, unchallengeable "truth." The subordination of the individual to the collective or state. The use of violence or repression to eliminate opposition. Non-totalitarian ideologies do not inherently require these features. Many ideologies are pluralistic, open to debate, and compatible with democratic values. Ideologies That Are Not Totalitarianising Here are some examples of ideologies that, in their core forms, are not inherently totalitarian and can coexist with open societies: 1. Liberalism Emphasizes individual rights, limited government, and pluralism. Values free speech, rule of law, and democratic participation. Example: Classical liberalism, social liberalism. 2. Democracy (as an ideology) The belief in government by the people, with protections for minority rights. Requires open debate, free elections, and checks on power. 3. Humanism Focuses on human dignity, reason, and ethical living without necessarily imposing a single worldview. Secular humanism, for example, advocates for science, critical thinking, and compassion. 4. Environmentalism Advocates for sustainability and ecological balance. Can be pursued through democratic means, education, and grassroots activism. 5. Feminism (in its pluralistic forms) Seeks gender equality and challenges patriarchal structures. Many feminist movements are intersectional and open to diverse perspectives. 6. Anarchism (in its non-violent, cooperative forms) Rejects hierarchical authority but does not inherently require coercion. Examples: Anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism. Why Some Ideologies Become Totalitarian Dogmatism: When an ideology claims absolute truth and brooks no dissent. Centralization of power: When a single group or leader controls the interpretation and enforcement of the ideology. Dehumanization of opponents: When those who disagree are labeled as enemies or threats. Crisis or fear: Ideologies can become more extreme in response to perceived existential threats. Key Takeaway Ideology itself is not inherently totalitarian. It becomes dangerous when it is monopolized, enforced through coercion, and closed to critique. Many ideologies—like liberalism, humanism, or democratic socialism—are compatible with open, pluralistic societies. The difference lies in how an ideology is implemented and whether it allows for dissent, diversity, and democratic participation. What do you think? Do you see any ideologies today that walk the line between liberating and oppressive? Or are there examples you’d add to the "non-totalitarian" list? > "all ideologies are totalizing", same thing as "all ideologies are totaliitarianizing" The phrases "all ideologies are totalizing" and "all ideologies are totalitarianizing" are related but not identical. They point to different, though overlapping, critiques of ideology. Let’s unpack the distinction and the implications of each claim: 1. "All ideologies are totalizing" Totalizing refers to the tendency of an ideology to provide a comprehensive, all-encompassing framework for understanding the world. It seeks to explain everything—politics, economics, culture, morality, history—within its own terms. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s oppressive or authoritarian, but it does mean it offers a closed system of meaning that can shape how people perceive reality. Examples: Religious worldviews (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Marxism as a "secular religion") often provide total explanations for existence, morality, and destiny. Neoliberalism can be seen as totalizing in its framing of all human activity as market-driven, even in areas traditionally outside economics (e.g., education, healthcare, personal relationships). Scientism (the belief that only scientific knowledge is valid) can be totalizing if it dismisses other ways of knowing (e.g., art, spirituality, ethics). Key point: Totalizing ideologies shape reality but don’t inherently require coercion or violence. They can be hegemonic (dominant in culture) without being totalitarian (enforced by the state). 2. "All ideologies are totalitarianizing" Totalitarianizing implies that ideologies tend toward totalitarianism—a political system where the state seeks total control over society, suppresses dissent, and enforces ideological conformity through coercion (e.g., propaganda, surveillance, violence). Examples of totalitarianizing ideologies: Stalinism: Marxism-Leninism became totalitarian under Stalin, with purges, censorship, and a cult of personality. Nazism: Racist and nationalist ideology enforced through terror, genocide, and absolute party control. Maoism: The Cultural Revolution in China used ideological purity to justify mass persecution and re-education. Key point: Not all ideologies start as totalitarian, but some evolve that way when combined with authoritarian leadership, crisis, or a desire for absolute control. Are the Two Claims the Same? "All ideologies are totalizing" is a philosophical or cultural critique. It argues that ideologies, by nature, try to provide a complete worldview, which can limit alternative perspectives or critical thinking. This is a claim about how ideologies function in society, not necessarily about how they are enforced. Example: Liberalism can be totalizing if it frames all political questions (e.g., freedom, rights, markets) as solvable only through liberal democratic means, crowding out other traditions. "All ideologies are totalitarianizing" is a political warning. It suggests that ideologies, when taken to their logical extremes or monopolized by power, inevitably lead to oppression and authoritarianism. This is a stronger, more alarmist claim, often associated with critics like Hannah Arendt, Karl Popper, or Leszek Kołakowski, who saw totalitarianism as a unique modern danger. Counterpoint: Many ideologies (e.g., democratic socialism, environmentalism) explicitly reject authoritarianism and have never produced totalitarian regimes. Nuances and Counterarguments Not all totalizing ideologies become totalitarian. Christianity was totalizing in medieval Europe but didn’t always require a totalitarian state (though the Inquisition was a notable exception). Modern liberalism is totalizing in its global influence but generally resists totalitarianism (though critics argue it can be culturally hegemonic). Totalitarianism requires more than ideology. It needs institutional power (e.g., a one-party state, secret police) and a willingness to use violence to enforce conformity. Many ideologies lack these tools or reject them outright. Pluralism as a counterforce. Societies with strong traditions of pluralism (e.g., the U.S., India, the EU) can host multiple ideologies without any single one becoming totalitarian. The presence of checks and balances, free speech, and independent institutions mitigates the risk. Why the Confusion? The two claims are often conflated because: Totalizing ideologies can enable totalitarianism by providing a justification for absolute control (e.g., "The revolution must purge all enemies"). Critics of ideology (like Popper or Arendt) often see totalizing worldviews as a slippery slope to totalitarianism, even if the connection isn’t automatic. Food for thought: Can you think of an ideology that is totalizing but not totalitarianizing? (Example: A religion that shapes all aspects of life but doesn’t use state violence to enforce belief.) Are there ideologies today that worry you because of their totalizing or totalitarianizing tendencies? (Example: Digital utopianism, nationalist populism, or AI-driven technocracy.) > so there can be ideologies that are not totalizing? e.g. an ideology that also encompases plurality? ~ might that even be called a meta-ideology? Great questions! Let’s break this down into two parts: non-totalizing ideologies and the idea of a meta-ideology that embraces plurality. 1. Can Ideologies Be Non-Totalizing? Yes, ideologies can be non-totalizing. Not all ideologies claim to explain everything or demand absolute adherence. Some are open-ended, pluralistic, or pragmatic, allowing for coexistence with other ideas, adaptability, and internal debate. Here’s how: Features of Non-Totalizing Ideologies: Pluralism: They accept that multiple worldviews or values can coexist. For example, liberalism (in its classical form) values diversity of thought and protects minority rights, even if it conflicts with majority opinion. Pragmatism: They focus on practical outcomes rather than ideological purity. For example, social democracy often blends market economics with welfare policies, avoiding dogmatic extremes. Proceduralism: They prioritize how decisions are made (e.g., democracy, consensus-building) over imposing a single "correct" outcome. Self-criticism: They encourage internal debate and revision. For example, modern feminism includes intersectional critiques that challenge earlier, more monolithic versions of feminist ideology. Examples of Non-Totalizing Ideologies: Liberal pluralism: Values like free speech, tolerance, and rule of law create space for competing ideologies to coexist. Democratic socialism: Advocates for economic democracy but often operates within pluralistic political systems (e.g., Nordic models). Environmental pragmatism: Focuses on solving ecological crises through collaboration, science, and policy—without demanding a single ideological framework. Civic republicanism: Emphasizes civic virtue and participation but doesn’t prescribe a single economic or cultural model. Why These Are Non-Totalizing: They don’t claim to have all the answers or seek to replace all other ideologies. Instead, they provide tools for addressing specific problems (e.g., inequality, climate change) while allowing other ideologies to address others. 2. Can a Pluralistic Ideology Be Called a "Meta-Ideology"? This is a fascinating idea! A meta-ideology could be defined as an overarching framework that organizes, critiques, or reconciles other ideologies without imposing a single worldview. It’s an ideology about ideologies—one that embraces plurality as a core principle. Characteristics of a Meta-Ideology: Reflexivity: It acknowledges its own limitations and the validity of other perspectives. Inclusivity: It seeks to integrate or mediate between competing ideologies (e.g., "Both markets and state intervention have roles to play"). Process-oriented: It focuses on how to navigate differences (e.g., deliberative democracy, constitutionalism) rather than dictating what to believe. Anti-dogmatic: It resists becoming a closed system itself. Examples of Meta-Ideological Approaches: Liberal constitutionalism: Provides rules for how different ideologies can compete fairly (e.g., free elections, rights protections). Deliberative democracy: Aims to create spaces where conflicting ideologies can be debated and synthesized. Postmodernism (in some interpretations): Questions all grand narratives, including its own, and emphasizes fluidity and context. Integral theory (Ken Wilber): Attempts to synthesize multiple perspectives (e.g., scientific, spiritual, cultural) into a cohesive but non-dogmatic framework. Challenges of a Meta-Ideology: Risk of becoming totalizing: Even a meta-ideology can become dogmatic if it claims to be the only valid way to organize other ideologies (e.g., "Only liberal democracy can manage pluralism"). Paradox of plurality: How does it handle ideologies that reject plurality (e.g., fascism, fundamentalism)? Can it include the intolerant without becoming intolerant itself? Practicality: Is it possible to govern or act collectively if no single ideology dominates? Key Takeaway: Non-totalizing ideologies exist and often thrive in open societies. They focus on specific goals or values without claiming absolute truth. A meta-ideology is a compelling concept—an ideology that manages plurality and mediates between others. However, it must avoid becoming just another totalizing framework. The tension between unity and diversity is central here. Can a society (or a person) hold multiple ideologies in balance, or does plurality itself require an overarching "meta" framework? Your turn: Do you think a meta-ideology is possible, or does any overarching framework inevitably become totalizing? Are there historical or contemporary examples of meta-ideologies that worked (or failed) in practice?