Rehabilitating ideology

Andrew Coyne has hit the nail on the head with his recent article on the use of the word ‘ideology’ as a pejorative:

There is no more serious accusation in Canadian politics than that of having an ideology. Politicians would confess to killing their own grandmother rather than own up to such a thing: what the dictionary defines as “a body of ideas.” Possession of cocaine is a charge you can probably survive. But possession of ideas is career-ending.

I have heard the accusation of ‘ideology’ used so often that I think people have lost any sense of what the word means. To have an ideology, as Mr. Coyne points out, is to have a consistent conceptual framework for understanding the world around you. This is not only a good thing, but it is required if you are to have any sanity at all.

Everyone needs some way to decide what is right and wrong, everyone needs some basis to discern what action is appropriate. Without an ideology to guide your choices you would be stuck motionless, unable to pick from an infinite variety of possible decisions. Even if your ideology is nothing but a set of normative assumptions, you still have an ideology

So what do politicians and journalists mean when they say someone is “ideological.” I think Mr. Coyne is almost right when he says that it is meant to be anyone who opposes the status quo. In actuality it is about defining the status quo as the only rational option.

If you believe that something is in need of a fundamental change then you are not practical, because only the status quo is practical. You are too ideological, because the status quo is somehow beyond ideology. You must accept the status quo because nothing else is possible.

All this has led me to a conclusion, an ideological concept, if you will: anyone who uses the word ‘ideological’ as an insult loses my respect.