WYATTSMITH
It is a common stereotype that college students are a particularly ideological, uncompromising bunch. I don’t know whether
this generalization is true overall, but my time at Wooster has provided me with plenty of anecdotal evidence in support of the theory.
The clearest sign of an ideologue is the statement: “When you really think about it, it all comes back to ‘blank.’” Anything can go in that blank — militarism, white supremacy, the hegemonic capitalist system, David Icke’s reptoid hypothesis — it doesn’t matter (not to say that these ideologies are all equal). Ideologues interpret all human behavior through the lens of their chosen ideology .
A less severe but much more common example of ideological position-taking is refusing to accept multiple frames for a single issue. For instance, immigration from Latin America to the United States can be framed as a humanitarian issue or a security issue. People involved in such political debates often stick to their chosen frame and categorically refuse to view the issue from their opponents’ point of view.
Being ideological can be useful, especially for activists. Those who stridently believe that there is just one way to view a controversial issue are much more likely to take to the streets than those who equivocate.
I think that humans are predisposed to think ideologically, and I am no exception. However, I think it is important to fight against the tendency to consider any issue from just one angle, for the following three reasons.
First, the dysfunction and inefficiency that currently characterizes the American legislative process is largely attributable to inflexible, ideological partisanship. Congressional deadlock is not because politicians are stupid, lazy or any other insult we throw their way. Senators’ and representatives’ refusal to compromise merely reflects the views of their equally divided constituents. Every time that someone refuses to consider a different political perspective, they themselves are contributing to the partisan deadlock that has ground American politics to a halt.
To return to immigration, I strongly believe that the humanitarian conceptualization of the debate provides a more compelling frame than the security angle. However, I force myself to listen and engage with security-based arguments, because understanding the others’ position is the only way to start a productive conversation.
Second, empirical evidence suggests that the open-minded are better than ideologues at predicting events. Philip Tetlock, a psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, tracked the predictions made by two categories of political forecasters; hedgehogs, who clung to one overriding theory (Marxism, conservatism, etc.), and foxes, who took ideas from many theories and constantly adjusted. Foxes’ predictions were correct significantly more often than hedgehogs’s predictions.
Third, unwavering commitment to a single point of view undermines personal relationships. Part of being an empathetic human being is trying to understand where others are coming from. Yet all too often we ignore the many possible motivations for that thing that one person did which we found mildly annoying. Worse yet, we then have the audacity to be surprised when our intentional ignorance of their situation leads to conflict. Drama is the inevitable consequence of not being generous with each other.
Wholeheartedly adhering to an ideology impedes one’s ability to intelligently participate in political debates while also hindering personal relationships. Imagining others complexly is a necessary skill, both on and off Wooster’s campus.