So there's some controversy going around about Palin's "blood libel" remark, and other controversies going around about whether "conservatives really want to kill us." At least that's what I've encountered here in discussions. In response to these discussions, I wanted to make some points about ideology that I believe are worth bearing in mind. Follow me below the fold.
Ideology is a system of false beliefs that organize a person's perception of the world around them, their actions in the world, and their relationship to the world and others. It is important to understand how ideology functions and is structured.
Meaning is Not Up to You
Perhaps it's because I've spent so much time-- in addition to my career as an academic --as a psychotherapist, that I'm deeply doubtful of the idea that the meaning of an utterance or an action lies in what the person intends. Us psychotherapists take it as axiomatic that the meaning of an utterance or an action is not to be found in what the person consciously intended. If I mistakenly leave my jacket at my best friend's house, this means that I wished to stay at my friend's house. I did not consciously intend to leave my jacket at my friend's house, but at some level I did desire to stay at my friend's house. Likewise if I forget a phone appointment with a client or begin a faculty meeting with the statement "I now pronounce this meeting closed", there is a sense in which these acts successfully execute my desire even though I didn't consciously intend them. The first act signifies that for whatever reason I did not wish to speak to this client, while the latter indicates that I did not wish for this meeting to take place.
Our utterances and actions signify beyond us. Meaning is not something that issues from our conscious intentions, from "what we meant to say", but is rather something that is intersubjectively determined. Thus, the question of whether Michelle Bachmann consciously intends to evoke violent action against others or whether Sarah Palin consciously intended to evoke a very ugly history of Jewish persecution is quite irrelevant to the signification of their utterances. On the one hand, their choice of words rhetorically says a great deal about their desires. They might never acknowledge these desires to themselves, but the words that pop to their mind do that work for them. On the other hand, even if these choices do not reflect their unconscious desires, they are nonetheless repeating culturally charged narratives, phrases, discourses, etc., that resonate in a particular way. We are morally culpable in either instance.
Ideology is in our Actions, Not Our Images of Ourselves
During the Bush years I recall hearing people saying that "in his heart, Bush is a good man." By this, I take it, that people meant that Bush strove to be ardently Christian and took his faith seriously. While I realize that in many circles it has become fashionable, quoting St. Peter, to say that it is "faith [read beliefs] not deeds" that are important, few things can be further from the truth. As unfortunate as it sounds, people are narcissistic by nature. This means that they wish to perceive themselves in the most positive light possible. But the truth of the matter is that it is others who are far more accurate judges of who you are than you yourself. Like Narcissus captivated by his image in the lakes, we are captivated by the self-image that we concoct for ourselves. When speaking of ourselves, we will always present the most flattering images of ourselves possible.
You will find few people who say or think of themselves that they are terrible people, that they are hateful, that they are racist, homophobic, or misogynistic. The true place to look for a person's ideology and beliefs is not in their words or descriptions of themselves, but in their actions. The true place to look for what a person believes is not in how a person describes himself, but in how he acts and relates to others. We are all familiar with the ardent male feminist who defends the rights of women left and right, yet who continues to allot all the manual household labor to his wife or who talks over women or ignores them in meetings. We are all familiar with the warrior of equality who speaks endlessly about equal rights for all peoples, yet who nonetheless locks her doors when she drives through certain parts of town or who clutches her purse a bit more closely when encountering a young black man. We're all familiar with the homophobe who tirelessly rails against gay inequality yet nonetheless doesn't wish for their children to be taught by "them", or the tolerant religious person who perpetually defends the rights of minority faiths and nonbelievers while nonetheless promoting public spaces where their hegemonic religious beliefs are omnipresent and where any dissenting belief is treated as a "rude affront" to their beliefs.
I suppose such people are preferable to those who outrightly embrace their bigotry-- it's likely that progress can be made with them --yet nonetheless, the true beliefs of such people is to be measured not in terms of how they describe themselves, but in how they talk to others and act towards others. As Pascal said, if you kneel in church you're showing your true belief. You might think of yourself as a purely secular atheist, yet you're showing your belief, your respect, for the institution in which you're participating. Likewise, your actions reveal what you're really thinking. Look to the actions of people, not their self-descriptions, to determine what they believe. What a person thinks "in their heart" matters not a whit, for our actions are who we are. Few statements are more obnoxious, for example, than statements to the effect that "we do not know whether person x is a racist in their heart." What matters is how a person acts. That is what is to be targeted.
Face-to-Face Relations are Not More Genuine or Authentic
Some people seem to hold the view that face-to-face relations are more authentic or genuine. This mirrors the belief that "embedded reporting" (in the case of the Iraq war) somehow gives us the deeper and more authentic truth about the war. Often this is used as a counter-argument to the thesis that the conservatives are "out to get us". One refers, for example, to conservative friends and neighbors who "clearly" aren't out to get them.
Unfortunately, this simply isn't the case. Occasionally, and even often, the closer the relation the more the truth of the general situation is obscured. In the case of embedded reporting, our close proximity to soldiers on the go prevents us from seeing the broader truth of what's unfolding in the war. We see their individual acts of heroism, yet miss the forest.
With friends and neighbors, the issue is more delicate. Here what must be borne in mind is that ideology always functions through a difference between "kinds" and individuals. Ideological hatred is always directed at kinds, not individuals. This accounts for the ability for the person in the grips of a hateful ideology to simultaneously engage in acts of kindness and friendship towards individual people of the group they hate, while nonetheless engaging in all sorts of hateful acts towards the group as a whole.
In discussions of racism the statement "but I have a black friend!" is often [rightfully] derided. This is because racism is directed at a kind, at a group, rather than individuals. The racist or homophobe can always find plenty of individual black people or gay people that he finds unobjectionable, while nonetheless maintaining the most hateful thoughts towards the group as a whole. These individuals are, for the racist, "exceptions", "good eggs", the defy the general pattern.
Once again, it is the actions that matter. A person might not individually espouse or embrace a particular hateful ideology, yet through their voting and support of particular policies, they nonetheless enable these ideologies to proliferate and gain force. Remember that some of the greatest atrocities that have occurred in human history were advanced by a vocal minority. In Germany during the 30s, for example, the Nazis began as a minority party. Most people did not support their ideology hook line and sinker. What they wanted was bread, work, and a livable wage. Yet they enabled the rest through their support and silence. It really matters little whether people believe such things in their heart. What matters is whether they enable forms of political violence and oppression through their support and silence. This is why the "face-to-face" argument is so weak. The issue isn't whether your friendly neighbor or beloved uncle supports these specific things-- it's unlikely that they are --but whether through they're voting habits, media consumption, and support of particular issues they're enabling these things. Their ideology lies not in what they think or believe, but in what they do through the exercise of their political power.
There's so much more to say, but I'm exhausted and sick so I'll leave it at that for the moment.