Ideology versus realism?

Question

Are you balanced or an extremist? Why would either extreme be better than another? I know this is a broad generalization. Benefits and drawbacks? Where does moderation fit in? Most likely I'll be adding details to this question, since I really don't know exactly what my question is. Thoughts or experience welcome.

Answer 1

I think balance is very important in this regard, Jennifer, but not balance as in a constant state of equilibrium, weighing ideology against or even with reality. It's not a static propostion, in my view.

It seems to me that ideology is fluid, as is what we perceive to be reality. Ideology also operates on at least two levels of cognition--the first being that superficial level where we give conscious assent to a belief but do not act on it or make it a reality; or our reality actually conflicts with what we say we believe. So this ideology or belief at this level is not deep enough or real enough to manifest in reality.

For ex., I think my ex-husband thought of himself as an egalitarian or even feminist man. He even taught university level courses in Feminist Theory, but on the domestic front he was quite the patriarch, extremely oppressive, domineering, etc. Being born and raised in the West Indies in a patriarachal family, he had a hard time matching his ideology with his reality, his beliefs with his actions.

On a second, more deep, level of cognition ideology operates as a firmly embedded belief that enables us to create or recreate our realities--e.g. a man who learns through trial and error that an egalitarian household actually means freedom, shared responsibilities, shared power, and a sense of being a woman's equal partner--not her provider, benevolent jailer, ruler, or caretaker.

Ideology is fluid or subject to change given our realities, once we open our eyes and come out of denial. It's a dialectical process wherein we have a belief, but if our reality keeps conflicting with that stated belief we re-evaluate and change our belief so that we can relieve this sense of conflict between our belief and our reality.

One example in my life is that I used to believe in the conventional model of the family--a husband, two kids, a dog, a house in the suburbs, and we "live happily ever after." Cinderella, right? But then I took a look at my life and saw that in reality I enjoy being on my own, growing, changing, learning, teaching, performing, and enjoying life at my own pace. At this point in my life, since I do want to marry again and I do want a family, I can either force my reality to fit the superficial "American Dream" ideology and sell out on my true self, or I can realize that the most self-loving or authentic thing I can do is to change my ideology to one that accepts the single life in community with close friends as family life. Or maybe later on in my life I will marry someone who is also on a spiritual path, who is as unconventional as I am, and who is willing to create with me a lifestyle that is our own. A lifestyle that reflects the reality of our shared, blended, or changing ideologies. It's a process: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Answer 2

Most of my views are thought though and examined, regularly challenged by my peers, and often expanded on by reading and other external inputs.

In isolation some would be considered extreme, and some would be considered typical. A great many of my views are underpinned by ideology.

For example. I hold the ideological belief that all humans should be accorded equal rights.

My realistic views on this mean

1) I support legislation designed to bring about equal pay for men and women.
2) I support legislation to ensure that workplaces do not discriminate on the basis of sex, age or gender, but on merit.

An ideological viewpoint can manifest in practical and realistic applications.

The above example also serves to illustrate that how extreme or moderate a view is - is a matter of cultural perspective. A hundred years ago those views would have been considered very extreme. These days they are barely controversial.

Ill check back on this question as you are planning to add to it. Hopefully this gives a few sparks of inspiration.

Answer 3

Having both extremes of any side of the 'argument' makes for a better life. If you are capable of seeing both sides of any conflict you are able to seek a middle ground. Compromise is only achieved when there is conflict. Nothing is either black nor white, it is gentle shades of gray. I try to learn from anyone on any subject at any time. On here in Y/A in the Religious section. I find both good and bad examples of Christianity. I am Jewish, but wish to know about other religions to understand the underlining differences between us. Believe me they are times when I loose the definition of a Good Christian. I also find more examples of love and understanding from Christians at times then I do from my fellow Jews.

The drawbacks to looking at the extremes in a situation at the start of your thoughts, can make you biased from the beginning. I was raised colorblind and open to all races, creeds, religions, and nationalities. I believe in this practice so much that I raised my two daughters with the same philosophy. But in truth that is impossible. I am a 60 year old white, Jew who lives in a black neighborhood. I think the kids who drive down the street with the bass turned all the way up, listening to rap are sick. I cannot understand the need for a boy to be holding his crotch in order to hold his pants up. Unfortuanetly all I see is the black children doing this, so I become biased and one sided. This I know is wrong and I am trying to learn from it. I think that Christianity is a great choice in religion, except for when their believers try and win a gold star if they can convert me. I do not understand why my religion is wrong, why my believes in life, love and death need to be changed. This is also a bias. But it is on both sides. I try to reach that compromise, but find in some people you cannot compromise. It has to be either I am too one sided or they are.

So to answer your initial question, the answer is both. I have Ideology and realism; balance and extremism; and I see the benefits and drawbacks of all sides. Without these conflicts there would be no moderation. Without moderation all there would be is conflict. Look at todays middle east, the conflicts in Africa, the distruption in South America, the disagreements in Europe and Asia, Mexico and the United States, and any two countries in the world there is an underlining conflict. When we learn moderation and compromise there is a chance for peace. I believe it starts one person at a time. My entire philosophy boils down to the golden rule and to give more than you receive.

Answer 4

Depends on the goal. Ideology doesn't build a skyscraper, and realism makes art valueless.

So extremes of either are beneficial (even necessary), when applied properly.

Moderation in either is a drawback unless the outcome is unimportant (think about it!).

Answer 5

the way this question is put is misleading and leads one to think that ideology and realism occupy opposing corners of a boxing ring.
in my opinion, the best way to answer this question is by giving this example : ideology is to realism what a hub is to one of its spokes.
that's it.