Letter to the Editor: In Defense of Ideological Labels
Editor’s Note: To submit a response to this column, or submit a letter to the editor on a new topic, email your submission to opinion@usustatesman.com
Submitted by Micah Safsten, in response to a recent opinion article.
Navigation on the open sea was revolutionized by two important inventions: the sextant and the chronometer. These devices allowed early sailors to calculate their latitude and longitude. Knowing these two measurements allowed a sailor to know, with unprecedented accuracy, the location of his ship and more effectively travel to his desired location.
I was reminded of the importance of knowing one’s bearings, like the sailor on open waters, after reading a recent column published in the Utah Statesman advising against categorizing yourself or others into ideological camps or groups. In short, it was an argument against the use of ideological labels.
This is bad advice. Ideological labels are tools we sometimes use to establish our bearings in a debate. They can be used in malicious ways, to be sure, but that is not an indictment of labels but rather an indictment of people. Ideological labels help us avoid black-and-white thinking by identifying frameworks of ideas that include some things we agree with and other things we do not.
Ideological labels also function without denying the human tendency to establish in-groups and out-groups. Our country is large enough that it is certain that there is a large group of people who agree with you ideologically. By identifying yourself as a part of this group, you are joining an in-group or tribe. This is a natural human tendency, but it is unique in that traditionally, tribes formed around shared identity, not shared ideas. This crucial distinction means that when tribes clash, as they always do, ideas are attacked, not identities.
When we reject ideological labels, we are not rejecting labels of all kind. We have to use labels sometimes. Describing groups of people is a normal part of conversation. What are replaced by ideological labels, however, are labels that describe more personal aspects of your identity. What used to be impassioned debate becomes personal attacks on identity.
Now I think the critique of ideological labels is almost universally well-meaning. Almost every argument I’ve heard against their use comes from a desire to unite, not divide. However, this good intent often leads to flawed thinking. It confuses an argument against certain people who use ideological labels for an argument against ideological labels themselves.
The article in question did exactly this when describing how Hitler labeled people as a way of carrying out his atrocities. This reductio ad Hitlerum argument is not actually an indictment of labels, however. It is an indictment of Hitler. Labels are just tools and we do not blame the tool when it is used incorrectly. When early sailors used their sextants incorrectly and traveled off course, they did not throw out their sextants. They simply learned how to use them correctly.
The criticism of ideological labels has been around since the invention of ideology; so about 250 years (give or take an enlightenment philosopher or two). The actual word “ideology” is derived from the French word idéologie, a term coined by the French philosopher Antonine Destutt de Tracy in 1796. It wasn’t until a few years later, however, that the word came into popular use with some help from Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon used the word idéologue as an epithet against those who refused to capitulate to his wishes on the basis of personal belief or principle. The ideas of “liberté, égalité, and fraternité,” which had fueled the French Revolution prior to Napoleon’s rise, became inconvenient to him, but he dared not debate the ideas themselves. Instead, he attacked the very notion that someone would hold first principle ideas about human nature to begin with.
I have many problems with the ideas that fueled the French Revolution, but I have even more problems with a tyrant like Napoleon who assumes that his ideas are not informed by an ideology or allegiance to specific framework of ideas. Prior to the enlightenment, the concept of ideology, as we understand it, did not exist in the Western mind. An individual in those days had very little allegiance to ideas. Instead, the individual’s identity was a part of The Great Chain of Being, an Aristoltelian notion that prevailed in medieval thought. It claimed the existence of a hierarchical structure with God at the top and all beings occupying some place beneath. Subdivisions within the Chain of Being even developed, with husbands above wives, nobility above peasants and the King above everyone. The Great Chain of Being gave man a place in the world, beneath God and angels and above animals, plants and the earth.
The enlightenment changed this and explicitly encouraged man to find his place in and develop an allegiance to a framework of ideas, or, in other words, an ideology. Ideology appeals to the pre-enlightenment mind within us because it often feels like tribalism, but it’s not! Or at least it’s not supposed to be. Like the sextant and chronometer, ideology has a directive purpose. It helps us distinguish between competing ideas and know where we and others are in relation to those ideas.
This highlights a significant error in the article advocating against the use of such ideological labels. The piece argues that “categoriz[ing] people into mutually exclusive groups… does not reflect enlightenment individualism.” On its face, this is correct, but it is not the argument the author was originally attempting to refute. The article is primarily concerned with the categorizing of people’s ideas into mutually exclusive groups, and this is precisely what the enlightenment was intended to accomplish in the first place. The enlightenment allowed us develop allegiances to ideas, rather than allegiances to race, nation, religion or gender. An allegiance to an idea is abstract and takes work to strengthen and develop. Allegiance to one identity or another, meanwhile, is high-stakes and requires little reasoning beyond that of fickle, emotional reasoning.
This is what ideological labels do; they allow us to identify with each other based on our shared ideas. They are not intended to describe aspects of our identity, such as our race, religious affiliation or sexuality. When we tie ideological labels to identity, we are using them incorrectly. Like the sailor navigating incorrectly, it is dangerous to be so blithe about these labels.
This also explains why ideological labels constitute such a small part of who we are. They only describe our ideas for how a society should operate, not the many things that make us who we really are.
Don’t be afraid of calling yourself liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist or anything in between. Giving names to different frameworks of ideas allows us to differentiate between these ideas and calculate our own philosophical bearings. As you understand exactly where you are in crucial debates over ideas, you will understand where other people are as well. You will see that your uncle who wants Trump to build the wall is not literally a white supremacist and that the zealous Bernie Sanders supporter in you Introductory Political Science class is not literally a communist.
By accepting ideological labels, we are actually forced to dig deeper into each individual we meet because they are the weakest and least descriptive of all labels when used correctly. And that’s exactly why we should use them.