Digifesto

Tag: ideology

ideologies of capitals

A key idea of Bourdieusian social theory is that society’s structure is due to the distribution of multiple kinds of capital. Social fields have their roles and their rules, but they are organized around different forms of capital the way physical systems are organized around sources of force like mass and electrical charge. Being Kantian, Bourdieusian social theory is compatible with both positivist and phenomenological forms of social explanation. Phenomenological experience, to the extent that it repeats itself and so can be described aptly as a social phenomenon at all, is codified in terms of habitus. But habitus is indexed to its place within a larger social space (not unlike, it must be said, a Blau space) whose dimensions are the dimensions of the allocations of capital throughout it.

While perhaps not strictly speaking a corollary, this view suggests a convenient methodological reduction, according to which the characteristic beliefs of a habitus can be decomposed into components, each component representing the interests of a certain kind of capital. When I say “the interests of a capital”, I do mean the interests of the typical person who holds a kind of capital, but also the interests of a form of capital, apart from and beyond the interests of any individual who carries it. This is an ontological position that gives capital an autonomous social life of its own, much like we might attribute an autonomous social life to a political entity like a state. This is not the same thing as attributing to capital any kind of personhood; I’m not going near the contentious legal position that corporations are people, for example. Rather, I mean something like: if we admit that social life is dictated in part by the life cycle of a kind of psychic microorganism, the meme, then we should also admit abstractly of social macroorganisms, such as capitals.

What the hell am I talking about?

Well, the most obvious kind of capital worth talking about in this way is money. Money, in our late modern times, is a phenomenon whose existence depends on a vast global network of property regimes, banking systems, transfer protocols, trade agreements, and more. There’s clearly a naivete in referring to it as a singular or homogeneous phenomenon. But it is also possible to referring to in a generic globalized way because of the ways money markets have integrated. There is a sense in which money exists to make more money and to give money more power over other forms of capital that are not money, such as: social authority based on any form of seniority, expertise, lineage; power local to an institution; or the persuasiveness of an autonomous ideal. Those that have a lot of money are likely to have an ideology very different from those without a lot of money. This is partly due to the fact that those who have a lot of money will be interested in promoting the value of that money over and above other capitals. Those without a lot of money will be interested inn promoting forms of power that contest the power of money.

Another kind of capital worth talking about is cosmopolitanism. This may not be the best word for what I’m pointing at but it’s the one that comes to mind now. What I’m talking about is the kind of social capital one gets not by having a specific mastery of a local cultural form, but rather by having the general knowledge and cross-cultural competence to bridge across many different local cultures. This form of capital is loosely correlated with money but is quite different from it.

A diagnosis of recent shifts in U.S. politics, for example, could be done in terms of the way capital and cosmopolitanism have competed for control over state institutions.

Advertisements

repopulation as element in the stability of ideology

I’m reading the fourth section of Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, about ‘Prison’, for the first time for I School Classics

A striking point made by Foucault is that while we may think there is a chronology of the development of penitentiaries whereby they are designed, tested, critiqued, reformed, and so on, until we get a progressively improved system, this is not the case. Rather, at the time of Foucault’s writing, the logic of the penitentiary and its critiques had happily coexisted for a hundred and fifty years. Moreover, the failures of prisons–their contribution to recidivism and the education and organization of delinquents, for example–could only be “solved” by the reactivation of the underlying logic of prisons–as environments of isolation and personal transformation. So prison “failure” and “solution”, as well as (often organized) delinquency and recidivism, in addition to the architecture and administration of prison, are all part of the same “carceral system” which endures as a complex.

One wonders why the whole thing doesn’t just die out. One explanation is repopulation. People are born, live for a while, reproduce, live a while longer, and die. In the process, they must learn through education and experience. It’s difficult to rush personal growth. Hence, systematic errors that are discovered through 150 years of history are difficult to pass on, as each new generation will be starting from inherited priors (in the Bayesian sense) which may under-rank these kinds of systemic effects.

In effect, our cognitive limitations as human beings are part of the sociotechnical systems in which we play a part. And though it may be possible to grow out of such a system, there is a constant influx of the younger and more naive who can fill the ranks. Youth captured by ideology can be moved by promises of progress or denunciations of injustice or contamination, and thus new labor is supplied to turn the wheels of institutional machinery.

Given the environmental in-sustainability of modern institutions despite their social stability under conditions of repopulation, one has to wonder…. Whatever happened to the phenomenon of eco-terrorism?

is science ideological?

In a previous post, I argued that Beniger is an unideological social scientist because he grounds his social scientific theory in robust theory from the natural and formal sciences, like theory of computation and mathematical biology. Astute commenter mg has questioned this assertion.

Does firm scientific grounding absolve a theoretical inquiry from ideology – what about the ideological framework that the science itself has grown in and is embedded in? Can we ascribe such neutrality to science?

This is a good question.

To answer it, it would be good to have a working definition of ideology. I really like one suggested by this passage from Habermas, which I have used elsewhere.

The concept of knowledge-constitutive human interests already conjoins the two elements whose relation still has to be explained: knowledge and interest. From everyday experience we know that ideas serve often enough to furnish our actions with justifying motives in place of the real ones. What is called rationalization at this level is called ideology at the level of collective action. In both cases the manifest content of statements is falsified by consciousness’ unreflected tie to interests, despite its illusion of autonomy. The discipline of trained thought thus correctly aims at excluding such interests. In all the sciences routines have been developed that guard against the subjectivity of opinion, and a new discipline, the sociology of knowledge, has emerged to counter the uncontrolled influence of interests on a deeper level, which derive less from the individual than from the objective situation of social groups.

If we were to extract a definition of ideology from this passage, it would be something like this: an ideology is:

  1. an expression of motives that serves to justify collective action by a social group
  2. …that is false because it is unreflective of the social group’s real interests.

I maintain that the theories that Beniger uses to frame his history of technology are unideological because they are not expressions of motives. They are descriptive claims whose validity has been tested thoroughly be multiple independent social groups with conflicting interests. It’s this validity within and despite the contest of interests which gives scientific understanding its neutrality.

Related: Brookfield’s “Contesting Criticality: Epistemological and Practical Contradictions in Critical Reflection” (here), which I think is excellent, succinctly describes the intellectual history of criticality and how contemporary usage of it blends three distinct traditions:

  1. a Marxist view of ideology as the result of objectively true capitalistic social relations,
  2. a psychoanalytic view of ideology as a result of trauma or childhood,
  3. and a pragmatic/constructivist/postmodern view of all knowledge being situated.

Brookfield’s point is that an unreflective combination of these three perspectives is incoherent both theoretically and practically. That’s because while the first two schools of thought (which Habermas combines, above–later Frankfurt School writers deftly combined Marxism is psychoanalysis) both maintain an objectivist view of knowledge, the constructivists reject this in favor of a subjectivist view. Since discussion of “ideology” comes to us from the objectivist tradition, there is a contradiction in the view that all science is ideological. Calling something ‘ideological’ or ‘hegemonic’ requires that you take a stand on something, such as the possibility of an alternative social system.

I really like Beniger

I’ve been a fan of Castells for some time but reading Ampuja and Koivisto’s critique of him is driving home my new appreciation of Beniger‘s The Control Revolution (1986).

One reason why I like Beniger is that his book is an account of social history and its relationship with technology that is firmly grounded in empirically and formally validated scientific theory. That is, rather than using as a baseline any political ideological framework, Beniger grounds his analysis in an understanding of the algorithm based in Church and Turing, and understanding of biological evolution grounded in biology, and so on.

This allows him to extend ideas about programming and control from DNA to culture to bureaucracy to computers in a way that is straightforward and plausible. His goal is, admirably, to get people to see the changes that technology drives in society as a continuation of a long regular process rather than a reason to be upset or a transformation to hype up.

I think there is something fundamentally correct about this approach. I mean that with the full force of the word correct. I want to go so far as to argue that Beniger (at least as of Chapter 3…) is an unideological theory of history and society that is grounded in generalizable and universally valid scientific theory.

I would be interested to read a substantive critique of Beniger arguing otherwise. Does anybody know if one exists?

going post-ideology

I’ve spent a lot of my intellectual life in the grips of ideology.

I’m glad to be getting past all of that. That’s one reason why I am so happy to be part of Glass Bead Labs.

Glass Bead Labs

There are a lot of people who believe that it’s impossible to get beyond ideology. They believe that all knowledge is political and nothing can be known with true clarity.

I’m excited to have an opportunity to try to prove them wrong.

Ideology, via Toothbrush Debates

My friend Eli Braun recently made a gem of a post to Toothbrush Debates about the use of the concept of dignity in bioethics circles.

Via another bioethics center, I was just invited to a conference on “human dignity and bioethics.” I showed the invitation to a professor at my own bioethics center and asked: “Jesus! Why are these people so obsessed with human dignity?”

“I know,” he replied, “it’s such a clear and unambiguous concept. Why don’t we just define it in law and make everyone observe it?”

A central interest of mine is the role of rational discourse in politics, and especially how technology can assist it. The ideal is that if people just talk things out and provide each other with their reasons for holding various positions, then they can just arrive at consensus and achieve deliberative democracy.

When I talk to people about this, a natural place where conversation flows is, “Well, what happens if people just fundamentally disagree? You know, in their axioms.” It feels like the “dignity” question Eli points is one of deep sticking points.

Are these foundational stones of people’s world views really so immovable? Philosophically, I tend to think not. But sometimes I’m afraid that I’m wrong. If then, then what use is there for politics at all, except as an engine for coercion and war?