Responding to me, Neil Faulkner wrote:
No, no, speculations are fine by me. I'm still not entirely sure how to express my own viewpoint properly, actually, but I certainly don't intend to convey the idea that just because something isn't "real" (whatever that means) that it's meaningless or useless. I think it's more that, from my point-of-view, it's *individual people* who are of primary importance.
That's the kind of attitude I tend to file under 'anthropocentricity', but it would be futile to single you out as a practitioner of this heinous practice since I seem to be in the very very small minority that considers it heinous in the first place.
Hmm. Perhaps. I don't know, I certainly don't regard human beings as the center of the universe, and there are plenty of things that I find interesting that have nothing to do with humans at all (astronomy, for example). But we're talking about sociology and ideology here, and those are *human* things. And when we're talking about human things, I do believe it's important not to lose sight of the existence and importance of the individual.
From that perspective, human interests and human concerns can become very small and unimportant things (my own interests and concerns included). The 'primary importance' of individual people can very easily simply disappear when you look at the world through such a wide-angled lens.
Oh, I regard human interests (mine included) as pretty darned unimportant in the cosmic scheme of things. But they're *interesting*. Humans *interest* me. And our concerns are important to us. Certainly understanding how other humans beings tick is important to me in my own life. (More important, I would argue, on a practical day-to-day basis than higher-order sociological issues.)
Have you ever tried looking at people as *animals*?
Oh, absolutely. But I regard the individual as primary with a lot of animals, too. Just ask my cats!
I don't mean to dehumanise them in any way, just to stop seeing the person for a moment, and see instead an individual of one particular offshoot of the evolutionary tree.
You don't need to step aside from the person and lose sight of the individual to be aware of that person as a product of evolution. (Actually, evolutionary psychology is a field that interests me greatly, in my dabbling-layman sort of way.)
It seems to me that to talk about ideologies as if they were something concrete, something "out there" independent of individual humans is... strange. And rather dangerous. The sort of logic that sets up governments to work "for the good of the State" while losing sight of the fact that "the State" is simply composed of the individual human beings who live there.
You seem to be confusing ideology with political doctrine. Doctrine is largely overt, visible (in terms of government policy decisions etc) and unambiguous. Ideology - that tacit code of convention we all subscribe to - is largely invisible, and often very ambiguous.
Well, I was aware that I was making something of a jump there, yes. Your definition of ideology is a little different than the one I was thinking of, though, so thanks for clarifying it.
"The State" - or just society - is *not* simply composed of individuals. Once you start considering people collectively, they become something other than a collection of individuals. Many - perhaps most - people actually *want* to lose their individuality, at least temporarily, to become part of something that is larger and at least feels stronger.
Maybe it's just that, IMHO, this is generally a bad thing. I admit that one of the reasons I, personally, tend to keep the focus on individual humans is because I value individuality over conformity, and I *want* to keep the focus on individuals. I don't want to cultivate the attitude that leads to that sort of group behavior.
It can be quite exhilirating, even euphoric (I presume most of us have been there at some time or other, whether at a football match, a rock concert, or marching down a street waving banners. I can only lay claim to the last, and not for years now).
You know, I can't honestly recall a single time when I actually *felt* this. I've been to rock concerts, but was always extremely conscious of my individuality within the crowd.
(FWIW, I don't think any of us are half as unique as we might like to think we are. Our individuality - or sense of it - comes from the combination of traits, attitudes, experiences and behaviour patterns that make us what we are. Since there are only so many traits and attitudes etc, any single one is going to be shared by an awful lot of people. A smaller - but still sizable - sample is going to share several if not many of the same traits etc as yourself. A few will be very similar on most important counts. A lot of particularities seem to be co-related, so if you have one there's a good chance you'll have one or more of the others that go with it. Trainspotters aren't collectively labelled geeky anoraks for nothing.)
I agree with this, actually. But just because we share large bundles of traits in common with lots of other people (which is, actually, quite comforting -- I'd be depressed if I were the only B7 fan in the world), does not mean we are not all unique. Our environments, our life experiences, etc., all shape us, just as our inborn personality traits do. When you get down to the *details*, all of us are different. Me, I'm particularly interested in those details, and I think that's a perfectly valid thing to be interested it. You're not, fair enough.
Yes, they are complex beings, but also (not 'merely', but also) representations of facets of society, and of ideological values and positions. You and I both are complex beings (though some might say that I am just a being, and even the being part is a matter for regret), but there is more to both of us than just that.
Again, I agree with that. I think our difference here is simply one of emphaisis.