Geertz on ideology

Geertz outlines two inadequate theories of ideology common in his day: interest theory, and strain theory. The first understands ideology as a mechanism of the powers that be in any given society: it indoctrinates the masses, and sustains the hegemony the dominant group. The latter understands ideology as a coping mechanism. This theory has a much greater descriptive power then the former as it can account for considerably more variance, and explain how factors actually submit individuals to such false consciousnesses. Ideology is seen as the result of weakness, or disease, or unfortunate circumstance; it must be diagnosed and remedied. But for Geertz neither gives an adequate account of how these ideologies are different from one another; how they manifest themselves; why the manifest themselves; and the kinds of outcomes they may bring about. He believes they lack the kind of interpretive power a “thick” ethnographic theory could offer.

What struck me was all the negativity towards ideology. I suppose this was symptomatic of a time and place – a world recovering from the first half of the twentieth century. For Geertz, such negativity towards a widespread social phenomena hinders a good social science. By dismissing such systems rich with meaning, as irrational or irrelevant to the supposed “reality,” we sell ourselves short. To not try and take account of ideology on its own terms is a fatal mistake. Geertz goes on to illustrate some situations in which ideology has been a very real mobilizing force. He states rather strongly:

The function of ideology is to make an autonomous politics possible by providing the authoritative concepts that render it possible […] It is when neither a society’s most general cultural orientations nor its most down-to-earth, “pragmatic” ones suffice any longer to provide an adequate image of political process that ideologies begin to become crucial as sources of sociopolitical meanings and attitudes. (218)

I agree with Geertz whole heartedly. Though his conclusions resonate doubly for myself. Not only is an adequate account of ideology necessary for a “thick” social science, but it is also necessary to any deliberately normative program for change. In a upcoming post I will discuss this latter function more thoroughly.

Cited:
Geertz, Clifford. _The interpretation of culture: selected essays_. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Ps. If you’re in the mood for a sound mind-fucking check this out: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php