When I was taking a college class that covered the works of Milton, I would stand outside and socialize with the other smokers, while we waited for the professor to arrive. One of those smokers was a male yoga instructor (he made sure to mention his profession, loudly and creepily, whenever an attractive female was near by) who would frequently want to speak about political issues. He and I agreed on many of them, too. We both supported the freedom of gay people to marry (I, generally, support any freedom so that was an easy position for me to take). We both opposed the drug war (again, that fits right into my world view). However, another issue came up that we disagreed on. I mentioned, at some point, that because I lived in a relatively "bad" neighborhood, I kept a shotgun under my bed so that I would have something with which to defend myself or my home and family, should the need arise. Hearing that completely changed the yoga instructor's attitude toward me. He fancied himself a liberal (I don't care for the terms "liberal" and "conservative" but that was the frame that he used) and, in his mind, the liberal position was to be staunchly opposed to private gun ownership. He began to aggressively question me and I, in turn, questioned him. From the things that he asked and the answers that he gave, however, I began to get the impression that he held his position out of nothing more than a blind acceptance of his side's ideology (I will get into that later, though). It became apparent that he had never questioned his side's beliefs and when he was asked to explain them, he struggled to elaborate on his claims and continually contradicted himself. It seemed that he was simply taking his stance because he felt that he, as a liberal, should take it. This post isn't about gun law or political parties and it isn't about making that individual look stupid (maybe there is just a little bit of that last one) but I think that he serves as a good example of a problem that affects large portions of the population. That is to say, loyalty to ideologies and "in-groups" can cause us to blindly hold beliefs without questioning them or understanding the issues that lie at their heart and that, I believe, contributes to the division in our society and leaves us open to potential exploitation by the groups that we support.
This sort of ideological loyalty is a trap that we can all fall into. It pokes at our natural desire for a sense of belonging. We become emotionally invested with the things that we believe and we form packs with others who hold the same beliefs. Over time, we begin to lose something of ourselves to the group. We want to continue belonging and that is easier to do when we agree with the rest of the "tribe." If we are not careful, we may find ourselves agreeing to things that do not truly represent our feelings or we may agree without knowing why we are doing it or what it entails. In my mind, that is a negative state of affairs because it makes followers of us and (as the term implies) followers are easily led. If the groups or the individuals who are at their heads, begin to mold their ideologies with self-interest in mind, many of the followers may end up taking positions that are not necessarily in their best interest.
"I thought you were a liberal," said my confused peer, who seemed shocked to hear that I disagreed with him on an issue. As I said, I don't care for those sorts of labels but they seemed to be the only ones that he understood. He had heard me express some opinions that are associated with the left and assumed that I must be liberal. That is not the problem, however. The thing that caused his shock was his belief that being liberal, as he assumed I was, required that I hold certain positions which I did not hold. I, in his mind, was betraying the "team" by being disloyal to his perception of its stance on gun law. However, supporting or opposing a thing simply because we are told that a good little follower would support or oppose it is not valid reason for holding an opinion, from my perspective. I asked him why it is that a liberal needs to be opposed to privet gun ownership and he threw a bunch of buzzwords at me but provided very little in the way of substance. That stock response, gave me the impression that he had never put any thought into the issue. To be clear, I don't say that because he disagreed. I will happily hear out an opposing argument on any subject and I will give it its due credit, if it is well formulated. The problem was that he seemed to lack the ability to explain why he disagreed, other than repeating that he believed as he did because it is the "liberal position," which is not an argument without further explanation.
"Plus, I would rather use a knife because it's more personal" the yoga instructor said, as though it made him sound tough and, when I finished straining my eyes from rolling them so hard, I began to see an extreme lack of consistency in his view of the subject. If he had said that he believed that all acts of violence are wrong and that possessing the tools that enable them is also wrong or that he believes that only the state can justifiably use deadly force, I would have disagreed but respected his opinion. Instead, he said something that makes me wonder if he "pitches a tent" every time he thinks about sticking his little knife in someone (which, come to think of it, fit in nicely with his already creepy behavior). The point is, he seemed to have no problem with privet citizens commuting acts of violence (it sounds like he takes pleasure from it, in fact) but takes issue with using a certain sort of weapon to enact that violence. To me, this reeks of inconsistency and speaks to the issue with remaining loyal to ideas. I truly believe that he really thinks that the left is the righteous antithesis to the the right (I think they both suck but that's just my opinion). Because he believes that to be the unassailable "truth," he chose to hold all of its ideological positions without really understanding them. One can make valid arguments on both sides of the gun debate but saying that I support this or oppose that because I am on one side or the other is a non sequitur and indicative of the follower mentality that plagues our society and enables our own exploitation by the powerful elites who sit at the top of the political and social food chain. Saying that you are fine with people killing people as long as they don't use a gun to kill people is pretty stupid, if you ask me, but it is the sort of statement that is typical of a person who takes a stance without really understanding why and the willingness to follow that it expresses is extremely attractive to the political and social authorities who would take advantage of us for their own gain.
Stretchy (I don't remember his name so that will have to do) wasn't very friendly with me after that exchange and he even started smoking behind the building instead of in the front with the others and I. Again, that seems like a manifestation of the follower mentality that is born out of the blind acceptance of a set of ideas. He believed that not adhering to his "tribe's" ideology was an act of disloyalty and that anyone who is disloyal is not worth taking seriously. He felt obligated, I believe, to reject my friendship. I would have continued smoking with him and shooting the shit. I would have backed him up in an argument, if I agreed with him on the topic of discussion, too, but he was driven by loyalty to ideas which he, clearly, did not fully understand and that caused him to turn away potential allies when they did not pass his "purity test." Sadly, that attitude (and it is one that is held by a lot of individuals with all sorts of political leanings) only contributes to the division among the the common people which, ultimately, enables our continued mistreatment by the governing authorities. If we bicker over every difference in our world views, we will always be too weak and too distracted to stand against the corruption that threatens us all.
We can avoid the blind acceptance of ideas by questioning them and we should be suspicious of any group that discourages us from asking our questions. The second point is simple enough, if some group reacts poorly to people probing its ideology, it likely has something to hide. That does not necessarily mean that everything that it says is wrong but we can take it as good cause to view its claims and beliefs as dubious. The act of questioning, itself, takes a little thought but not much else. It is prudent, I believe, to take some time to really ponder our positions and determine whether they are actually our own or not. We can ask ourselves why we support or oppose a thing and see if the belief is born out of our personal set of ideals or if it adopted because of some subconscious sense of obligation to whichever "tribe" that we see ourselves as a part of. If our positions are really ours, then holding them (whatever they may be) is fine, and if they are not, we should reject them without guilt or shame.
Peace.
All the images in this post are sourced from the free image website unsplash.com.