Before we address the effects of Ideology, it will be useful to explain the process by which ideology is formed and adopted. Rather than loosely defining ideology as simply a collection of ideas and beliefs organized together under a single label, which to be clear is a valid definition of ideology, we need to state the distinction which characterizes the term "ideology" as used here. When I refer to ideology, I don't mean any specific, singular ideology. I am referring instead to ideologies as a whole, or rather ideologies as a phenomenon, so to speak. Thus when I speak of the ideological process, I mean the general process by which any particular ideology is adopted en masse. This is important to note because I am not arguing here that the ideological process which I am about to describe is specific to any particular subset of ideological, political, or philosophical beliefs. In fact, the crux of my theory here is that everyone is susceptible to the lure of ideology. Rather, I seek to describe all ideologies in general as a vaguely psychological process which all humans go through.
As previously mentioned, the Marxist study of ideology primarily attributes the presence and adoption of particular ideologies as being the will of the capitalist ruling class, which is done in order to manufacture consent for and to legitimize their dominant position in society. To say that their position requires manual legitimizing is to imply that their position is, in some sense, undeserved and perhaps even unnatural. In describing the so-called "end of history", Marx envisioned that eventually humanity would reach a natural point in which capitalism would be abandoned in favor of Communism, where upon distinction between economic classes become impossible. The implication here is that Communism is to be viewed as the apparent final stage of human history; the natural point of homeostasis humanity would reach after achieving certain economic criteria necessary for its enactment. If then, as described by Marx, the abolishment of the state would also necessarily mean the abolition of ideology, not only because it would lack the apparatuses necessary for its propagation, but also due to it lacking any reason to exist due to the complete encapsulation of society under a communist system. We should note that in this discussion, we don't mean specific ideologies would cease to exist, obviously individual disagreements will always continue to exist, but rather that the ideological superstructure under which any individual mainstream ideology must eventually abide by would be abolished. For example, in America we might speak of the Democrat and Republican ideologies, which despite their difference, at the end of the day, hold some respect towards and exist within the confines of capitalist dogma. This is not to say any anti-capitalism ideologies cannot exist under capitalism, which is obviously false, but instead that at the institutional level of politics, anti-capitalism cannot exist since it lacks the authority within the existing superstructure to gain the necessary power required for its legitimacy. We can refer to the McCarthyism era of American history as evidence of institutional rejection of ideology which challenges the incumbent controlling ideological superstructure.
As stated, while this analysis is proves useful, I want to propose an alternative theory of ideology. Rather than take the top-down approach of Marxist theory, I want to instead analyze ideology from the bottom-up. Let's instead suppose that ideology originates in the minds of the people, from which it finds its way into state power by means of popular reinforcement. Here, ideology is not a tool for the elite to write the narrative for their own domination, but rather the tool of regular people to proliferate their beliefs into the mainstream, where it secures its own power as a representation of the people who willed it into existence.
Žižek, continuing in the Marxist tradition, characterizes ideology as a "false consciousness" which drives people to act against their own interest in favor of the narrative pushed onto them. Particularly, he notes that the key aspect which allows for the success of ideology is the conscious rejection of ideology. In this way, we continue to be affected by ideology, and yet we convince ourselves that we are not. According to Žižek, this interaction we have with ideology results in us delegating our thinking onto the ideology itself, eliminating the need to construct our own perceptions of society. This analysis in effect removes the need to claim responsibility over our own misguided actions, and instead pushes the blame off onto the ideology itself, and by extension onto the controlling class of society.
Nietzsche theory of "Master-Slave morality" describes morality as being the product of conflict between the ruling "master" class of society and the subjugated "slave" class. In this image, the slave class frames their moral judgements directly in opposition to the master class, through which they achieve their own internal mastery over their situation, despite the material circumstances being unaffected by such statements. Admittedly, the connection here is very loose; Marxism is a theory of economic analysis, and is traditionally considered amoral in itself. However, I think that the same psychological action is taking place between these two theories. In either case, what we observe is a desire to overwrite the implicit "Real" in favor of a more convenient narrative which shifts responsibility away from the individual. In both instances, we notice a dichotomy between a ruling class and their subjects, in which the subjugated justifies their own position within the social order by placing the blame onto an abstract, amorphous "Other".
Instead, what we ought to realize is that ideology, as is morality, is the product of the collective interaction between ourselves within society. By this I mean that individuals possess their own opinions and beliefs, gained naturally through their personal experiences, which they use to perceive the world around them. The issue with doing this is that, fundamentally, we cannot be absolutely sure that our internal beliefs are, in fact, an accurate depiction of reality. Thus, we strive to legitimize these beliefs, to give them the authority to relinquish our internal chaos. How do we achieve this? Through the formation of ideology. By pitching our beliefs not as merely our own creation, but rather as the collective opinion of several others, we acquire the desired legitimacy through the effective democratization of our these beliefs. The publication of these beliefs under a single title opens the door to scrutiny, which in turns lends the ideology itself the necessary authority to be taken serious in the public domain, which satisfies the initial deficit held by the individual from which said ideology was born. From this point, our beliefs thrive off the ideology itself. Similar to what Žižek describes, the ideology we create takes control over the moderation of our beliefs. After taking the initial leap, we no longer need to form our own thoughts, but rather we delegate the task of perception off onto the ideology, which we trust as the image of our initial internal debate, to mediate between what is correct and incorrect for us. We effectively spawn a background task which subscribes to an ideological feed, doing the heavy lifting of retrieving our beliefs for us. From here, the process repeats itself, allowing the ideology to eternally self-legitimize and fulfill our internal desire for understanding via the path of least resistance.
In the next part, we will take a closer look at the psychological foundations hinted at here to more definitively understand the necessity of ideology and what motivates this process.