"To live without an ardent dedication is to be adrift and abandoned. He sees in tolerance a sign of weakness, frivolity, and ignorance [...] He hungers for the deep assurance which comes with total surrender -- with the wholehearted clinging to a creed and cause. What matters not is the contents of the cause but the total dedication and communion with a congregation" - Eric Hoffer
So far, we've seen a philosophical explanation concerning the origins and effects of ideology from a purely theoretical perspective. However, ideology is fundamentally a psychological process which takes place within the individual, rather than solely at the collective, societal level that we've covered. To further our understanding of ideology and to gain a better view of how ideology is shaped and how is continues to shape our perception of the world, we must explore the psychological influences which contribute to its development within society. As we'll see, ideology is not merely an accident spawned of the union of people and their ideas, but rather that ideology is the product of our common social and mental necessities.
We'll start by covering a few common frameworks often cited as the psychological roots of ideology.
Significance-Quest Theory (SQT) is defined as "the desire to matter, to feel worthy and appreciated by others whose positive regard one seeks"[1]. Within a particular societal or social context, SQT says that individuals will generally conform to the popular narrative within that context as a means for acquiring significance through the affirmation of those already accepted within that sphere of influence. In this instance, ideology acts as the mechanism by which groups of people "authenticate" each other through their mutual subscription to a particular set of beliefs. This implies that it is not the ideology itself which creates or produces followers, but rather we should attribute the need to feel included or accepted as the primary motivator for what drives people into specific ideologies. The potential menu of ideologies available for subscription may depend on a variety of factors, such as location and upbringing. For example, usually people tend to hold similar political beliefs as their parents, or follow the same religion common in that area. It would likely be a rare occurrence to find a openly practicing Hinduism in a rural, American, conservative, and presumably Christian town, at least in the absence of any exterior modes of affirmation.
In this example, we would observe a relatively strict social cohesion between the members of that community, which we attribute to the mutual interaction between the members. Here, by "community" we mean to imply that there is an expected amount of "belonging" or "closeness" experienced by its member, which is to say that merely being located in the same place does not qualify for inclusion in the community. In fact, depending on how strict we wish to use the term "ideology", the community in this case could be categorized as a type of ideology, in the sense that it: (a) contains a singular set of beliefs; (b) demands adherence to said beliefs at risk of social ostracization; and (c) there exist some sense of who "belongs" and who does not. In any case, these characteristics facilitate the formation of ideology by means of SQT.
A threat to one's sense of significance elicits behavior aimed at reasserting one's significance, the sense of of significance depends on one's demonstrable commitment to important cultural values (it is such a commitment that defines one as worthy and deserving of respect), and a loss of significance by failure to live up to a given norm or standard can be compensated for by demonstrating one's dedication to another norm or standard. [1]
It is important to note that in a contemporary discussion of SQT, we must account for non-physical means of acquiring significance. The Internet makes the boundaries of ideology and communities much larger and more vague than what we might traditionally assume. To go back to the prior example, the influence of merely existing within a conservative, Christian town may not be enough to enforce adherence to particular set of ideological beliefs due to the presence of online sources of affirmation. In fact we may attribute the phenomenon of a growing ideological consensus across entire countries, as well as internationally, as being caused by the connectivity enabled by access to the internet. Building off this, more can be said in terms of how the internet affects our feeling of belonging and community. We might guess that the lack of a strict, singular ideology prescribed by our immediate circumstances might result in feelings of confusion or lack of stability in life. This brings us to our next theory.
Uncertainty-Identity Theory (UIT) posits that
We are particularly motivated to reduce uncertainty if, in a particular context, we feel uncertain about things that reflect on or are relevant to self, or if we are uncertain about self per se; about our identity, who we are, how we relate to others, and how we are socially located. [2]
In a sense, Uncertainty-Identity Theory agrees with Significance-Quest Theory in that it attributes the acquisition of ideology (or in general the adoption of societal norms, standards, and beliefs) due to an innate desire to be accepted by others. In this instance, rather than being solely concerned with status (as a synonym for significance) within a particular social group, the concern instead rests of how our inclusion contributes to our internal definition or sense of self. This theory shift the motivating circumstance of ideology onto the individual, as in the individual is held accountable for obtaining a ideology on their own terms, rather than to strictly be in accordance with society at large.
To focus more on the "uncertainty" aspect, we may also make the reasonable interpretation of uncertainty to mean uncertainty as relating to matters beyond just personal identity. As suggested, we may look to ideology as a means of explaining current events or to resolve conflicting beliefs.
[...] ideological groups offer absolute answers to societal troubles, strict rules for behavior, and an in-group mentality through dedicated practices and symbols. [...] and allow ideologies to endow followers with a sense of coherence, belonging, meaning, and identity that is tightly intertwined with their attachment to the ideological group. [...] an ideology interprets the world and offers prescriptions for how people ought to think, behave, and interact. [3]
Thus, not only does the ideology derive its structure and beliefs from the individuals who participate in it, but the participants themselves benefit from the formulation of said ideology. We stated this before in how ideology lends legitimacy to the beliefs it encapsulates, which achieves this mentioned ideal of endowing its followers with a sense of coherence. As IUT suggests, this is not merely a philosophical truth about the nature of ideology itself, but also a psychological truth necessitated by our social and interpersonal needs. Not only do we seek to define ourselves by a particular ideological tag, as if to say that the characteristics associated with said ideology should be applied to us, lazily delegating the task of having a personality onto the ideology, but we also devote our confidence in the ideology's ability to accurately describe the world for us. It's ironic that in the conquest for identity and certainty about the world, that we would take the route which defines ourself in terms of other people and interprets the world in terms of biased information.
Why then do we so obviously throw away the virtue of being truthful for the sake of simply settling on any given explanation? Surely any reasonable person would recognize when they are being lied to or if what they're being told is fiction. And yet, seeking to absolve ourselves from uncertainty, we remain content in dwelling in ideology and its falsehoods. Nothing suggests that this is simply a matter of intelligence; evidently people of all backgrounds and education level are, to various degrees, susceptible to falling into the ideological trap. Thus we must dig deeper to find the psychological trait to blame for this problem.
Our inherent need to seek out a device to self-justify our own beliefs is founded on the principle that we naturally desire to reduce the amount of uncertainty and chaos in our lives. But what drives this action? Why do we necessarily wish to eliminate uncertainty? Terror Management Theory (TMT) suggests that we develop this fear of uncertainty from an early age, during the stage of our childhoods from which we transition from being entirely dependent on our parents to being self sufficient in some capacity. During this stage, it is argued that we begin to develop a sense of morality: that our safety and success is now no longer guaranteed by their parents, but rather something that must be secured or earned through specific behavior. At this point, we no longer possess an inherent social value; we begin to understand that we will not be cared for by simply existing. Thus, we begin to develop our sense of self-esteem: the need to feel that we are valuable to the people around us and ourselves. In this sense, to lack self-esteem would be to surrender to the "terrifying" reality that we are moral creatures capable of dying at any moment, and thus be consumed by the accompanying anxiety that such a realization would induce. Hence, we have Terror Management Theory.
To reduce this anxiety then, we must satisfy our need for self-esteem. We do things which are deemed valuable to not only ourselves, but especially to those around us. Culture then acts as the source which guides us on how to obtain self-esteem by dictating what actions and behaviors we should view as being valuable.
At this point, it is not sufficient to be loved by the moral parents; to restore equanimity, a superior basis of value and protection must be found. Fortunately, the culture provides such a basis by providing values, standards, and roles, conceptions of the world as just [...], and the possibility of immorality. [4]
As we see, culture, and by extension ideology (which are arguably interchangeable), offers us a chance at achieving a feeling of self-importance. Any doubt which may arise from the critique of our beliefs is then threatening to our self-esteem, and is thus interpreted as a personal attack on a psychological level. This is the origin of the recursive process which ultimately constructs ideologies: we form ideology to legitimize our beliefs, avoiding a decrease in self-esteem, and ideology relies on having a functional basis to derive its authority, necessitating a need for dedicated followers.
The common thread between each of these theories is ultimately that we form ideology out of a selfish need to maintain an internal and external sense of value. Evidently, the price to pay for this indecency is a disregard for empiricism. Hence we have arrived again at the thesis of this series of posts. Ideology is dangerous for its ability to turn people into obedient and uninspiring drones which only echo a particular collection of lies that a portion of the population tells themselves to satisfy their own need to feel safe and secure. The fundamental principle of ideology necessarily dictates that its inductees reject any alternative explanation in favor of whatever self-serving prescription which happened to fall into their lap.
Unfortunately, I cannot claim to have a solution yet for this problem which happens to plague us. Although I do believe that simply acknowledging the existence of such a phenomenon greatly reduces the likelihood that you will fall into the trap of ideology. However, whether this trap can be wholly avoided is unclear. What has been described here are arguably immutable psychological processes which don't have a clear fix, if such a fix would even be desirable. This is not to say that the only solution to ideological indoctrination is the rejection of our fundamental human qualities, even if such a thing feels desirable at times. The Marxism claim, in their version of events, that the abolition of ideology will come with the abolition of the material circumstances which supposedly motivate ideology and its propagation. In a similar vein, perhaps we may find a social revolution which might spell the end of ideological thinking as we know it. After all, ideology cannot exist without the consent of those it affects.
[1] Kruglanski AW, Molinario E, Jasko K, Webber D, Leander NP, Pierro A. Significance-Quest Theory. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Jul;17(4):1050-1071. doi: 10.1177/17456916211034825. Epub 2022 Feb 8. PMID: 35133911.
[2] Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty–Identity theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 69–126). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(06)39002-8
[3] Zmigrod, L. (2022). A Psychology of Ideology: Unpacking the Psychological Structure of Ideological Thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 1072-1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211044140
[4] Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. (1986). The Causes and Consequences of a Need for Self-Esteem: A Terror Management Theory. In: Baumeister, R.F. (eds) Public Self and Private Self. Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_10