Philosophy and Ideology

There is a difference between a philosophy and an ideology.

The former is a guide, a general construct meant to help you think. Mine is practical liberalism. I believe that the strongest society is the one that is the most flexible, that maximizes democracy, liberty, and transparent markets. I believe these advantages become more-pronounced as societies become more complex, even while the temptation to reduce all three increases.

An ideology is something else. It's rigid, dogmatic. It doesn't respond to facts or circumstance. It brooks no dissent. Even practical liberalism, if treated in this way, can do great damage.

Religions can be philosophical or ideological. Taoism is a philosophy, Mormonism an ideology. The difference is between informing how you'll react and determining what you will do. Many Catholics treat their faith as a philosophy, even while their pastors teach it as an ideology. Some Baptist churches (like the one my family attends) are philosophical, while others (even in the same denomination) are ideological.

The word that separates these two kinds of faith is fundamentalism. The shame of our time, perhaps the shame of all time, is that fundamentalist, ideological faiths always have an advantage in expanding their reach, because they deliberately reach further than any philosopher. The truth of God is unknowable, yet every fundamentalist seems to know it in infinite detail. For a believer, that's power. The same power that raises cathedrals creates inquisitions.

In my youth I was a conservative. I found it a practical philosophy for maximizing freedom. Gradually, conservatism ran away from me. It condemned friends, it put buts in the way of freedom, it supported even rigged markets. It has become, in our time, an ideology.

Companies also have philosophies, and some have a tickle of ideology to them. Back in the day IBM salesmen didn't have jobs, they had lifestyles. When that became an end in itself the company became vulnerable. Sears also had a philosophy, a "way we do things," which over time became ideologically rigid and, thus, prone to takeover by Wal-Mart. Right now, in my own town, the switch from having a philosophy to an ideology is damaging the Coca-Cola Co., and destroying Delta Airlines.

The world of business is much better at punishing ideologues than the world of politics, and the technology business is the best of all at this. Once a company's values become ingrained, complacency quickly leads to disaster. It can happen to even the best companies in a matter of years, even months.

Philosophies which work in the business we know quickly become useless in other businesses, even closely related ones. Intel is horrible at making consumer products. Microsoft is horrible at making hardware. My guess is Dell will in time find huge problems in printers and PDAs, any product where mass customization is not the winning strategy.

This came to mind recently when Phil Agre, an information sciences professor at UCLA (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/), decided he would take on the ideology of modern conservatism (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html).

He first gave this ideology a long history, calling conservatism a system of inequality and prejudice based on deference, the attitude of common people that the rich are better than they are. Trying to "preserve institutions" is rubbish, he said -- let them preserve themselves. Inheritance of wealth and power is destructive, he wrote -- social mobility is essential. The will of a rich man should count no more than the will of a poor one.

My own view is that American conservativism changed by taking on the trappings of ideology. As with all such transitions there were good reasons. There were the excesses of the 1960s, the threat of Communism. The transition in this case, moreover, was gradual, proceeding from the fringe of a few foundations to the center of power.

What distinguishes conservatism, as an ideology, from conservative philosophy? Agre cites these examples:

• Rational argument is replaced with arbitrary dogma.
  
  
• Projection pins conservatives' own tactics onto their opponents
  
  
• Words are twisted to mean their opposite. Heart means heartless, racist means anti-racism, the will of the many is called that of a few "elites."
  
  
• Those who are "squishy" must lie to prove fealty. Those who won't follow are shunned, called enemies.

Public relations is the canary in the coal mine of ideology. Every business understands the usefulness of this tool in helping it meet its goals. It's when you come to believe your own PR that the enterprise gets into trouble.

In his paper Agre recommends that liberals take on some ideological trappings. Here is what he says liberals should do in order to regain the initiative in political debate:

• Re-take the language. Gameplan against Wall Street Journal editorials.
  
  
• Build a better pundit. Say something new.
  
  
• Teach logic to the mass audience so they will know the opposite when they hear it.
  
  
• Get in their face. Call fascism what it is. Criticize conservatives' assumptions, the root of their arguments.
  
  
• Ditch Marx and Snoop Dawg. Don't fight the culture war.
  
  
• Show what people, especially small businesspeople, get from government, and the positive results of the 1960s.
  
  
• Clone George Soros (http://www.soros.org/about/bios/a_soros). Build institutions that can stand against conservatives.
  
  
• Clone Howard Dean (http://www.blogforamerica.com/). Build a party with the manpower and discipline to stand against conservatives.
  
  
• Most of all don't pretend this is going to be easy or quick. John Kerry's election will mean nothing if liberals spend the next eight years playing defense as in Clinton's time.

When I took this summary to some liberal friends of mine most recoiled in real horror. They felt they were being told to become their own enemies. I felt like I was herding cats.

I'm not supposed to be preaching politics or religion to you. This is a business newsletter. And there is a business lesson, a Clue, here at the end of this road.

Know what you're about. Know what your company is good at, and stay within that philosophy. Don't let success lead you to think you have the only formula, or the day-to-day grind make you forget that change is inevitable, and flexibility a boon.

Most important, don't take yourself too seriously.

Better a laughing Buddha than a Pope on the business throne.

Posted by Jon Lebkowsky at August 26, 2004 5:07 PM | TrackBack