THE STRUCTURE OF IDEOLOGY

Belief in Theory and Practice

INTRODUCTION: A STRUCTURE OF BELIEF

This is an attempt to arrive at a theoretical model of how people acquire and
reinforce ideology. An ideology, for our purposes, is any bundle of roughly coherent
beliefs which provide meaning and guide action for a group of people. This broad
definition means that ideology is pervasive.
Ideology’s pervasiveness and intimate relationship to meaning makes it one of
the most important factors in determining how different groups of people communicate
and interact. Ideology provides meaning, and communication depends on effectively
conveying meaning between people; therefore, incompatibility between two or more
ideologies necessarily results in a reduced ability to communicate, as what is meaningful
to one party is not meaningful to the other.
If communication breaks down because of this and neither party understands the
roots of the problem in ideology, one is left with no recourse but domination. One party
must capitulate to the predefined ideological meanings of the other before the two can
communicate. In contrast, if one can understand the ways in which people construct
ideology, it becomes possible to exchange ideas across belief systems. Domination can
give way to dialogue. If people are to flourish in an increasingly connected, globalized
populace with a multiplicity of ways of life, it is imperative to understand how people in
general construct their ideology – that is, how they structure meaning and action.
This essay does not focus on communication as such. By theorizing the structure
of ideology, though, the aim is to provide a model whose insights can ultimately foster a
more transparent environment for good-faith dialogue within and across belief systems.
PHASES OF IDEOLOGY
Ideology is any bundled set of ideas, interpretive techniques, and injunctions that
organize meaning and action in the world. It is pervasive; any attempt to arrive at a truth
claim is by nature ideological (including this sentence). It is not mere mindless dogmatic
adherence to a set of ideas, but any framework for interpreting the world to a certain
end, including those of science, history, and politics. It centers around teleology, which is
the goal the ideology aims to achieve.
Ideology has two phases, theory and practice. Both have cybernetic elements.
Teleology links the two, and is the centerpiece of any ideology. Theory initially supplies
teleology, then practice enacts that teleology in a responsive, “real-life” way. In general,
theory precedes practice.
These two phases answer different fundamental questions in the process of
forming ideology. Theory aims to answer the question, “what is true?” Practice aims to
answer the question, “what is good?”
There is an optional third phase called reform, which uses practice to revise
theory.
PHASE I: THEORY
We can model theory as having four stages, each proceeding from the previous:
canon, hermeneutics, doctrine, and teleology. (1) Canon provides raw textual material,
(2) hermeneutics extracts meaning from the material, (3) doctrine is this extracted
meaning, and (4) teleology acts as a point of focus for doctrine. Theory as a whole exists
to produce teleology, the centerpiece of the entire ideological structure.

The Structure of Theory

Canon
Canon provides raw material for the creation of theory.
Theory begins with a set of common reference points. These reference points are
generally texts, but could be anything. We can call the set of all of an ideology’s
common reference points canon. For example, the music of the Grateful Dead is canon
for deadheads; though opinions on the individual songs may vary, the material is
shared.
 Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics take the common reference material of canon and extract meaning
from it according to an established set of criteria.
Any given ideology has certain criteria or standards by which it evaluates any
given piece of canon, and either validates or invalidates it, judging it true or false. We
can call these criteria truth tests. When an ideology interacts with canonical material, it
applies these truth tests to determine how each part of the canon should be validated
or invalidated. For example, repeatability is one truth test within the scientific method;
for something to be true by scientific standards, it must be repeatable. This sets
parameters for what is allowed to be considered true or false.
The set of all truth tests within an ideology we can call its hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics represent the sum total of which criteria “count” for deciding the truth or
falsehood of any statement or work in the canon.
Conflicting hermeneutics applied to the same canon can create subdivisions
within an ideology. For example, fundamentalist and humanist Christians share the same
canon (the Bible), but their truth tests differ sharply. Fundamentalist Christians apply a
literal hermeneutic to the Bible, validating all of its claims as literally true. Humanist
Christians apply a much more ethics-focused hermeneutic, where any canonical
proposition must have ethical implications for human flourishing to be considered valid,
meaningful, or generally true.
One may consider hermeneutics as a lens or filter which inevitably colors the
material of canon in order to make it meaningful.
Doctrine
Doctrine is the set of conclusions about what is true and false, emerging as the
result of canon being interpreted through hermeneutics. It forms the visible surface of
an ideology’s theory.
A given ideology’s canon, once subjected to its hermeneutics, produces its own
particular set of validated and invalidated statements. Each individual statement is a
belief, and we can call the set of all beliefs in an ideology its doctrine. These can take the
structure, “it is [true/not true] that [canonical statement].” For example, “it is true that my
country is the best in the world” is one belief of nationalism, which is foundational to
and included within a larger doctrine.
Doctrine and canon can act as a feedback loop as theory is written down. First,
the combination of canon and hermeneutics produces doctrine; then, if ideology-
shapers write some of the beliefs within that doctrine down and make them official, they
can add this writing as a new part of the canon, retroactively inserting those beliefs back
into the first stage in the ideological process. We can call this process codification. For
example, take literary criticism. A critic reads a piece of literature, their canon, and
interprets it according to their hermeneutics for what makes for a good book. Then,
having arrived at their beliefs, they write their opinions down. Now other people can
read their review as a new piece of canonical text.
In the sense that doctrine and canon create a self-contained loop, they are
cybernetic. This mechanism allows ideology to advance over time on purely theoretical
grounds. As an ideology codifies its new developments, it provides a broader base of
canon to produce yet newer developments, and the process repeats.
Once an ideology has arrived at its doctrine, it can use that doctrine to justify a
teleology.
Teleology
Teleology orients the rest of theory and changes its purpose from “is” (as in “what
is true,”) to “ought” (as in “what ought to be true but isn’t”), creating the necessity of
applying ideology in practice. It is the centerpiece of any ideology.
Teleology orients theory. It is like a belief, although one not contained inside
doctrine. In this sense teleology is a “meta-belief” which emphasizes or orients the
theory as a whole toward something outside of itself. It sets theory up to transition into
practice. If one had to put their teleology into words, it would take the form of, “we
must [achieve this goal].” For example, Marxist theory includes dialectical materialism in
the abstract, but this only becomes practicable by plugging it into the teleology, “We
must improve material conditions for the working class.”
Teleology takes theory from description to prescription. It is the orientation of
theory as a whole. This makes teleology independent from the rest of theory even as it
relies on it. For example, it is possible to imagine someone who accepts the Marxist
description of economic structure but sees themselves as a capitalist, thus fearing
revolution and acting to prevent it. This hypothetical hegemonist accepts the doctrine,
the “is,” but orients the teleology differently, ending with a different “ought”. They begin
from the same theoretical understanding, but in practice orient it in a way opposite to
what one would expect.
Summary
Theory structures itself in four interactive stages, which combine in a step-by-
step process to produce and justify teleology. The material of canon goes through the
filter of hermeneutics, which produces the conclusions of doctrine; finally, ideology-
orient theory in a particular direction, which determines teleology. With theory now
complete, ideology can transition from theory into practice.
 Ideological theories may conflict at three of the four levels:
 Different canon (source material)
 Different hermeneutics (truth tests)
 Different teleology
Individual beliefs and doctrine as a whole emerge from the interaction between
canon and hermeneutics. Any difference at this level is a symptom of difference in one
or both of these areas, not a separate area of conflict.
Once it has produced and rationalized teleology, theory can give way to practice.
PHASE II: PRACTICE
The structure of practice is analogous to that of theory, but not identical. Notably,
in contrast to theory’s four-part structure, practice has a five-part structure. These five
parts are experience, perspective, values, response, and teleology. Practice’s first three
stages, experience, perspective, and values, are analogous to theory’s first three stages,
canon, hermeneutics, and doctrine respectively.
In theory, (1) a canonical set of texts gets filtered by (2) hermeneutics to produce
(3) doctrine, which orients itself toward (4) teleology. In practice, unpredictable (1)
experience gets filtered through (2) perspective to produce (3) values, which results in
(4) response to enact (5) teleology. Practice as a whole exists to determine response,
which is guided by teleology.
In general, theory is static where practice is dynamic. Theory answers, “what is
true?” Practice answers, “what is good?”

The Structure of Practice

From Canon to Experience

Experience provides raw material for the application of practice.
 Practice has no canon. Rather, the unpredictable experiences of everyday life
substitute for the canon. This ever-changing experiential landscape is the new raw
material to run through the rest of the process of practice. Practice deals with dynamic
experience rather than the fixed reference points of canon. Theory is like a lake; practice
is like a river.
Experience, unlike canon, is not consistent across members of an ideology, but
unique to each individual. It drives the rest of the process of practice, and its
unpredictability is what forces the rest of that process to respond accordingly.
From Hermeneutics to Perspective
Perspective takes the variable landscape of experience and extracts meaning
from it according to an established viewpoint.
In theory, hermeneutics are the sum total of truth tests through which a member
of an ideology interprets that ideology’s canon. Likewise, in practice, perspective is the
sum total of ethical tests through which a member of an ideology interprets their own
experience. Each member “reads” their experience in a manner akin to reading their
canon, looking for a way to assess the value of the situation in which they find
themselves. For example, fairness may be an ethical test for a Rawlsian liberal. For a
given situation to be considered good, it must be fair.
Just like hermeneutics determine relevant parts of canon to deem true, and thus
produce theory, perspective determines relevant aspects of experience to deem good or
bad, and thus produce values.
From Doctrine to Values
Values are judgments about what is good and bad, emerging as the result of
experience going through perspective. They underlie the visible surface of an ideology’s
practice.
In theory, doctrine emerges as a set of conclusions about what is true and false,
as the result of the reader interpreting canon according to their hermeneutics. Likewise,
in practice, values emerge as a set of conclusions about what is good and bad, as a
result of the experiencer interpreting their experience according to their perspective. For
example, if our Rawlsian liberal from the example above experiences racial
discrimination, this will fail their ethical test of fairness, producing the value judgment
that racial discrimination is bad.
Response Enacts Teleology
Response actualizes practice and influences experience. It, rather than values,
forms the visible surface of an ideology’s practice.
 One does not merely go through the ideological process by rote, but interacts
with it at every moment through response. This is the true practice of practice.
Teleology provides guidelines for how to respond to various conditions, or a goal
state to achieve; response is how one gets there. For example, an ascetic teleology may
include “one must rid oneself of worldly desire.” When an experience of desire arises,
the ascetic will respond with a certain technique to mitigate it. Response enacts
teleology.
Practice creates feedback loops between experience and response. Practice’s
responsiveness affects the outcomes of a given experience, which generates new
experiences to be fed back into the system, and the process begins again. The output of
one response affects the new experiential input, which generates further response, etc.
For example, the ascetic above who successfully mitigates their attachment will then
respond to their reduced desire by stopping the technique. The experience of stopping
the technique becomes the new raw material going back through the system of
perspective, values etc. Teleological action runs on feedback, maintaining ideological
homeostasis..
In the sense that practice aims to enact and then maintain some state, it is
cybernetic.
Summary
Practice duplicates the structure of theory but replaces its static canon with
dynamic experience, and adds an element of response. This makes practice in general
dynamic. These processes enact the teleology that theory already established.
The goal of theory is to arrive at a stable teleology. The goal of practice is to
enact teleology dynamically in the world. The entirety of this structure or process is
called ideology.
(OPTIONAL) PHASE III: REFORM
Because theory is static and practice is dynamic, practice can adapt over time to
such an extent that it no longer aligns with theory. Reform addresses this by reversing
the normal order of theory and practice. Rather than constructing a complete theory
first and imitating its structure dynamically in practice, like is usually the case, reform
takes the totality of one’s existing practice first and imitates its structure statically as new
theory, replacing or modifying older theory where it conflicts.
Some ideologies arise this way in the first place, practice-first. Rather than letting
theory guide practice, ideology-shapers may find themselves practicing in a certain way
and then codify it afterwards.
The Structure of Ideology
EXAMPLES AND FAILURE MODES OF IDEOLOGY
In order to give a sense of this structure operating as a whole, we will walk
through two illustrative examples of how ideology can play out. Although the two
ideologies are radically different in scope and motivation, the structure of how they
operate is identical. Then we will discuss some common ways in which a lack of clarity
about the structure of ideology can cause problems, both in development within an
ideology and conversation across different ideologies.
Two Examples
Let us walk through the hypothetical process of forming two vastly different
ideologies with two imaginary people. We can call them Jane and John.
Jane has always felt a connection to animals. Whether for her childhood dog or
the squirrels scurrying in the trees in the backyard, Jane feels an easy, natural affinity
with the creatures of the earth. Surfing the web, a targeted ad catches her eye. “Zero
animal products, zero animal testing, zero guilt!” runs the tagline at the end.
Her curiosity piqued, soon Jane is reading blogs with titles like ThisVeganLife and
AnimalsNotProducts. She comes to understand the abuses of the factory farming
industry and the suffering inflicted on animals in the name of higher profits.
She decides to do her part to reduce these abuses by living a vegan lifestyle. She
eliminates meat and dairy from her diet and leather from her wardrobe. Soon it feels
natural, even effortless, with leather purses and steak dinners drawing an imperceptibly
slight furrow to her brow. She makes a habit of volunteering at the local animal rights
outreach organization for their annual phone bank.
In a couple short years, Jane has adopted the ideology of animal-rights-based
veganism. The blogs became her canon. Her affinity with animals, combined with the
influence of the targeted ad, gave her a hermeneutic lens that says animals are sensitive
and exploitable – for something to be true and important, it must address animal
suffering. Applying this lens to the canonical material of vegan blogs, Jane arrives at the
doctrinal belief that the production of animal products is abusive and crooked. She
orients this belief toward the teleology, “I must work to minimize the production of
animal products.”
This teleology being established, she practices what she preaches. The experience
of eating meat or owning leather, passing through her new perspective, becomes
abhorrent. This reaction solidifies into the value judgment that doing those things is
bad. Accordingly, she responds by cutting those things out of her life and volunteering
for the phone bank, in service of her existing teleology.
 Let us turn our attention to John.
John is an honest and patriotic man. He goes to church, supports his wife and
two kids making a clean living, and simply wants to continue providing for them and
keep the government out of his paycheck. One day, he grabs a drink with a colleague
after work, and as he is about to head home, his coworker passes him a book called
something like Outlasting Armageddon: How to Survive the Apocalypse and Protect
Country and Property. “These days, you never know when you’re gonna need to prepare
for something like this,” his coworker explains.
John leafs through the book when he gets home. It describes methods for
stockpiling non-perishable foods, tents, and even weapons in order to be able to fend
for oneself in the case of societal collapse. His coworker’s words ring in his mind. He
may need this information at a moment’s notice – what if this collapse happens in a
matter of months, weeks, even days? Having seen that this could happen at any
moment, he decides that there is no time too soon to prepare. That night, John orders a
200-pack of assorted canned vegetables online and begins clearing space on an old
shelf in the basement.
It feels as though his eyes have been opened. Watching the news with his wife
confirms his suspicions. With war, natural disaster, and social unrest galore, collapse
could be around any corner. He decides his family is too important to risk. With every
piece of news forecasting impending doom, he buys more food and ammunition.
John has formed the ideology of a doomsday prepper. The book from his
coworker is his canon, and the offhand comment already influenced the hermeneutic
technique, causing him to read the book through a lens of present-tense urgency. Based
on reading this book with this urgent attitude, John comes to the belief that societal
collapse is immanent and likely, and attaches this to the teleology “I must protect my
family from incoming chaos.”
This forms the teleological centerpoint which he enacts in practice. He interprets
mundane experiences such as watching the news through his new perspective, allowing
him to extract new meanings from the same material. What was once a routine evening
activity becomes a harbinger of doom. Having extracted the value that the events on the
news are bad omens, John responds according to the already-established teleology.
Since he teleologically must protect his family, he responds by buying food and ammo.
Some Failure Modes of Ideology
Three principle mistakes or miscommunications can arise when there is a lack of
clarity concerning ideology formation: retrofitting, circularity, and stage-mismatch. In
some cases, bad-faith actors may intentionally take advantage of one or more of these
failure modes to obfuscate or infiltrate in interactions across different ideologies.
 Retrofitting happens when an ideology works backwards from its beliefs to edit its
hermeneutics. For example, if someone is committed to the belief that climate
change is not happening, they may retrofit their hermeneutic process by
automatically disbelieving any source that contends climate change is occurring. In
this case, belief does not come from interpreting canon, but interpretation comes
from defending existing beliefs.
 Circularity happens when someone mistakenly takes a truth test to be its own result,
i.e. a belief itself. For example, a scientist who studies only material phenomena,
thus making materiality a truth test for her line of work, concludes that there is
nothing outside of material phenomena, circularly taking its test as its own
conclusion.
 Stage-mismatch happens when someone mistakes one stage in the ideological
process for another, either within one’s own ideology or across differing ones. For
example, an American liberal and an American conservative may both polemically
claim the other ignores the US Constitution, assuming a difference in canon. In
reality, they may refer equally to the Constitution, but with differing interpretations;
both may draw from the same canon, but with differing hermeneutics. Circularity
can be considered a specific case of stage-mismatch.
 CONCLUSION: A WAY FORWARD
Ideology emerges as a result of a mappable series of processes, with both
theoretical and practical aspects. By clarifying the way we think and talk about ideology,
we can avoid common pitfalls in the ways we conceptualize and communicate between
groups. Crucially, it also gives us the tools to turn analysis inward, reflecting on the way
ideology inevitably shapes our own thinking, allowing us fuller knowledge and
awareness of both ourselves and others.
To apply the concepts presented here to this essay itself, one could say my own
teleology is “we must have tools for clear thinking to improve relationships between
divergent groups.” I sincerely hope it succeeds in this respect.