When Ideas Have Us
Why free spirits must keep open minds
Politics and convictions are close-knit.
Sometimes, those convictions become dogma. The ideas then no longer serve the holder. It is the other way around.
Ideas should be tools: sometimes used, sometimes merely entertained. If we cling to them too strongly, they become our masters.
How does that takeover occur?
Political engagement often produces strong beliefs.
It addresses serious questions about justice, freedom, and how life should be organized. Hence, passion is unavoidable in politics. It can not be dismissed as inherently problematic.
The problems begin when beliefs turn rigid: no longer open to contradiction.
It may come to pass that we do not have ideas, and that instead, ideas have us.
The psychiatrist Carl Jung referred to that as possession. Ideas may shape, constrain, and control the person holding them. A kind of psychological dependence is at the root of this.
When ideological possession occurs, we no longer entertain our convictions freely. Instead, they have become necessary to maintain our coherence, sense of identity, or even emotional regulation.
They become necessary for self-preservation.
This is related to self-perception.
Convictions, occasionally, sustain who we believe we are. They shield us from the shame, guilt, or inadequacy of having to reconsider. Abandoning our convictions, therefore, can feel deeply threatening.
If you possess no wealth but desire it, for example, it may be tempting to believe in communism. It will reassure you that you are not to blame for your position; society is.
Many ideologies offer such relief.
And often, strong beliefs serve this exact purpose: psychological reassurance. They stabilize our sense of self. It is the opposite of evaluating ideas based on their merit: truth-seeking.
If you are possessed by ideas, you cling to them for self-protection.
Contradicting beliefs, even if they should not be, are dismissed. The methods for that are denial and projection: externalizing uncertainty. These are symptoms of hubris:
It is not I who is wrong; it is the world.
The more you attach to ideas, the more you amplify them.
Some groups employ this inner dynamic to foster a common identity. Abandoning ideas then means social death: no longer belonging to the group. But actions can have an equally drastic effect.
Throughout history, communists (and other ideologues) have committed many murders for the cause. Were they to consider it a lie to begin with, their conscience would devour them.
Ideology justifies otherwise inexcusable behaviour.
If you follow it far enough, it offers no way back.
Abandoning ideology means admitting error. That also means your behaviour was mistaken. And possibly amoral.
Facing that takes strength and humility.
The difference is psychological.
We can distinguish possession and (healthy) conviction on the following basis:
It is dependent on how one relates to the belief in question. Healthy conviction remains open to contradiction. Ideological possession does the opposite:
It occurs when a belief becomes psychologically indispensable to the holder to the point that they will no longer consider counterevidence. Questioning it would threaten the foundation of their self-image, their worldly orientation, and ultimately, their psychological stability.
It is impossible to let go.
The line is thin, but clear.
Staying open requires allowing for your convictions to be challenged. Even the ones you hold dearest. If not, your mental flexibility, and therefore your ability to think, will quietly erode.
To master your own mind, you cannot be enslaved by its contents.