? Dannii Minogue: All I Wanna Do | Main | Narcissus Bullock's Bell ?
March 09, 2007
Obedience will do
Christopher Hitchens' appraisal of a "kinder, gentler Tory party" leaves me without much enthusiasm for David Cameron or the prospect of the UK doing the work that needs to be done. As Blair had to be more Thatcher than Thatcher to be elected Cameron has apparently decided he needs to be more Blair than Blair. Some hyper-reality. Some simulation.
Post-Baudrillard, I am delighted to present Flea-readers with two heaping scoops of William F. Buckley. His subject, an interview with Kenneth Minogue* on the question: "Is there a conservative ideology?" Semantic games follow; to keep out of the tall grass it is useful to keep a Gramscian use of the term "ideology" in mind. To Antonio Gramsci, an "ideology" is a system of worldviews, beliefs and assumptions which provide a symbolic explanation and underpinning for the rule of one class (an "hegemonic" class) over another (a "subaltern" class). A feudal mode of production, consequently, will encompass a feudal ideology in which the rule of the aristocracy over the peasantry is ordained by God. Here the social order on Earth is mirrored by - and indeed is a reflection or extension of - a transcendent social order. A common mistake among jejeune leftists is to imagine this state of affairs is some sort of trickery, i.e. Pharaoh knows perfectly well he is not a god but he and his family and the priests need everybody to think he is a god to keep the beer and pyramids rolling in. Far from it. Yes, it is the subaltern class who stand most to benefit from realizing their "class consciousness" but to Gramsci, and indeed to Marx, an ideology is a product of a "false consciousness" which fools everyone involved.
Minogue and Buckley are not using the term in this way. Instead an "ideologist" is a person who subscribes to a belief in ideology qua ideology; if you accept some variation on Marx' analysis of class and consciousness you are, for the purposes of this conversation, an ideologist. There are at least two subtle ironies implicit in this dual use of the term. First, to a Marxist the question "is there a conservative ideology" is a tautology; conservatism is ideology. Second, while Minogue and Buckley are using the term "ideologist" as a term of abuse their own assessment of a conservative worldview is largely in agreement with that of their opponents. The difference being, of course, that to these two gentlemen the recourse to what the Marxists call ideology is a good thing. False consciousness, what of it? In a conservative social order justified by authority "there is no need for internal assent, obedience will do." And quite right, I might add.
* Presumably no relation but if you think I am going to look at a picture of Mr. Buckley all weekend you are mistaken. There is another chap involved in the conversation but I will leave Flea-readers to discover his stylin' hair without further introduction.
Posted by Ghost of a flea at March 9, 2007 07:27 AM
Comments
"Post-Baudrillard"
You don't even wait for the body to get cold, do you?
Posted by: agent bedhead ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ghostofaflea.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 9, 2007 11:58 AM
Not that I don't find it amusing or anything...
Posted by: agent bedhead at March 9, 2007 12:14 PM
Someone has to keep that sucker nailed to its perch.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea at March 9, 2007 12:23 PM
I still have comfort that you, having apparently abandoned whiggery, at least recognize the bestest of the authoritarians - the Egyptians ones - who ensured there was beer for all, all the time.
Posted by: Alan McLeod at March 9, 2007 03:11 PM
A proper Whig foreign policy would probably suit me just as well. Anything showing spine and grounded in a bed-rock sense civilization was not only worth defending but was so on the grounds of its manifest superiority to barbarism. In this everyone from the Pharaohs to Regency England were crystal clear. We have somehow lost our way.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea at March 9, 2007 03:47 PM
I struggled with this difference too long.
Coming to terms with Locke's "Second Discourse" you are forced to agree with the concept of assent, even if it isn't explicit.
Thanks for the visit. I still have my copy of "Jeweler's Eye".
Posted by: OregonGuy at March 12, 2007 01:34 AM
M'kay?
I wrote this in response to another fellow's question about the limits of freedom and the inhumanity of some on the left.
Would you please rip it to shreds?
Posted by: OregonGuy at March 12, 2007 05:11 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in. Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
