Larry Hart, Curtal Friar
http://awakeningheart.spiritual-christian.com

Abstract
In our highly polarized postmodern American society, there are a good many accusations made that particular individuals and groups are being merely “ideological.” But what does it mean for an individual or group to be ideological in thinking? What does it really mean to be either open or closed minded within a family, an organization, or a nation? This paper deals with those questions a bit more from the psychological perspective than the theological perspective from which I normally write, although for me the two are inseparable.

Key Words
closed minded, open minded, ideology, critical thinking, insight

Closed and Open Mindedness
It is now over forty years ago that I was introduced to Milton Rokeach’s research into open and closed mindedness (The Nature of Belief and Personality Systems, 1960), but what I read then has remained with me across all the years. Rokeach stated as one of his findings, that the difference between open and closed minded people is not that the closed minded are unable to change their minds, but that even when their beliefs do change it does not alter the attitude with which their beliefs are held. An angry anti-abortionist, for example, may change his or her mind about abortion, but more often than not will merely become an angry pro-abortionist. A negative and hostile alcoholic out of synchronization with life, reality, and others may see the first principles of AA’s Twelve Steps as applicable only to the problem of drinking and without relevance to the totality of his or her life; and, therefore, while able to continue abstinent as a practicing member of AA, remains at odds with life and never knows a day’s peace in his or her sobriety. Notice, that the basic question here is not the essential truthfulness or validity of an ide or value, but the way in which any idea or value is held, viewed, and used.

Ideology
Actually,” open minded” and “closed minded” are not terms one hears much anymore. They appear to have been replaced by the less vivid and more abstract term “ideological.” The word “ideology” was coined by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy around 1796. He used it at that time to mean the “study of the science of ideas.” He joined two Greek words, idea (the form or idea of something) and logie (study, science, or knowledge), to create the French word “idéologie” meaning, again. “the science of ideas.” However, since the time of Karl Marx “ideological” has more popularly referred to the beliefs, values, and thinking characteristic of a particular culture, group, or individual––especially those beliefs, values, and ideas which are political, religious, philosophical, or social in nature. Today the term is generally used negatively to mean a prescriped doctrine that is unsupported by rational argument.

A Hypothesis
Based on my experience as a pastoral psychotherapist, and as I look back across the years to the individuals for whom I have provided counseling and spiritual direction, I have formulated a hypothesis that I think worth considering and which invites further investigation. I am positing that ideological thinking, or closed mindedness, if one prefers, may be understood not only as the set of beliefs, ideas, and values, held by a particular group, culture, or individual, but, as Rokeach maintained in his research on open and closed mindedness, also includes the manner in which those ideas, beliefs, and values are held. Specifically, I am suggesting ideological thinking is characterized by the thirteen following elements. In reading them keep in mind that ideological thinking is neither conservative nor liberal. It is not the specific beliefs, ideas, or values that are ideological, but the way in which they are held. As I have written elsewhere one may be a religious or theological “fundamentalist” whether liberal or conservative. Anyone who believes only adversaries, opponents, or enemies are ideological, is most likely an ideological thinker him or herself.

Criteria for Ideological Thinking
1) Fixation on one or a few ideas, issues, or principles, while minimizing or excluding other significant, and perhaps larger, questions and concerns.
2) A dogged focus on content rather than process questions––ignoring questions of intimacy and relationship, and fixing rigidly on the mechanics of how things are done rather than why they are being done to begin with.
3) Little appreciation is shown for nuances, relevant circumstances, or context.
4) A tendency to engage in dichotomous (all or none) thinking rather than along a continuum, which then results in an inability to properly evaluate situations, ideas, feelings, problems, and solutions.
5) Idiosyncratic thinking confuses personal tastes, subjective likes, dislikes, needs, and individual and parochial concerns with ultimate and universal values.
6) There is an adversarial attitude toward others––a drive to dominate others so that rather than engaging in co-operative problem solving, or attempting to arrive at a consensus, there is an emphasis on winning at all costs. Here there is no sense of the AA saying: “Live and let live.”
7) An inability to grasp or appreciate the legitimacy, truth, or strength of counter propositions and arguments.
8) There is a compartmentalization of values and principles so that their application is limited to some specific area of life and reality rather than recognizing their wider application or utility.
9) The person engaging in ideological thinking is generally unable to grasp the possibility that their point of view might be the minority position; or, does not necessarily represent the perspective of all reasonable people of moral and intellectual integrity.
10) Thought processes are characterized by non-critical thinking in general leading to incomplete or false conclusions, and unrealistic solutions to serious and complex problems.
11) A reflexive aversion to finding pleasure or enjoyment in good things said, done, or produced by one’s perceived opponents or enemies.
12) Little or no appreciation for consensus so that there is a confusion of justice with majority rule, and/or favorable legal rulings with justice so that “winning” (getting one’s way) is mistaken for and touted as being right.
13) It is not enough for the ideological thinker that others do things the way he or she wants, others must also actually think and believe as the ideological person thinks and believes.

Conclusion
I do not much think, of course, that this little essay is likely to result in any appreciable improvement in the thinking of very many people. As Edwin Friedman, the pioneer in family systems therapy and organizational leadership noted, “It is impossible to change unmotivated people through insight.” Nevertheless, real solutions to problems and substantial positive changes, when they do occur, nearly always represent changes that seem akin to a kind of conversion experience in attitudes and perceptions.