User talk:Slowtrain

The phrase ideological nomadism describes a situation of constantly shifting beliefs. It is not necessarily a progressively or upwardly vertical shift in beliefs, but it is essentially a frequent change in beliefs, which could be vertically, laterally or circularly.

Overview

Ideological nomadism is perhaps rooted in identity crisis. As psychologist Erik Erikson observed, the identity is "a subjective sense as well as an observable quality of personal sameness and continuity, paired with some belief in the sameness and continuity of some shared world image." Ideological nomadism often results from a situation where a person cannot find himself as he has found his communality, thus leaving such a person without a belief or without a firm belief in the fundamental or essential ideology of his community or scociety. Hence, a person who has nothing to believe in or has unstable beliefs about his community or society, would believe in anything and a person who has nothing to live for would die for anything or die for nothing. This can be seen in a multi-racial society where racial stereotypes push people into a state of paranoia, such that they become disadvantaged in terms of their convictions about themselves in society, ultimately they develop a sense of hostility towards their society and its values or value system, and would become ideologically unstable and vulnerable, with the propensity to embrace any ideology, often as a protest action or rebellious action, particularly ones that appear to be diametrically opposed to the society and its values towards which they have hostility.

Definition and Theory

Similar to a nomadic people or person, who would not settle down permanently in one physical location, but moves from place to place, sometines cyclically, an ideological nomad would be a person or people that hop from one moral or social principle (or one set of moral or social principles) or other belief systems to another. An ideological nomad may frequently go from one particular belief or set of beliefs to another, in some cases back and forth, in search of a principle or set of principles to support a particular inclination or acquired disposition that is outside of or unsupported by one’s existing or previous belief system. In this wise, it is similar to being frequently married and frequently divorced, sometimes to a person one had previously been in marriage with. Such a person would sometimes, exploitatively appeal to a previously held and abandoned or partially abandoned ideology, where it supports or meets a specific need that other ideologies one have embraced may have failed. For example, religious people, such as Muslims who appeal to secular values in order to establish and promote Islam while at the sametime seeking to overturn the secular ideology for the sake of Islam.

Primarily, ideological nomadism is common amongst people that feel betrayed or disappointed by their existing or previous beliefs or belief system. For example, socially and politically disadvantaged or oppressed people often feel excluded and marginalized by the particular ideology of their society, whether democracy, socialism, communism, etc. They come to see such systems as the root of their problems, yet they cannot completely dismiss them, because they are unable to deny at least the essential benefits thereof, albeit symbolic benefits. For example, America which is regarded as a nation whose core ideal is the freedom that derives from the notion of the equality of “all men”, yet many people feel that the freedom is more symbolic than substantive, because by the realities of their daily lives, they feel excluded and even marginalized by the particular system of their society. Some of such people may be inclined to embrace other ideologies, sometimes ones that are diametrically opposed to the existing or predominant system of their society, mainly as a rebellious action than a logical action.

In extreme circumstances, this particular “vulnerability” has been exploited by “subversive” groups such as the Nazis, Islamists, white supremacists and other hate groups. For example the "Islamic terrorist" group known as al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, and similar groups are known to target, for ideological conversion, groups in western societies such as the United States of America that they perceive would be ideologically unstable or weak due to dissatisfaction and grievance, people that feel marginalized and have a certain sense of anger towards their society or the underlying ideology thereof. Drug dealers are using the same approaching in recruiting young African Americans in the inner cities, often pointing to the situation around them to convince such young that education is for the “white man”, and that those who seek it, are only “acting white” or trying to be like the “white man” — a dream that cannot be achieved and to some, even considered a betrayal of one's identity. The white supremacist groups are equally adopting the same strategy in the recruitment of their members, by appealing to sentiments stemming from lost or unrealized expectations by putting the blame on those whom they have made the object of their hatred.

Origin and Concept Development

The phrase ideological nomadism, perhaps first appeared in the book Tribalizing America: A Social Evolution of the American Society. The book is an essay on the "emerging identity crisis" of the American society.

The author, Ifezue Okoli, believes that America has wandered from her foundational and essential character, i.e. the belief that the concept of individual rights is the bedrock of the "providential idea called America", and has become a nation increasingly shaped by the politics of group rights instead of individual rights. Hence, America is slowly but surely going through a process that would eventually lead to a tribalized society or something similar to it, much like the older societies of the world, for example Africa and the Middle East.

Okoli believes that the contemporary definition and application of multiculturalism, propelled by the excesses of political correctness and unrestrained cultural relativism, is creating a profusely divergent society, one akin to the oxymoronic concept "diversity in unity".

He argues that multiculturalism is not a new concept or a recent realization, but a consciousness that has existed perhaps even before the days of early Greek philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, etc. He believes that in the absence of established universal standards and moral guidelines, multiculturalism possesses intrinsic attributes that create problems between the different cultures in a particular society. He believes that "ideological nomadism" is one of such problems, though not directly. Okoli, notes that there is ample evidence to suggest that attempts have been made throughout the ages to resolve such intrinsic problems. He believes that, in “line with his integrationist view toward understanding the varied phenomena of nature, Aristotle might have sought to solve the human behavioral condition inherent in multiculturalism and which tended to hinder peaceful coexistence, through an application of the definition of the concept of the fifth essence or quintessence. Such Aristotelian application of the fifth essence sought to unite the disparate cultures within the Greek society through the intellectual consciousness of learning and knowledge, hence the concept of the university.

In recognizing the inevitability of multiple cultures coming into existence within a society, particularly in a world that is increasingly made smaller by technology, as disparate cultures converge for reason of commerce, migration, etc., Okoli proposed what he called "synergistic-culturalism" or "composite-culturalism".

He defines composite-culturalism as a condition of cultural integration, convergence, or union. It would be similar to synergy in the corporate world. Synergy, when properly executed, has proven to eliminate redundancy, improve efficiency, and offer overall benefits through best use and harmony. Since cultures often define and identify people, it is fair to say that unified (not monolithic) or synergistic coexistence of cultures translates to unified or synergistic coexistence of people of those cultures. This desirable condition is unattainable in a culturally competing and divergent (multicultural) society.

Composite-culturalism would involve some social engineering or re-engineering, but the author agues that we are already going through some form of social engineering and re-engineering, by virtue of postmodernism and political correctness, to establish multiculturalism. He claims that what is suggesting would be a “corrective social engineering”. He believes that social scientists could borrow from the relational database concepts of relational algebra and the relational calculus, to develop a model from the project principle and cartesian product principle.