Ideological imperialism

You and whose army?
You and your cronies
Come on, come on
Holy Roman Empire
Come on if you think
You can take us on

— Radiohead, "You and Whose Army?"

The term imperialism describes a faction's attempts at extending its power and influence over the rest of the world. It is typically conducted through militaristic subjugation and cultural overwriting. In addition to the war casualties, the conquered population is often discriminated against and exploited, their resources are plundered and their previous cultural legacy is mutilated. These unsavory corollaries have led most current democratic societies to frown upon it.

Accordingly, there aren't many novel insights to be found in criticizing this political stance and pointing out its many sins. Instead, in this post, I would like to bring attention to the underlying paradigm that fuels it, which still seems to be flying under the radar by and large.

Definition #

Of course, there is usually an ideological component to imperialism that serves as a justification for expansionism and is often part of the cultural package being spread. "Extending the territory of the superior race," "propagating the word of God," "spreading civilization," "disseminating human rights," and so on. However, these specificities are mostly cosmetic changes on top of the same mindset.

Conquest starts in the realm of conception and narratives before it cascades down into physical conflict. I'm using the term ideological imperialism to refer to the ambition for philosophical subjugation.

It is characterized by the following attitudes:

• The arrogance of unwaveringly believing you hold the best solution for everyone else—or that you're superior and thus well in your right to tyrannize your inferior counterparts
• A compulsion for ever-increasing control and a desperate need for conformity and compliance in others
• Disregard for the consent and preferences of the people you're planning to subject.

At its core, it's a process of dehumanization, whether explicit or implicit. It's the internal shift that happens when you stop seeing the other as a human being, with their own agency and worthy of consideration, but instead as a roadblock standing between you and your goals. Dispatching an obstacle affords much more ethical leeway than dispatching a person.

Ideological imperialism will always lead to violence eventually. It doesn't matter whether the specific message being promoted explicitly calls for it. The natural human compulsion for despotism may be great, but so is the urge to rebel against it. The stronger you push, the stronger people will resist. If you believe you carry the sovereign truth leading to the Promised Land, and it is therefore your vindicated duty to get every single heathen converted and/or subdued, willingly or not, then the only way to carve a path forward is through force.

Sadly, imperialism isn't deadRussia's current invasion of Ukraine, to give only one example. and ideological imperialism is very much alive and kicking.

What does it look like in practice? #

You've got your orders better shoot on sight,
Your finger's on the trigger but it don't seem right
You're in the army now,
Oh-oo-oh you're in the army now

— Status Quo, "In the Army Now"

Tyrants and aristocrats don't have a monopoly on ideological imperialism. Everybody loves indulging in it, except when they're on the receiving end, of course. Ordinary people have simply less power at their disposal to implement the ineluctable consequences of their idle fantasies. Any form of aggressive proselytism is ideological imperialism.

There are many convenient ways to sweep exploiting scummy tactics under the rug. After all, everything is justified. It's for "the greater good"! When they're the ones doing it? It's vicious. But for us, it's different. We're the "good guys". We're saving the world. And we've definitely identified the true evil scapegoat to right all wrongs this time.

Religions are probably the first example that will pop to mind for most. And, indeed, they hold no shortage of good exemplifications. Be it your fundamentalist Christians trying their all to somehow un-gay people, Jehovah's witnesses knocking at your door, Islamists muzzling dissenters through fear of violent reprisals, the list goes on.

However, they are far from being the only culprits. There are quite a number of counter-intuitive constituents in said list. Take the example of religion's supposed antithesis. A good number of atheists, and especially anti-theists, are staunch ideological imperialists. They have no qualms about using humiliation and bullying as weapons in the name of holy secularism. They also tend to be pretty open about their expansionistic ambitions in the realm of ideology.

Another specimen of choice when it comes to irony is a certain battalion of outspoken anti-imperialist far-left activists, who take pride in deploying harassment campaigns and coordinating efforts to dox, deplatform and go after the jobs of dissenters. And that's when they're not just outright fine with actual imperialism when it targets "settlers" and other such hegemonic devil-spawns, or it's being conducted by a nation which has a soft spot for the color red and/or contains "People's Republic" in its name.

Unfortunately, a sizeable chunk of most ideological groups tends to match this profile. Crusaders more concerned with vilifying the oppresser and indulging in the gratification of self-righteous depredation, than actually helping the oppressed and following through on their purported values.

This wry hypocrisy is what inspired me the term "ideological imperialism" in the first place, as I felt it brought this commonplace cognitive dissonance to light.

Although politics and religion are certainly rife with this propensity for aggressive expansionism, they're not the only types of ideology affected. Any subject you can have an opinion about is prone to it. The content being pushed is secondary, what matters is how it is being pushed. Your ideological imperialistic ambitions could be focused on the best way to organize your workplace.

Overall, the general mindset of "debate" has been largely co-opted. Most of these types of interactions quickly devolve into performative and fruitless shouting contests where the end goal isn't to improve each other's understanding of the world, but utter domination, be it logistical or rhetorical.

These observations may lead us to wonder what makes this mindset so ubiquitous. Why does it seem to be our default, ingrained recourse?

What is it driven by? #

I don't claim I've got it pegged down perfectly, but here are my best guesses at the moment.

Overcompensating for uncertainty and impermanence #

Life can be hard. There's no lack of confusion, fleetingness, insecurity, and suffering to be found. It's not too hard to imagine how dealing with this experience on a regular basis can induce desperate and foolhardy cravings for control and stability.

One might be tempted to find transient relief by means of self-delusion and reach for salvation through alluring, unwavering certainties. Unfortunately, outsiders threaten our frail little belief cocoons with their pesky differences and questioning. If only we could steamroll over the entire world and instill our gospel into everyone else, then our peace of mind would be safe from harm for good.

A gentler and more sustainable alternative would be to humbly come to terms with the limits of our human experience and go from there. Endeavor to reconnect with our most reliable inner source of truth, i.e. our personal values, and negotiate with reality and others to find the best compromise we can. Unfortunately, this is a pretty counterintuitive approach for most of us, so we usually fall back on the first option.

If you can't make peace from within, might as well wage war on the outside world.

The domination paradigm #

Independently of any self-proclaimed heights of "civilized enlightenment," most of our cultures are still built atop a paradigm of domination. A zero-sum game of eat or be eaten, or in the realm of beliefs: brainwash or be indoctrinated. Sure, we'll try to be nice-ish as long as you behave, and it's not too costly, but you'd better not stray out of line too much, or you'll get a taste of the monopoly on violence.

I've already written on this topic in my post on constructive empathic inquiry. Give it a read if you'd like to learn more.

Violence doesn't start at the point of physical assault, but once you start considering the other as a means to an end. I'll get what I want from you, or else...

And that's the way we've been taught from birth. It's a deeply entrenched conditioning that's hard to shake off.

So, if you don't want to be the chump who'll end up eaten, you'd better start unearthing and sharpening that hatchet. The victors write history, and can you really trust your neighbors? The early bird gets the worm. Might as well strike preemptively.

Fear of difference #

This vicious cycle breeds fear and intolerance. Diversity becomes perceived as a slippery slope towards skirmishes.

Thus, many of us are led to believe that coexistence is predicated on complete homogeneity when all we'd need to coexist peacefully is to agree to treat each other with basic decency and forsake maligning and abusing one another over petty disagreements.

There's no requirement to appreciate everyone else or even enjoy their company. There's nothing wrong with sorting ourselves into subcommunities of like-minded individuals with aligned values. The only values we need to share in common, as a whole, are the tolerance of difference on principle, a willingness to communicate, and a commitment to non-violent conflict resolution.

What is the alternative? #

Listen to me, Thorfinn. You have no enemies. No one has any enemies. There is no one that you should hurt.

— Makoto Yukimura, Vinland Saga Omnibus, Vol. 1

Try to do your best to come from a place of respect for your interlocutor's individuality. Muster genuine interest in understanding where they're coming from. Extend consideration and listen actively. If you'd like to learn more about the best practices to make navigating disagreements enjoyable and constructive you can read my post on Epistemic barter.

There is nothing wrong with trying to persuade other people over to your point of view, especially if you think it would lead to a better world. But when you start getting certain that you know better than any dissenter, to the point you'd be willing to thoroughly and forcefully overwrite their thoughts and beliefs, that's when you're veering off the deep end.

The means influence the end. These suppressive tactics aren't the path toward utopia. They only serve to sustain the cycle of violence, whether it's physical or psychological. You won't unshackle respect for basic human dignity in this callous world through the process of continuously denigrating it.

Jesus wasn't out there waterboarding Roman soldiers in the hope of edifying them to the worth of every human soul and the magnificence of universal Love.

Engage in good faith. If you want to break free from the domination paradigm, start by showing a modicum of deference to the self-sovereignty of your peers.

The best and only thing that one artist can do for another is to serve as an example and an inspiration.

— Steven Pressfield, The War of Art

Wisdom and compassion cannot be manufactured artificially. No one can force another to grow earnestly. It must be a personal choice. And the best way to awaken someone to new possibilities is through your own example. The wellspring of true aspiration are ethos and praxis.

Enforcing violence in the name of "the good" is the laziest, most complacent, self-righteous shit ever. It is the polar opposite of virtue. Do you want to put money where your mouth is? If you've got the better answers, prove it. Embody them. Walk the walk. Initiate being the bigger person.

If you liked this post, you might also enjoy: