The Paradox of Ideologies
Of all people in the world, who most need ideologies? Undoubtedly, politicians - who need them to form the platform on which to sell their advocated agenda or governing policies. As technological advances change the world, the evolution of ideologies shapes history.
But while most earth-shattering and era-defining technologies - electricity, steam engine, railroad, aircraft, telex, computer, Internet, mobile phone, etc. - apparently only came about within the past century and half, ideologies have been shaping mankind developments arguably from the start of civilization. Ideologies indeed define civilization. In extreme manifestation of what they stand for, as readily demonstrated throughout history, people fight, kill and die for ideologies - either egoistically or ignorantly, but mostly innocently.
Funny or perhaps natural enough, along with the polarization of mankind economic systems between socialism and capitalism, political ideologies converge mostly into the opposing ends of liberalism and conservatism - at least in the developed world. Indeed there is probably hardly any new ideas untried on how people should govern their lives under the sun.
Corporate leaders also need ideologies, though not as obvious as politicians do. Mostly about striving to be or do the best in one way or another, a company's vision is about setting expectation. But it is also an ideology - as in valuing people, producing superior financial returns, or even being an environmentally responsible company. Like political ideologies (but unlike science), there is arguably not a lot in corporate management which the human mind has not ever discerned. But to the extent that an ideology sets the direction clear, it is still useful.
In reality, as much as ideologies shape events and make history, sometimes it is the other way round which works, when people conveniently give way to pragmatism. It is a convincing truth, for example, that it is the terrible economic crisis which makes people more embrace liberalism and government activism than they would otherwise do, thereby giving a strong edge to the Democrats in the US (and paving the way for a ground-breaking Obama era). But when a company starts to make a loss, with henceforth painful initiatives of retrenchment approaching on the horizon, sooner or later, what becomes important is plainly a pragmatic matter of life or death, but no more an ideological concern about the value of people investment.
But while most earth-shattering and era-defining technologies - electricity, steam engine, railroad, aircraft, telex, computer, Internet, mobile phone, etc. - apparently only came about within the past century and half, ideologies have been shaping mankind developments arguably from the start of civilization. Ideologies indeed define civilization. In extreme manifestation of what they stand for, as readily demonstrated throughout history, people fight, kill and die for ideologies - either egoistically or ignorantly, but mostly innocently.
Funny or perhaps natural enough, along with the polarization of mankind economic systems between socialism and capitalism, political ideologies converge mostly into the opposing ends of liberalism and conservatism - at least in the developed world. Indeed there is probably hardly any new ideas untried on how people should govern their lives under the sun.
Corporate leaders also need ideologies, though not as obvious as politicians do. Mostly about striving to be or do the best in one way or another, a company's vision is about setting expectation. But it is also an ideology - as in valuing people, producing superior financial returns, or even being an environmentally responsible company. Like political ideologies (but unlike science), there is arguably not a lot in corporate management which the human mind has not ever discerned. But to the extent that an ideology sets the direction clear, it is still useful.
In reality, as much as ideologies shape events and make history, sometimes it is the other way round which works, when people conveniently give way to pragmatism. It is a convincing truth, for example, that it is the terrible economic crisis which makes people more embrace liberalism and government activism than they would otherwise do, thereby giving a strong edge to the Democrats in the US (and paving the way for a ground-breaking Obama era). But when a company starts to make a loss, with henceforth painful initiatives of retrenchment approaching on the horizon, sooner or later, what becomes important is plainly a pragmatic matter of life or death, but no more an ideological concern about the value of people investment.
Comments