Ideological consistency? No thanks.

 

If, approximately two years ago, you had asked me if I was a feminist, I would have laughed in your face, before launching into a massive tirade about everything that's wrong with the movement. 

Around the same time, if you had asked me what I thought about billionaires and wealth distribution, I'd have told you that they're hard workers who deserve to enjoy the fruits of their work and that if they are to give away their money, it should be on their own accord. 

My takeaway from the past 2 years is a simple one: Ideological consistency is overrated. It is an unfair expectation from people and it does a disservice to the true purpose of dialogue on social, political and economic issues.

Consider: The reason for example why extremists exist is because through many years of socialization, they have been conditioned to believe that their own beliefs are gospel truth, that dissenting voices are the enemy and that if they don't defend their beliefs with their lives, then they don't deserve to exist within the bracket of people who support similar beliefs. They believe that the only way to prove themselves worthy as a result is to take their beliefs to extremes. They are people who in earlier years did not allow themselves to be exposed to opposing views and over several years, began to believe that since there were no dissenting opinions, then theirs must have been the sole true ones. Lo and behold, the madness began. 

It's high time we redefined our discourse mechanisms.

Because when we sit down to engage in intellectual discussions, we shouldn't be doing it to defend our beliefs, or even to critique those of others, but to reach a middle ground: Consensus, which is the closest that human beings will ever come to finding 'truth' - whatever that is. This is not to say that every single human being should identify as central on the political spectrum (unless upon interrogating both sides, they find merits in both sides). We simply need to allow ourselves the flexibility to be willing to adjust our leanings. Because when we are rigid in our approach to life, we deny ourselves of the sense of fulfilment that we would otherwise get from knowing that we have found a better line of reasoning.

Even more is that we don't always need to subscribe to every single practice that characterizes membership of a particular religious, social or political group. To do so is to dichotomize and human beings are not a binary species. We have survived for many years because we spread out across various degrees of agreement and disagreement with particular ideas and the most 'unfit' ideas die off while the 'fit' ones progress and the cycle moves on. But when we all bunch up to the extremes of ideology, we lose out on this beautiful cycle but moreover, lock people out of discourse because they cease to have a space to fit into. The creation of such spaces is critical to development - A conservative should be comfortable with identifying as a conservative while still supporting the right to abortion without having the pressure of the remaining members of the community on their back for failing to abide by the made up code of subscription to an ideology. 

Today, I believe very strongly in things such as affirmative action, quotas and women empowerment in all its forms. I believe wealth is unevenly distributed and that a paradigm shift is needed with regards to who accesses how much wealth, when and how. And for all we know, I may not hold those same beliefs tomorrow, the day after, next month, next year or in the distant future. 

The ideal society is one in which I am not afraid to adjust my views, let alone express them. One in which I can still identify as liberal, but still have reservations about certain aspects of liberalism and one in which I am not weighed down by pressure from fellow liberals that stops me from adjusting my position, even when I see merit in positions that disprove mine. 

Until then, who knows?

Sincerely, 

Muku 

Photo by Kyle Glenn on Unsplash