When we believe in an idea with enough intensity, often we develop a strong identification with that idea. An example of this phenomenon is evident when two people have been dating for a while. Usually both people will begin to lose their individual identities in social situations as they adopt a conjoined identity of "we." Their relationship is the idea in this scenario, and it's an idea with which they believe in enough to identify themselves.
This is a phenomenon that has been studied for centuries and it's one of the major bases of social psychology and, more broadly, sociology. Every effective social movement in history was the result of enough people adopting an idea as their identity. When this happens, though, there is a certain amount of danger that arises too. This is easy to see in the relationship example. When abuse arises in a relationship, the victim of the abuse will often begin to feel guilty or somehow responsible for the abusive behavior of his/her partner because they are so accustomed to associating him/herself with their shared identity. He/she cannot appreciate the actual innocence of his/her seperate identity any longer, and the anxiety of losing part of his/her identity may outweigh the perceived benefit of being safely alone. This is one of the dangers associated with abandoning too much of your own identity in favor of the group's identity; you begin to forego your own well-being for the sustenance of the idea.
The real issue here is:
My argument here is that we all have to be more careful when we believe in something with enough fervor. While, on the one hand, we would do anything to make others believe in our cause, we have to ensure that we do not begin supporting things that we wouldn't have individually. It's vital that, sometimes, we take a critical look at the things that are being done in the name of our ideas. Just like the victim in the abusive relationship, we have to make sure that the things we believe in so strongly aren't hurting us as individuals.
This is a phenomenon that has been studied for centuries and it's one of the major bases of social psychology and, more broadly, sociology. Every effective social movement in history was the result of enough people adopting an idea as their identity. When this happens, though, there is a certain amount of danger that arises too. This is easy to see in the relationship example. When abuse arises in a relationship, the victim of the abuse will often begin to feel guilty or somehow responsible for the abusive behavior of his/her partner because they are so accustomed to associating him/herself with their shared identity. He/she cannot appreciate the actual innocence of his/her seperate identity any longer, and the anxiety of losing part of his/her identity may outweigh the perceived benefit of being safely alone. This is one of the dangers associated with abandoning too much of your own identity in favor of the group's identity; you begin to forego your own well-being for the sustenance of the idea.
The real issue here is:
what happens when the leaders of the group become aware of these weaknesses in its members?
There are two potential outcomes in this situation: the leaders can weaken the intensity of their ideology enough to allow for its members to appreciate their individuality OR (and this is more frequently the case) the group can manipulate these weaknesses towards selfish gain. Take, for example, political involvement in America. America functions under a bipartisan government so we have two main political parties with which politicians associate themselves with based on their ideologies. The problem, here, is that most politicians don't fit perfectly into either party, but luckily for them, there are enough people who identify themselves almost entirely with their political party that they will accept anyone that the party tells them is worthy of supporting. Politicians, to gain the political party's support, will manipulate information and carefully construct the presentation of themselves to the public until they are in office. Once they are in office, though, their actions may not seem as perfectly aligned to their parties ideologies. If enough politicians in the party can sneak these actions without public attention then the ideology of the group will eventually change, too, and this can sometimes be a good thing. But, it can be equally destructive. For instance, the Republican party passes legislation that favors the rich while the majority of its supporters are actually from the lower and middle classes, but this wasn't always the case. When Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) was in office, the party was known for its support of the working class and for its progressive ideology. Over time, though, this changed and the Republican party became the conservative party. 
Posts
