In an earlier blog I talked about the
childish perspective of most ideologies. The question immediately
comes to mind: 'Does society need a simplistic, sentimental, Camelot
worldview to maintain social stability?'
Both Karl Marx (opiate of the masses) and Machiavelli argued that such simplistic ideology was necessary to keep 'the masses' content.
Is that true?
I
have many examples to demonstrate that it is not true. Japan is one
example. Japan is a country without an ideological structure. Though
the notion of a divine Emperor who has reigned for 2,000 years has
elements of an ideology, the Japanese were much too ready to discard the
idea after WWII to believe that it was ideological.
Japanese
worldviews are highly local and pragmatic.
China, before Mao and
since Mao, was not ideological. Confucianism is a moral system but has
nothing resembling an ideology. Chinese worldviews are mostly, like
Japan, locally focused and pragmatic. Similar patterns are found in several other South-East Asian societies.
I believe that Americans can develop a sophisticated world view, highly pragmatic, empirical and focused on general notions of democracy, meritocracy and civic virtue. We don't need a sandbox worldview for social stability.