c. Phenomenological Evaluation

c. Phenomenological Evaluation

 

Unlike military or economic capacity, ideological capacity is essentially rooted in human consciousness. Therefore, to say that a political actor's ideological capacity is greater, you must be able to evaluate its magnitude. So, how can you assess the size of ideological capacity? One good method is to assert that the better the content of the ideology, such as the ideas it promotes, the greater the size of its ideological capacity.

 

So, what makes an idea (the content of an ideology) better? At first glance, one might think of logical consistency, but this is not an appropriate criterion for evaluating the influence of social ideologies, including religion. The central concepts of religion and ideology, such as the existence of a deity, dialectical materialism, and natural rights, are often based on unverifiable ideas. Instead, political ideologies can be evaluated from a perspective that understands political phenomena in terms of causality, considering their attractiveness and truthfulness. In other words, the more effectively a political ideology satisfies the following two conditions, the greater its political competitiveness.

 

       ⓐ [Attractiveness] The extent to which ideological capacity aligns with human desires and expectations

       ⓑ [Truthfulness] The extent to which ideological capacity contributes to the survival of political constituents.

 

Attractiveness refers to how appealing the content of an ideology is to people. As can be seen from the popularity of populism in modern times, people are more receptive to belief systems that align with their desires and expectations. In other words, it must meet their desires and expectations. Even villains would be more attracted to an ideology that claims they can be saved and achieve happiness. In particular, the fundamental beliefs of an ideology must align with the primal desires and expectations of humans.

 

At the same time, people prefer ideologies with rich, consistent, intuitive, and familiar details in their content. For example, in the 7th century Middle East, monotheism succeeded over polytheism due to the persuasive power of its doctrine. However, these elements of attractiveness can be contradictory, making it difficult for an ideology to possess all of these characteristics simultaneously. For instance, while everyone desires a world that is free and equal, freedom and equality are difficult to achieve together. As a result, attempting to cater to various desires and expectations tends to compromise consistency.

 

On the other hand, truthfulness can also be referred to as 'usefulness,' which means the extent to which the likelihood of survival increases when acting according to an ideology. The Righteous Army ideology in the late Joseon period may have been appealing to the common people of Joseon, but its truthfulness was close to zero. As a result, political forces with the Righteous Army ideology ultimately failed to gain political power and did not attract the support of many political actors in the long term. The values of the Arabian tribal system and the ideas of white people before the American Civil War are also examples of poor truthfulness. The Arabian tribal values led to brutal consequences of bloody conflicts between tribes, as they held the entire tribe responsible for compensation if a member committed a crime. Moreover, the ideas of white people regarding the American Revolution, which led to the Civil War over the abolition of slavery, carried the blatant contradiction of protecting slavery alongside freedom. If the truthfulness of a political ideology is poor, political organizations cannot grow and develop, and political actors cannot gain significant power in the medium to long term.

 

The evaluation criteria for ideological capacity are separate from whether the ideas of that ideology help the development of a political organization (nation). Although Nazism and Japanese militarism may have helped Hitler and the Japanese far-right rise to power, they simultaneously led Germany and Japan to collapse. It can be said that the greater the attractiveness and truthfulness of the ideological capacity possessed by a political actor, the greater the political influence of that ideological capacity. However, this does not necessarily mean that the ideas of the ideological capacity contribute to the development of a political organization (nation).

 

While truthfulness partially explains the relationship between ideological capacity and political development, the evaluation criteria for ideological capacity, encompassing both attractiveness and truthfulness, only describe phenomenologically how much political power a political actor can acquire. As I have emphasized from the beginning, in this book, I only explain the mechanisms of changes in power structures.