Grassroots Theories

–Aaron Beveridge

Ideological analysis makes investigating individual perceptions and worldviews a conceptual impossibility. Ideologies, essentially, are categorized perceptions/worldviews of social groups. Individual perception cannot be understood within this sort of analysis, because ideological analysis is a categorization of perception in an attempt to understand the connection between the ways people “see” the world, and the ways they act within it. What does this mean? Categorical systems work based on the similarities of grouped individuals, not on their particular differences. Take for example the taxonomy of various animals—a categorical classification. Categories that separate fish from mammals from insects cannot account, in and of themselves, for differences amongst mammals or within the singular category of fish. Individual differences between different mammals can only be accounted for by creating subcategories within the mammal category like horse, dog, or cat. However, investigating the various differences amongst the many mammals in the mammal category does not help us understand the difference between mammals and fish because it is the similarities of all mammals that allow us to categorize them into a singular group—similarities which are compared to a different category of similarities in fish. Description of individual qualities can only happen within a singular group—the difference between mammal A and mammal B. However, when we find similarities to mammal A in the mammal category, and similarities to mammal B in the mammal category, then we begin to create subcategories to explain the differences between mammal A and mammal B, and again, individuality is erased. Any sort of categorization cannot account for difference without creating new subcategories, and these new singularities, by design, erase difference and individuality.

Grouping people into a single category based on difference is literally senseless. As such, we assign people various ideological perspectives based on their similarity to other individuals; based on a perceived connection between the ways they “see” the world and the ways they act within it, we categorize them with other people who “see” and act similarly. And immediately, according to this system of explaining why and how people act within the world, we are unable to embrace individuality—we are unable to explain individual people in the complexity of their own social-historical position. For example, we talk of the ideology of the Christian Right as if it explains why the individuals within that category think and act the ways they do. Or, we discuss the ideologies of consumerism and capitalism in an attempt to understand why people make various choices.

But do any of these ideological explanations actually help us change the way people “see” the world and act within it? No they do not. In fact, they give us an excuse to not work with people with whom we probably disagree. If another group of people “sees” the world differently, then how can we work together? But this is the problem. Why do we need to see the world the same? Does anyone really “see” the world the same way? This is the point of my critique of ideological analysis. Any categorical explanation (aren’t all explanations categorical?) functions by categorizing things according to their similarity, and as such individual difference cannot be explained by categories or any generalizing theory for that matter. And we all know that we each “see” the world a bit differently. Anyone who has had a close friend or partner knows this to be the case. No matter how well a person knows me, or has experienced the same things as I have, I still “see” and act within the world a bit differently from everyone else, and misunderstandings thus occur. And though I assume this is true for all of us, we still function and interact with our friends and partners even though we all “see” the world a bit differently. But why is it that we are able to function on a daily basis with other individuals that “see” the world differently, when we have such a problem functioning on a societal level between larger categories and theories for “seeing” the world? Because, we pledge our allegiance to the large categories for “seeing” the world. The large theories that describe our place in society, how and why we should function, make us feel safe. We find the category which suits us the best, and we fall in line. And sometimes, the categories choose us. But either way, we wear our ideologies like fascist patches sewn onto our clothes—“I’m a liberal,” “I’m a conservative,” “I’m a libertarian,” or whatever other theory/category we use to define ourselves—and rather than understanding one another as complex individuals in a messy society, we accept our labels and we gladly give them to others. We think that we cannot work with a conservative if we are liberal because they “see” the world differently than we do, but this is just the large theory lying to us—causing us to forget that no one “sees” the world exactly the same way.

The purpose of grassroots theories is to avoid the categorical problems that occur when we understand one another based on broad categories. The smallest theory of how and why the world functions is individual experience. But individual experience is meaningless to society if it cannot be understood by other individuals, and as such, I’m not sure that categorized theories on how and why the world functions can be avoided. But we need to keep our theories small. People with small theories are more likely to work together, and to question the accuracy of their perception of the world as compared to others. People with small theories are closer to the action, and more likely to be effective in working toward a common cause. Large theories have to explain and predict far too much and as such are far less capable of dealing with particular difference and individual circumstance. But we like large theories. They are easier because they are grand, further from the action, and require revision less frequently. We declare our allegiance to large theories, like the theories of ideology, because they explain so much, they help us understand the world, and because of this we feel secure.

But if we realize that no one “sees” the world the same way. If we begin to focus less on the large theories that explain how and why we function in society, then we will be able to do the most radical action of all—“see” the world differently, and still work together. This is what is meant by grassroots theories—we work from the bottom up. We first concern ourselves with common cause not with differences in how the causes are perceived. Both the right and the left have systems for helping the poor—the right tends to favor non-profit organizations and the left seems to favor social programs. And thus the battle ensues over which approach to helping the poor is more effective. One group becomes more powerful, and increases the funding to their privileged means of helping the poor, then the other gains power and it reverses. Rather than approaching the problem from the bottom-up focusing on helping the poor by any and all means, we instead make the battle about whose method is better. Grassroots theories takes a different approach—the pragmatic approach. We ought to help by both methods if in fact both methods do help the poor, but the priority would be the helping the poor and not the method employed.

The point of the grassroots theories is that it is not necessary for people to change the way they “see” the world in order to work for a common cause. We do not have to “see” the world the same to work together because this is impossible in the first place—no one “sees” the world exactly the same as anyone else. This is what encompasses a grassroots theory; groups of individuals working together on a common cause by any and all means—because the cause comes first, and the ideologies, theories, and labels come second. Maybe I’m a bit of an idealist to hope that people would work together on common causes rather than fighting for their various categorized ways of “seeing” society. Yet, I would rather promote systems for change with the potential for real success, instead of arguing the validity of ideologies.