The manufacture of an ideology
Political compass tests are a somewhat popular form of entertainment. But what do they really show?
What is a political test?
In the scope of this article, I call a “political compass test” any form of online quiz, which asks you political questions, gives you pre-determined answers, and then places you along a certain number of axis. For instance, the Political Compass test, as well as the 12Axes test are counted as political compass tests.
But it isn’t clear who is being tested. Maybe have you ever tried to fill the quiz of a test whose audience you definitely don’t belong to? I can think of RightValues for a left-winger as me, but I’m sure that any right-winger would feel the same as I did, if they were to take LeftValues. Answering to those questions feels odd. It feels as though your politics aren’t being tested, that you answer the test for a country whose politics are deeply unfamiliar to you.
We determine that, in order to answer the most general political tests, you need to be a citizen. It means that you must have undergone the process of being made, not only a subject of the State, but you must have also participated to politics, so helped to fashion the State.
What is the ideology of the drug dealer, who is functionally outside of society, who deeply hates it, so doesn’t bother with presidential debates? That, political compass tests can’t answer.
What is the ideology of the mother of 3, overworked, who only wants a better pay, but is glad that the Republicans keep the gays out of the schools her children attend, because Fox News told her the gays would groom them? Now, the political compass tests can accurately pin a certain amount of numbers, which would entirely characterize her entire political thought.
By placing you along an ever increasing number of axis, by ascribing a number to your general political thought, political compass tests create a new ideology for every person that is being tested. Each set of numbers that the test gives you is an ideology.
Political tests makes of the richness of political thought a mind-numbing set of numbers. Political philosophy has been substituted by political geometry.
What is their aim?
But notice that it is a peculiar motion that has been made: a motion from the qualitative, of the written, the argumentation, and the living thought, to a world of numbers, of cold formal logic. You can calculate the distance between Marxism and Nazism. You can compare Liberalism to Conservatism in a quantitative manner.
But this doesn’t make sense! There isn’t just a quantitative difference between Marxism and Fascism. Those are radically different sets of ideas. One promotes historical materialism, the analysis of social relations, while the other clings to pseudo-scientific ideas, while claiming to restore the greatness of an ill-defined concept such as race. It is their respective methodologies, that are radically different. There is no compromise in the thought of a Marxist and a Fascist.
So, if a Marxist and a Fascist were to take a political test, and that someone had all the numbers between those of a Marxist and a Fascist, what are they? A centrist? By all definitions, most certainly. But how did they do to answer in between both? Because their thought is inspired for one half by Marx and the other half by Mussolini? That would be preposterous! They are most certainly terrified by both of those schools of thought.
But being in the middle of the two ideologies shows that their policies are the perfect compromise between Marxism and Fascism. How did that person get those policies? From first principles? Probably not, as we have shown, a methodological, first-principle compromise between those ideologies is not possible. We can’t say much more. There is just an indication that they have a dubious methodology.
But what is ideology without methodology? It is a mishmash of far-fetched ideas, which are only anchored in reality because the head which collected them seems to be well attached to a body. To the contrary, an ideologue is more than anyone well-aware of their ideological roots, the way in which they think, and the short-comings of their ideas.
So here we have it: political tests allow those who have no method, no ideology, who can develop no political thought of their own — but who stay informed about politics and actively engage in citizenship — ,to say that they have an ideology. It furthermore allows them to position themselves in comparison to others — as ill-informed as them — to have a laugh about how different or similar they are.
After having beaten a dead horse, it might be worth to notice that this last dialectical aspect may be the best thing to result from a political compass test. Discussing with people who have similar ideas, to read their political theory may well lead one on the path of political philosophy, and of a rigorous political thought.
I especially encourage the people who feel like Capitalism is bad to take the LeftValues test, to read Wikipedia pages concerning the ideology the test pin-points, and to read books concerning it. You may well develop a greater understanding of the world in undertaking such a project.
Political compass tests as a product of Capitalism
Even though political compass tests have been produced under Capitalism first, it might seem to be a stretch to see them as an ideological product of it. But it is exactly my thesis.
First, may I remember that, in order to take a political test, one has to be a citizen. It is not worth taking such a test, if you don’t have the right to vote. Such a right couldn’t be granted before the advent of Capitalism.
Secondly, that qualitative to quantitative motion is a rather common one in Capitalism. Capitalism likes images, numbers, abstractions. It is even, in the era of consumerism, the most basic form that a commodity — the building block of Capitalism, as shown by Marx is the first few chapters of Capital — takes; a commodity is separated from its concrete nature, it is a price tag, an advertisement, in short: it is a spectacle.
Then, what do political tests do, except ‘spectacularizing’ political ideologies? It makes an ideology into a set of numbers, into a location on axes, in a square. While seeming to demystify ideologies, it makes them become totally abstract, separated from their living body of thought and action, from its history.
That is a way to break apart the true nature of political philosophy, which is that one should study politics rigorously. Of course, such lack of rigor in political philosophy isn’t a new thing. People called themselves “Communist” because they voted for the Communist party, they called themselves “Liberal” because they voted for a Liberal party, etc. This could be done without being acquainted with either Communist or Liberal philosophy. In a certain way, the best political parties are those who try to bring its voter base to a higher level of political understanding.
But what is different, what is a progress in the direction of making a spectacle out of politics, is that the ideology is created at the precise moment the political test has been completed. There is no more need for the individual to look at the policies of a party, and to criticize them, and align themselves with the party which tries to implement them in some manner. The ideology created by the political compass is tailored for the individual, with a total disregard for their ideological consistency, for its relevance to political landscapes. The political compass test meets the individual, where they are, and fills their expectations.
The difference between figuring one’s ideology from party politics and political compass is the difference between going to a restaurant and looking at the menu, and being able to customize your burger on a screen at McDonald’s. But that which provides most freedom is still to know how to cook.
