Imposed Ideologies: A Violence on Human Nature?

It is difficult to argue with the fact that people tend, or even need, to
harbor a personal philosophy. In order to orient themselves into their
surrounding reality, set goals, determine priorities, interact with other
individuals, and perform many other actions, people need a certain
system of coordinates, or ideologies, to perform this function right to a
tee. Ideologies offer sets of clauses and philosophical positions that people
adopt according to how they act.
Ideologies can refer to different spheres of life; some of them can be either
useful or harmful. While in the Western world, ideologies can be chosen
and adopted freely. In some countries, though, they are implanted and
embedded into the mass consciousness through media, advertising or by
brutal force. This implantation sometimes has severe effects on an
individuals personality, and it may take a long time to correct the
consequences of such interference. Therefore, forced submission to the
dogmas of any ideology should be judged and seen as violence against
human nature.
I remember one of my acquaintances who used to live in Turkmenistan,
known as one of the most censored states in the world (CPJ) in 2006, but
managed to emigrate. I was interested in how people actually lived in a
country which is notorious for its flagrant attitude towards its citizens. To
my surprise, even living in a society with completely different values, he
still adhered to the old norms of collective behavior and ways of thinking.
It took him time to realize that many old ideological prescriptions that he
followed were actually useless, and even detrimental. Sometimes he acted
as if he was being watched or controlled. For example, when I criticized
Turkmenistans policies, he would try to prove me wrong, though later it
turned out that he also did not support it.
Communication with this acquaintance made me think about the
unfairness which takes place when people are prevented from having their
own outlook, and are forced to believe or support conceptual thinking that
is wrong, or even against their creeds. According to the Human Rights
Watch, Turkmenistan is a country marked by extraordinary levels of
repression; media and religious freedoms are subject to severe
restrictions, and tortures are widely spread (HRW). This actually means
that if a person tries to express oneself, they can be jailed and tortured,
presumably by the forces that are meant to maintain law and order.
The Internet, media and various forms of expression are controlled by the
state and violators are strictly punished. Self-censorship is common (ONI).
Taking into consideration the outrageously high level of the states
presence in its citizens private lives, it is understood why my
aforementioned acquaintance defended the ideological dogmas which he
did not share, and the personality of the leader, whom he hated. Poweredup by the constant threat of punishment and violence, these dogmas were
entrenched in his mind, determining his behavior. Even living in a free
country, he couldnt be free.
Sadly, many countries with similar mass attitudes towards their own
citizens exist in the modern world. Ideologies in such states have become
not the way of self-expression for people, but an instrument of
manipulation, helping those in power to keep it. So, people there do not
have many choices; they can either adopt the dogmas that are imposed
on them, disagree with them but obey, or they can resist and most likely
be imprisoned.
Therefore, it can be seen that forcing people to follow certain ideologies

equals tyranny. In order to be sure that the majority of the population

shares the imposed clauses, a state increasingly depends on the power
structures, turning them into a tool of repression and censorship. Finally,
any nonconformity is persecuted and punished. I think that no ideology
should be implemented through force, even if it is considered to be mostly
fair and beneficial. People must always have an option of what to believe
in, and the state should protect this privilege, not introducing dogmas that
are only advantageous to its own right.