There were, quite literally, a plethora of claims within this last reading with which I took issue; I shall here address but one of them. Seller defines ideology as "a system of beliefs, including values, which servers a particular group's interests" (171). I am wondering whether there is any good reason to think this an adequate definition. The last stipulation seems unnecessary and incorrect. There are plenty of ideologies that are harmful to the people who hold them, and thus do not serve the particular group's interests. This stipulation seems to denote that ideologies, which could be true, are systems of beliefs that are held not by virtue of veracity, but by some pragmatic advantageous reason to do so.
But in the consideration of certain ideologies, let us say political conservatism in the form of libertarianism, does not benefit all libertarians. In fact, in light of the dreadful effects policy influenced by this ideology would have on the entire country, libertarianism is a harmful ideology to all, including those who hold it. I do acknowledge that some libertarians such as sociopathic CEOs do benefit, but the large majority of libertarians are demonstrably detrimented.
So is there any good reason to think that an ideology necessarily benefits the group holding it as Seller contends it does?
