Hør dog hvad de siger - Note-to-Self: Trials & Errors

direction – in fact, Norden has made it a virtue to always stay in the middle. Similarly, there
has been a constant shift of interest in local issues vs. in global interests. The idea of perso-
nal/individual membership in one and only one nation has gradually given way to a general
feeling of belonging to a world community, coupled with a decrease in the importance of par-
ty-political ideologies. Identity is no longer an essentialist, once-and-for-all acquired (or even
genetically defined) quality, but something flexible and ever-changing. This state of affairs is
what we have come to refer to as ‘globalization’.
From the point of view of the individual, globalization has meant an explosion of commu-
nication facilities, so that more events potentially enter the discourse world of more people
than in earlier periods of history. At the same time a number of democratization processes ha-
ve taken place, which have resulted in increased public awareness and a constant demand for
macro-level explanation and legitimation for actions, coupled with the (inevitable) strategic
(mis-)use of such democratization processes for one’s/the society’s own good. (See Verschue-
ren, Östman & Meeuwis 2002.)
Running in parallel to the idealism of national romanticism we have an equally influential
faction, or ‘ideology’, in the materialism of rational (Marxist) positivism. In recent history,
these two ideologies have often construed themselves as opposites, one being a counter-
movement to the other. However, the relationship of Marxism to ideology is a complex one.
On the one hand, Marxism is construed as a political ideology; that is, one can speak of the
equality, liberation and enlightenment of the masses as important parts of a Marxist ‘ideolo-
gy’. On the other hand, ‘ideology’ in Marxist rhetoric is a negative concept; it is the oppressi-
ve beliefs of the hegemonic elite of a society that lead the oppressed to act against their objec-
tive self-interest. In this view, Marxism as a process can be viewed as a demand for people to
rise from the state of ‘ideology’ to the state of ‘rationality’. In extremis, de-ideologization is
part of Marxist ‘ideology’.
It is popularly claimed that such a ‘de-ideologization’ has in fact come about after the end
of the cold war, when there is no competition between the great ideologies of ‘Marxism’ and
‘capitalism’. Capitalism and the ‘rationalization’ of the market, it seems, has won the battle.
This is the present situation that Francis Fukuyama (1992) refers to as The End of History.
Whether this is the same ‘de-ideologization’ as Marxism prophesized, or its complete op-
posite, is a debate we will not embark on. We will only point out how economic thinking, an
important part of Marxist ‘ideology’, is becoming more important in the everyday lives of, in
particular, citizens in ‘the Western world’. In fact, globalization has taken the form of a gene-
ral marketization process with concrete influence on the individual: in the big scheme of
139