The correct answer to the questions
Editorial
Yerkir/arm
October 29, 2004
Periodically, the question of objective analysis of this or that issue
is brought up in our society. Each of the parties participating in the
discussion tends to present its approach and analysis as
objective. However, in reality no analysis can be objective
irrespective of whether we mean conscious or subconscious objectivity.
Analysis cannot be an end in itself. Any conscious analysis is
influenced by a certain ideology. Moreover, strange as it might seem,
ideologization of the analysis up to a certain level benefits the
quality of the analysis performed.
Consciously ideologized analysis allows for a vision of the future and
prognosis that can be realized not through calculation of objective
circumstances and facts but through the consideration of subjective
human factors incorporated in the prognosis such as will, desire,
confidence.
In this way analysis becomes not merely mathematical calculation but
planning and even set-up of the future. The prognosis becomes prophecy
with the probability level of its realization being dependent on the
will and confidence of the person making the prognosis.
Such analysis also becomes a means to impose one’s own ideological
will upon others, to explain one’s own vision of the future and
proximate this vision to the reality. The future depends not only on
objective circumstances and arbitraries of fate.
The future is shaped and realized through human perception, visions,
ideals and will. From many possible futures, the one that succeeds in
creating a stronger and more emotionally influential vision will
prevail. Out of two possible scenarios, the one in which its author
subjectively incorporated more confidence, more will and a greater
desire will be realized.
This is why the seemingly objective political analyses and prognoses
of the future are a tool for making one’s desirable vision of the
future dominant and imposing it upon others. It is interesting that
political analysis is more ideologized in countries that have a
stronger and better defined political line.
For instance in Russia especially in the 1990’s, policy analysts used
to present their analysis under the disguise of neutral and objective
scientific observations. They did this not so much with the purpose of
concealing their true interests but because they really suffered from
the objectivity syndrome and did not feel comfortable with being
ideologized.
As opposed to this, political analysis and ideology are extremely
interconnected in USA. And this interconnection is not
secret. Analysis andprognosis made by American sources are very often
not so much scientifically grounded prognoses as visions of future
based on specific ideological views.
The complexity of political and geopolitical problems facing the
country cannot be presented as a set of issues requiring merely
technical, expert solutions that can be developed by a group of
professionals.
The thing is that not all the problems have only one correct
solution. The` correct’ solution can be largely based on ideological,
value-derived, political and other choices and not objective `facts’.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress