Is It Normal to Idealize People? A Political Science Perspective on Power, Institutions, and Ideology
As political scientists, we are constantly exploring the dynamics of power, social structures, and governance. We seek to understand how power is distributed, how institutions shape the behavior of individuals, and how ideologies influence societal norms and values. One intriguing yet often overlooked question is: Is it normal to idealize people? While this question may seem purely personal or psychological, it is deeply embedded in the political structures and ideologies that govern our societies.
In this post, we will delve into the concept of idealization through the lens of power, institutions, ideology, and citizenship, focusing on how individuals and groups perceive and respond to authority figures, leaders, and societal norms. We will examine the way in which men and women approach these relationships differently—men often adopting a strategic, power-oriented perspective, while women lean towards a more democratic and interaction-based approach.
Power, Ideology, and the Idealization of Leaders
To idealize someone is, in many ways, an act of power. It is the act of ascribing to someone qualities or abilities that may not fully exist, often driven by a desire to align with their perceived authority or vision. In the context of politics, idealization typically manifests in the form of charismatic leaders who become symbols of hope, strength, or moral clarity. Political leaders, in particular, are often idealized by their followers, as their personal traits or decisions are imbued with a sense of greatness or inevitability.
From a political science perspective, idealizing political leaders is often a tool used by those in power to solidify their authority and influence. Through idealization, leaders can consolidate their power and maintain control over their constituents. This is seen in various forms: authoritarian regimes often employ cults of personality, where leaders are not just seen as political figures but as almost god-like figures, their image idealized and projected as infallible. Think of the larger-than-life figures such as Lenin, Mao, or even modern-day political leaders who are portrayed as “saviors” of their nations.
But is this idealization normal or even healthy? Idealizing leaders creates a psychological attachment that may obscure their flaws and decisions. It shifts the focus from critical thinking and democratic debate to blind obedience and emotional loyalty. When citizens idealize their leaders, they often ignore the complex, nuanced decisions that those in power must make, which can lead to a dangerous detachment from the reality of governance. In democratic societies, idealization can turn citizens into passive followers rather than active participants in their own governance.
Institutions and the Role of Idealization in Shaping Society
Institutions play a central role in shaping how individuals and groups idealize others. These structures—whether political, economic, or social—create and reinforce norms that influence who gets idealized and why. In a democracy, institutions like the media, education, and even political parties can frame individuals in ways that make them more idealized. Consider how political parties often project their candidates as messianic figures during elections—those who will lead the nation to prosperity and justice, often without fully revealing their policy limitations or the compromises they will need to make once in power.
On the other hand, social institutions such as family, religious communities, and educational systems have a profound effect on the idealization process. For example, in some patriarchal societies, the idealization of male leaders or patriarchal figures is deeply ingrained in social structures. These figures are seen as powerful, rational, and capable of making decisions that benefit the greater good. This often contrasts with the idealization of women, who may be depicted as nurturing, empathetic, and emotionally intelligent. These gendered stereotypes are not just cultural; they have political implications.
For women, the idealization process often shifts away from power and strategy and towards democratic participation and social interaction. Women’s idealized figures are often associated with values such as care, compassion, and inclusivity—traits that align with societal expectations of femininity. However, this perspective can undermine the agency of women in politics and leadership, reducing them to roles of moral caretakers rather than political strategists or decision-makers.
In contrast, men are often idealized in a way that aligns more with strategic decision-making and power dynamics. Men in leadership roles are typically portrayed as assertive, decisive, and capable of navigating complex political landscapes. These ideals are reinforced by the historical exclusion of women from formal power structures, leading to the perpetuation of male-dominated power narratives.
Citizenship and the Politics of Idealization
Idealizing people, especially political leaders, has profound implications for citizenship in a democratic society. Citizenship, in its truest form, is about active participation in the political process, questioning authority, and holding leaders accountable for their actions. However, when citizens idealize their leaders, they often do so at the expense of this active engagement.
The act of idealizing someone may encourage passivity and diminish the importance of civic responsibility. Idealization makes it easier to believe in the rhetoric of leaders without critically engaging with their actions. In an era of hyper-polarized politics, idealization of one’s own leader often leads to the demonization of the opposing side, undermining the possibility of constructive political discourse.
One might ask: How much of our political engagement is shaped by idealization rather than reasoned debate? Are we supporting leaders because of their policies and vision for the future, or because they fit into an idealized image we have constructed? The rise of populism and authoritarianism in recent years may, in part, be attributed to the idealization of leaders who promise simple solutions to complex problems, exploiting emotional loyalty over rational discourse.
Provocative Questions: Rethinking Idealization in Politics
– Is it possible to have a healthy political relationship with leaders if we idealize them too much?
– Can idealization ever be a tool for positive political change, or does it inherently lead to disillusionment and power abuse?
– How can we break free from the idealization of political figures to engage more critically in our role as citizens?
– Do the ideals we impose on male leaders conflict with the qualities we expect from women in positions of power?
Conclusion: A Call for Critical Engagement
Idealization in politics may seem like a natural part of human psychology, but it is fraught with consequences. By idealizing people—particularly political leaders—we risk losing sight of the complex dynamics that shape their decisions. Moreover, idealization can reinforce gendered power structures that limit both men’s and women’s full participation in political life.
As citizens, we must reconsider how we engage with political leaders, not through idealized lenses, but with a critical eye that balances emotional attachment with rational analysis. If we are to foster true democratic engagement, it is essential that we move beyond idealization and towards a more grounded, critical form of citizenship that holds all leaders—regardless of gender—accountable for their actions.
What do you think? How do you engage with your political leaders—through idealization or critical analysis? Share your thoughts in the comments below and let’s open up a discussion on how we can redefine political engagement in today’s world.