When Policing Identity and Ideology Stifles Progress
As both a Mystic and an Activist..
I've been noodling on a topic that's appeared in different parts of my life and a persistent struggle for understanding my place in the movements I’ve been a part of. This has come up even more so, over the past few years as I step more into my spiritual leadership role.
So, all to say, it feels more than ever important to discuss this question: Is it really possible to agree with the values of an ideology (like Christianity, socialism, egalitarianism, etc.) without fully committing to it as a strict identity?
Can we accept parts of a belief without fully agreeing with it? People often call this "cherry-picking" or "not committal," but creating new ideas usually means picking what fits best. Before choosing one belief, we often explore many options. Life is about exploring, trying on new ideas, and only sticking to what feels right to us.
Some Distinctions I’m Making:
Values vs. Ideology
Values like compassion or justice often transcend any single ideology. You can believe in "love thy neighbor" without accepting every doctrine of organized Christianity.Curiosity vs. Icky Tribalistic Loyalty
Many ideologies demand identity-based allegiance ("You must call yourself a [label/identity] or “you are either one of us or you’re against us”). These phrases often alienate those who are engaging with curiosity and opening themselves to different ideas. When there’s a demand to fixate on ONE “right” ideal, it quickly turns cult-like.Ideals vs. Institution
For example, I respect the teachings of Jesus while rejecting the abuses of power and its structures, historical abuses, or dogmatic demands of the mainstream Christian church its institutional authority figures.Hivemind vs. Autonomy
Do we have the right to synthesize beliefs from multiple sources rather than conforming to one belief system?
How I am Navigating the Tension
Towing the party-line allows me to go along to get along. I get easy likes and supportive comments. Friends and allys pat me on the back for saying the right string of words.
BUT the second I disagree with an approach or perspective, I can tell it kicks up tension. So what do I do from here?
Meaningfully Compromise without Being Compromised
This is also where all those conflict resolution tools have a place. Most of the time, the disagreement is small in the grand scheme of things but the tension itself can create fighting words ..or a mountain out of a molehill.
Worst case, they keep us from finding common ground and working together on problems that are urgent and worth solving. There is plenty of low-hanging fruit we can build coalition around and unite collective efforts towards solving: i.e. the fallout of climate change. Can all agree that a changing climate is a threat to all of us so let’s start building a plan to solve the issues that climate crises pose? How does solving the minutia of "What is a Real Environmentalist?”move anything forward? It likely will just cause division and takes energy from the problems at hand. It also misses the much more effective question: what can we do RIGHT NOW together?
Here’s what I hear myself saying more of these days
"I admire these principles, but I don’t subscribe to the ideology as a whole."
“I recognize that no ideology/identity is perfect, and to believe ideology/identity will save us. (In fact, might be another form of “cope-ium” or escapism)
“I hope you can respect my independent thought as valid, but if not, that’s fine. As for me, I will continue to speak on the things I feel are important to me. You are free to do the same.” I also set boundaries if anyone or a group pressures me to "confess" or conform 100% to their ideas without room to compromise. I am also getting better at simply noticing it when it happens in real time. I observe, but I do not get absorbed.
Loyalty Tests as a Toxic Dynamic
It’s important to distinguish between the essence of a movement (its ideals or "The Cause") and the rigid identity that often comes prescribed with it, which can quickly devolve into in-group policing of dogma.
At least this is the case from my experience.
I’d rather choose a commitment to the actual deeper purpose, which matters more than devotion to single label, phrase, ideology or niche.
In-group dynamics at their worst demands loyalty tests (great article linked about the manipulation tactics of cults) rather than genuine curious engagement with the cause or its ideals. They, in-turn, fuel spats and arm wresting. Rejecting that doesn’t mean rejecting the cause itself.
Most importantly, I want to leave room to grow and evolve.
If you tie yourself to any identity, you may feel pressured to defend every aspect of it to your death…Quite literally too. I remember one of the first bible school lessons I got when I was still a Christian, was asked this INSANE hypothetical:
“If someone came to your house and threatened you with a gun to your head asking if you believe in Jesus, would you say ‘no’ just to avoid being persecuted?”
Thinking back on this hypthetical loyalty test really shows one extreme end of how this type of black-and-white-thinking is clearly broken. While it is effective propoganda for the church, it was not only emotionally damaging, but intellectually damaging to my own autonomy and critical thinking.
True to Ideals (Not Ideology)
By being true to the underlying ideals…then you can adapt, question, and grow without betraying anything, including yourself. You are also much more free to envision from your own eyes, not just that particular collective’s vision.
Even Jesus, ironically, challenged the rigid boundaries of religious identity while he came to fulfill the deeper and more profound purpose through that inherited Jewish identity. By clearly distinguishing himself apart from that established “Old Temple” ways, he was intentionally drawing a line in the sand. This act made him particularly vulnerable to criticism and opposition from the very institution that was supposed to herald his coming.
Even civil rights activists believed in racial justice but were then distanced by formal organizations or were seen at the time of their come-up, as “too radical” to be claimed by many establishment politicians at the time. For example: the establishment disliked MLK Jr. while he was alive and it wasn’t until after his murder when the popular consensus changed in the polls, to more broadly to favor him.
‘Am I Being Irrational?’
I’ve been wondering if my stance is irrational. But I’ve also realized rationality can be used in many ways and mean different things depending on the context. My rationality tells me I am allowed to think for myself.
It actually helps keep me aligned with what truly matters (to me) while avoiding the pitfalls of ideological rigidity.
History’s most transformative minds didn’t ask for permission. Thinkers like Camus, artists like Prince—they shattered molds, defied conventions, and rejected the tired scripts of their time. They weren’t here to collect loyalty badges from gatekeepers or play nice with in-group politics. Why? Because real change doesn’t come from pleasing the choir.
It’s not that I’m "uncommitted" or "wishy-washy.” I honor the lineages of thought that helped me form these ideal, of old and of new.
But I want to remind myself and anyone else who needs this: we are allowed to have our own beliefs too. We are allowed to come to our own conclusions.
Ultimately, we have to ask, is the goal to police an identity or to advance the deeper cause?
Intuition As a Segway…
From a spiritual perspective, absolute certainty is often the death of wonder, intuition, humility, and true seeking. I also find it confining to be locked into rigid interpretations.
This is the compromise many make to trade vastness of mystery for the smallness of dogma.
There’s a subtle move from expansion to contraction when we decide “this is the ONLY answer and that’s final” or some version of “I’m right they’re wrong…”
This applies not just to religion, but so many arenas if we aren’t careful to investigate these subtle patterns. Our spiritual journey towards enlightenment requires us to die to the ego’s desire for certainty and investigate if some of these ideas are really ours at all, or we were too busy trying to align ourselves to fit into a coherent belief system.
Ego 🤝 Ideological Quick-Fix
Everyone seems to be selling their version of the “3-Step Framework to Fix All Your Issues Super Fast! Here, Steal My Secret Formula!”
And trust me when I say, I love a good formula. I love a robust framework. I teach a bunch of them in my course and mentorship program.
TDLR:
Isn’t it also a feature of Capitalism that wants us to sell us ideas that make us feel better because then it doesn’t require us to investigate deeper for ourselves?
Consuming identities and ideas can be a kind of shortcut that stifles self-reflection, deeper inner and outer work, or critical thinking beyond hive-minded echo chambers.
At best, consuming identities and ideas give us coherence and a common ground to build. But at worst, consuming identities and overidentifying with ideologies give our egos the illusion of control and progress, while completely losing the plot. It’s easy to miss the bigger ideals, goals and actions we could be taking but were simply too busy arguing over in-group purity tests that doesn’t move the needle.
Soul Perspective
I want to conclude that our souls remember that we didn’t come here for simple answers. We didn’t come here to just inhabit a set of ideological beliefs or identities that keep us in a gridlock. We came here to wade through the messy inbetween. To be in the chaos and attempt to reconcile the unreconcilable. To hold the impossible tension of opposites…
This is our Soul’s only imperative: to expand, to progress, to act in the tension, to grow and ultimately to become.
Cheers to becoming,
Christina
P.S. Wanna go deeper? read my last blog post. It’s a great follow-up to this one if you are learning that mystery and uncertainty isn’t the enemy, but an ally for these times.