Charles Mills’ “Ideal Theory” as ideology distinguishes between two models of thinking: ideal-as-idealized and ideal-as-descriptive. An ideal-as-idealized model represents how things should be; a vision of a perfect phenomenon. By contrast, an ideal-as-descriptive model represents how things actually are, accounting for uncomfortable concepts such as oppression. Mills delves into these two concepts by showing the limitations of the idealized model and explaining the benefits of looking at the world through a more analytical, ideal-as-descriptive lens. His overarching argument is that ideal theory is an unrealistic mode of thinking, as it only reflects the viewpoints of the privileged. In doing so, it disregards the experiences of oppressed individuals. The small section of the passage highlights his larger argument through mechanical comparisons, thought experiments, and examples of the shortcomings of ideal theory.

A key example Mills uses to illustrate the problems with ideal theory is the comparison between a Teflon-coated plane and a Velcro-coated plane. The Teflon-coated plane comes close to the ideal, frictionless phenomenon, whereas the Velcro-coated plane has abrasions and imperfections. The model establishes that understanding Velcro planes requires “actual investigation of the plane’s properties” (Mills 167). You can’t understand their behavior from the frictionless ideal. Reality more closely resembles the Velcro plane, imperfect with much left to be desired. The real world can rarely be compared to the Teflon plane due to colonialism, racism, misogyny and other structural imbalances.These were used to create society, making them inherent realities of the modern world. Because of this, it is improper to use ideal theory to understand the inner workings of phenomena. 

An example of the world’s imperfection, represented by the velcro-coated plane, is the structural racism in American policing. The first publicly funded police forces in the south came in the form of slave patrols. The effects of these slave patrols are still felt today. In the 1700s and 1800s, slave patrols could demand proof of permission to travel from any black person. This establishes a precedent of racialized surveillance that persists through the modern day with practices such as stop and frisk and the disproportionate rate at which black individuals are pulled over. Just as one cannot understand a velcro plane by studying frictionless ideals, one cannot grasp the realities of modern day policing without first examining its oppressive origins. Ideal theory would gloss over these systemic injustices by stating that some officers have racial bias, but the whole system is not necessarily corrupt. Mills would argue that these injustices are not a result of a few bad apples, but rather a rotten orchard. An ideal-as-descriptive model recognizes the fact that the designs for police organizations are built upon racial control. This means that real change can only occur through structural upheaval, such as defunding the police and focusing their efforts on peacekeeping. Assuming that racism in policing are deviations from the norm ignores that oppression is woven into the fabric of the system, much like the velcro coating, which does not allow for smooth, frictionless movement.

After using mechanical comparisons to simplify the two models of thought, Mills employs thought experiments that utilize human interaction and moral theory to deepen the reader’s understanding of the concepts. Mills highlights the fact that “idealization involves the modeling of what people should be like (character), how they should treat each other (right and good actions), and how society should be structured in its basic institutions (justice)” (Mills 168).

His consistent use of should emphasizes the fatal flaw of idealization. It requires one to use objective reasoning and never make irrational decisions; it requires humanity to act as they “should.” Unfortunately, mankind is intrinsically governed by emotions and biases, causing a distinct blockage between the ideal phenomenon and the actual phenomenon. This issue extends beyond individuals to institutions. Idealization considers justice from the perspective of how basic institutions should be structured in society, placing aspiration over reality. An ideal world does not need to account for twisted morals, as everyone simply does what they should do. The real world could not be further from this. Humans are often motivated by greed and selfishness, and those in privileged positions tend to exploit the nonideal societal structures to their benefit. An example of this is Lori Loughlin using her wealth and influence to secure her daughter’s admission into USC. She paid hefty sums of money to admissions officers allowing her children to have an unfair advantage over hard working students. Theorizing this example with Mills’ use of the word “should” stresses the issues found in the ideal-as-idealized model. Wealthy individuals in positions of power should not use their advantages to cheat the system, and institutions should not sacrifice their legitimacy for the sake of gaining financial compensation. However, reality is proven to be separate from the ideal, and these injustices still happen. Ideal theory cannot be further from reality because it idealizes both human rationality and societal structures.

Ideal theory is not only an inadequate way of thinking, but it also actively obstructs the path toward progress. Mills explains this by discussing the two fatal flaws associated with ideal theory. First, it represents the actual as an understated deviation from the ideal. Because ideal theory excludes the actual from the narrative, it will never result in beneficial progress. If one treats racial profiling or the gender wage gap as insignificant deviations rather than fundamental features of society, the concepts will never be understood well enough to change. Ideal theory can only work in a world which is not founded on oppressive structures, but as long as these structures exist, ideal theory is ineffective. The second fatal flaw is how starting from the ideal is certainly not the best way to theorize phenomena. Just as one cannot theorize about a Teflon-coated plane if they are working with a velcro-coated plane, one cannot theorize about racial justice if they do not first consider the racism which already permeates the culture.

Mills’ use of comparisons to physical objects, discussions about human agents, and examples of ideal theories failures highlight mainstream ethics flaws and fundamental exclusion of oppression.

MILLS, CHARLES W. ““Ideal Theory” as Ideology.” Hypatia, vol. 20, no. 3, Aug. 2005, pp. 165–183, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2005.tb00493.x.