Neutrality as Violence: Ideology and Thoughtlessness within ICE
Location
PANEL: Politics Honors Pt. II
Wilder 101
Moderator: David Forrest
Document Type
Presentation - Open Access
Start Date
5-1-2026 4:30 PM
End Date
5-1-2026 5:30 PM
Abstract
As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expands its detention and deportation apparatus, the problem is not only the scale of state violence, but the conditions that allow officials to normalize their participation in it. How can bureaucracies claim political neutrality even as they carry out deeply ideological policies, and what role does Hannah Arendt’s concept of “thoughtlessness” play in sustaining this paradox?
This project argues that treating ideology and thoughtlessness as opposites overlooks their interconnection. Revisiting Arendt, I demonstrate that ideology and thoughtlessness are distinct yet mutually reinforcing dimensions of bureaucratic power. Ideology and politics shape and motivate institutional policies, while thoughtlessness enables those policies to proceed efficiently without critical reflection. Rather than focusing on dramatic political rupture or executive overreach, I shift attention to the bureaucratic level where officials enact state violence through routine procedures. Bureaucratic rationality depends on disavowing ideology altogether by presenting policies as neutral, legal, and necessary. These very conditions allow thoughtlessness to become a governing feature of bureaucratic power.
Through a comparative analysis of public interviews with ICE official Marcos Charles and Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, I examine how bureaucratic actors describe and justify their roles. While both rely on procedural language, O’Hara partially acknowledges the political forces at work. ICE as a case study exposes a central paradox: bureaucracies infused with intense political history cannot transcend politics even as officials invoke a legalistic or “law and order” logic, showcasing how thoughtlessness allows ideology to persist by going unacknowledged.
Keywords:
Bureaucracy, Ideology, ICE, Thoughtlessness
Recommended Citation
Grau, Gabrielle, "Neutrality as Violence: Ideology and Thoughtlessness within ICE" (2026). Research Symposium. 14.
https://digitalcommons.oberlin.edu/researchsymp/2026/presentations/14
Major
Politics; English
Advisor(s)
Primary: Arwa Awan, Politics
Second Reader: Milo Ward, Politics
2026
Neutrality as Violence: Ideology and Thoughtlessness within ICE
PANEL: Politics Honors Pt. II
Wilder 101
Moderator: David Forrest
As Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expands its detention and deportation apparatus, the problem is not only the scale of state violence, but the conditions that allow officials to normalize their participation in it. How can bureaucracies claim political neutrality even as they carry out deeply ideological policies, and what role does Hannah Arendt’s concept of “thoughtlessness” play in sustaining this paradox?
This project argues that treating ideology and thoughtlessness as opposites overlooks their interconnection. Revisiting Arendt, I demonstrate that ideology and thoughtlessness are distinct yet mutually reinforcing dimensions of bureaucratic power. Ideology and politics shape and motivate institutional policies, while thoughtlessness enables those policies to proceed efficiently without critical reflection. Rather than focusing on dramatic political rupture or executive overreach, I shift attention to the bureaucratic level where officials enact state violence through routine procedures. Bureaucratic rationality depends on disavowing ideology altogether by presenting policies as neutral, legal, and necessary. These very conditions allow thoughtlessness to become a governing feature of bureaucratic power.
Through a comparative analysis of public interviews with ICE official Marcos Charles and Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, I examine how bureaucratic actors describe and justify their roles. While both rely on procedural language, O’Hara partially acknowledges the political forces at work. ICE as a case study exposes a central paradox: bureaucracies infused with intense political history cannot transcend politics even as officials invoke a legalistic or “law and order” logic, showcasing how thoughtlessness allows ideology to persist by going unacknowledged.
