So far, we discussed positions on political spectrum besides liberal and conservative ideologies. Now, we consider the concept of ideology and cognate issues. Ideologies provide insights into many current public debates in India.
Political Ideology is a form of social or political philosophy which combines theory and practice. It is a system of ideas that seeks both to explain the world and to change it. Particular categories of ideology are socialism, communism, anarchism, fascism, nationalism, liberalism, and conservatism. Destutt de Tracy coined the term ideology during the French Revolution. Ideologies evoke both strong attachment and revulsion.
Ideology may be loosely defined as any kind of action-oriented theory or approach to politics based on a system of ideas. Ideology, in Destutt de Tracy’s original conception, has five characteristics:
♤ It contains a comprehensive explanatory theory about human experience and the external world.
♤ It proposes a general programme for social and political organization.
♤ It believes that the programme can only be realized through a struggle.
♤ It seeks not merely to persuade but to recruit loyal adherents with commitment.
♤ It addresses a wide public but assigns special leadership role tointellectuals.
Ideology and sociology of knowledge
Surprising as it may sound, Hegel and Marx use ‘ideology’ in a pejorative sense. Ideology in this sense is a set of beliefs with which people deceive themselves; it is theory that expresses what they are led to think, as opposed to that which is true; it is false consciousness. Ideology is used in this disparaging way also by exponents of the sociology of knowledge, including Max Weber and Karl Mannheim.
They regard idea systems as the outcome or expression of certain interests. The true nature of ideologies is hidden from their followers; Mannheim proposed that sociological research should unveil the “life conditions which produce ideologies.” An example will help us understand the deceptive nature of ideologies and the need to unmask them. Thus, Adam Smith’s economic theory should not be taken as an independent intellectual construction or be judged in terms of its truth, consistency, or clarity; rather, it is to be seen as the expression of bourgeois interests, as part of the ideology of capitalism. The sociology of knowledge later sought support from Freudian psychology (notably the concepts of the unconscious and of rationalization), in order to suggest that ideologies are unconscious rationalizations of class interests.
Neither Weber nor Mannheim used ‘ideology ‘consistently. Weber opposed Marx’s theory that all idea systems are products of economic structures. He argued that some economic structures are produced by idea systems. In this vein, he argued that Protestantism (by promoting appropriate entrepreneurial mind sets) generated capitalism; and not capitalism Protestantism. Mannheim, on the other hand, tried to restore Marx’s view that ideologies spring from the social structure. However, Mannheim suggested that the word ‘ideology’ should be reserved for conservative idea systems and the word utopia for revolutionary or millenarian idea systems.
But this sort of approach which attributes doctrines or ideologies to a believer’s unconscious mind runs into a contradiction. For, the doctrine of sociology of knowledge itself becomes an unconscious rationalization. Mannheimtries to overcomethis difficulty bypostulatingsomewhat unconvincinglya classless class of intellectuals, a“sociallyunattachedintelligentsia,”capable of thinkingindependently by virtue of its independence from any class interest or affiliation. Rival contenders in Indian public debates show no awareness of this problem. Each side, no less than the other, is often hostage to its unconscious ideologicalpredilections.
Are ideologies rational or irrational?
Political theorists are divided on whether ideologies are rational or irrational. Some discount efforts to understand politics through abstract ideas rather than lived experience. They distrust political punditry based on bookish learning. Michael Oakeshott, however, thinks that ideologies could be rational. As an example, he cites Locke’s theory of political liberty as an “abridgment” of the Englishman’s traditional understanding of liberty. If such a conception is abstracted from its originating tradition, it becomes a rationalistic doctrine or metaphysical abstraction, like liberties contained in the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
On the other hand, Edward Shils regards ideology as irrational with its roots in extreme romanticism. He says that romanticism, by its cult of the ideal and by its scorn for the actual, influences ideological politics. It holds in contempt actions based on political calculation and compromise. As
politics demands compromise, prudent self-restraint and responsible caution, ideologies driven by romanticism hate civil politics.
Many critics notably Hannah Arendent and Karl Popper analysed the ‘total’ character of ideology, its extremism and violence. Opposing revolutionary violence, Camus believes that a true rebel (or dissenter) does not conform to the orthodoxy of some revolutionary ideology but says ‘no’ to injustice. The true rebel would prefer the politics of reform, such as trade-union socialism to the totalitarian politics of Marxism or similar movements. He condemned the systematic violence of ideology or the crimes of logic committed in its name. He believed that the rise of ideology in the modern world increased human suffering greatly.
Karl Popper advocated “piecemeal social engineering” instead of total ideologies. Popper argued that ideology rests on a logical mistake which believes that history can be transformed into science. Ideology seeks certainty in history and aims at historical predictions similar to scientific predictions. As ideologies misconceive the nature of science, they produce only prophecies which are neither scientific predictions and nor have any scientific validity.
Not all ideologies support violence. However, ideological writings are replete with military and warlike language. Words like struggle, resist, march, victory, and overcome are often used. The terminology suggests that commitment to an ideology is akin to enlisting in army or to become the adherent of an ideology is to become a combatant or partisan.
Many ideological writers go beyond language use and frankly approve violence. George Sorel, for example, had done so before World War I in his book Reflections on Violence. Sorel used the word violence, according to some writers, as passion, not as throwing of bombs and the burning of buildings. Black militant writers of the 1960s like Frantz Fanon advocated violence. Jean-Paul Sartre’s dramatic writings highlight that ‘dirty hands’ are necessary in politics and that a person with so-called bourgeois inhibitions about bloodshed cannot usefully serve a revolutionary cause. Sartre’s attachment to the ideal of revolution tended to increase as he grew older, and in some of his later writings he suggested that violence might even be a good thing in itself.
Many writers distinguish between ideological and pragmatic approach to politics. Pragmatism examines problems purely on their merits without attempting to apply doctrinal, preconceived remedies. Some thinkers believe that politics has become less ideological and speak of the end of ideology. They think that pragmatism is better than ideology. There was decline in the hold of ideologies on people in the fifties. But many leftist groups sprang up in the sixties world over.
It is hard to get rid of ideologies. Almost any approach to politics consists of a system of beliefs. Some of these are more systematic than others. Though an ideology is a type of belief system, not all belief systems are ideologies. Ideology in loose form is Weltanschauung or a “view of the world”.
Ideology and International Relations
Political thinkers believe that in the 20th century ideology has begun to influence diplomacy. World War I led to huge casualties and needed justification. Earlier, soldiers fought for the crown and nation. The Allied side fought the war to make the world safe for democracy, and Germany as struggle of civilization against barbarism. Emergence of communism and fascism made world politics ideologically more competitive. The Cold War was a conflict between the free world and the communist bloc. Most of 20th century was dominated by ‘-isms’. Wars were fought, alliances were forged, and treaties were made on ideological grounds. But in recent times, nations have reverted to relations based on pragmatic economic interests.