Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (6 page)

6. Diego Rivera’s ‘Man controller of the universe’ symbolizes both the desire of human beings to dominate others, and the difficulty any hegemonic ideology would experience in managing social diversity
.

Althusser’s fourth input was to suggest that ideology exists in a material form in social practices, or in the institutions he called social apparatuses. From a Marxist perspective, this was an intriguing statement, as it implied that ideologies were, contra the early Marx, located in the material world – the world that mattered! The ideological understandings that propelled individual activities, even if those understandings ‘distorted’ imaginary representations,
actually existed. Ideologies were not just the illusory contortions of a camera obscura reflecting the distorted consciousness of individual subjects, but an aspect of reality. Ideas existed in actions – an observation Gramsci had made in a slightly different way. We had to respect the ideologically inspired provenance of individual actions, even if we knew they did not reflect proper human relations. After all, those were precisely the actions that people performed in the real world. Many of those actions were rituals on which the human imagination conferred social significance: football matches, harvest celebrations, political party conferences, or religious worship. For Althusser, somewhat controversially, even thinking was a material practice, in that it actually took place. He referred to external verbal discourses (speeches and texts, one presumes) but also to ‘internal’ verbal discourse (consciousness). That insight further opened up the possibility for analysts of ideology to claim that political thinking was a central feature of the empirical regularities of political life.

Finally, Althusser’s fifth input was that concrete individual subjects were made to serve as carriers of ideology, thus severing the inevitability of its link with class as proclaimed by earlier Marxists. For that reason, the very notion of ideology itself depended on the ideological concept of the subject – individuals constituted by ideology as bearers of consciousness, will, and agency. In other words, ‘ideology’ and ‘subject’ were mutually defining. If I acted as an individual who desired, say, to marry and have a fulfilling and lucrative career, I was putting my private life-purposes at the centre of my world, and others were recognizing my right to do that. But at the same time I was the product of an ideology that caused me to think of myself as a free agent whose fulfilment would be in a long-term, formalized relationship with another individual designated as ‘spouse’, and in a profitable activity that would secure the means of purchasing the labour and products of others. I lived ‘naturally’ in such an ideology and believed that I was acting spontaneously and autonomously.

The phrase Althusser used to explain the relationship between subject and ideology is ‘interpellating’ or naming. Althusser repudiated the abstractness of ideology, as well as its status solely as a group product. He enabled future students of ideology to appreciate that ideology is both something that happens
in
us and
to
us. Inasmuch as it is in us, we are not fully conscious of its effects. But if we are sufficiently astute, we can acknowledge that we identify each other through ideology, as individuals possessing certain features rather than others. That is a process of mutual recognition that brings order in its wake, such as ‘you are a greengrocer, I am a customer’, and, underpinning that, an awareness that is not always evident: ‘we are both subject to the rules of the market’. The ambiguity of the term ‘subject’, Althusser argued, catches the essence of ideology beautifully. It refers to the free initiative of the individual, but also to the domination of the individual by a higher authority. For instance, being entrepreneurial, cowardly, caring – all these are particular features that our ideological imaginations deem important for one reason or another. These are all categories we apply in order to make sense of human actions. They all define the characteristics of individual subjects, thus placing them within a recognizable social network. They are all linked to practices of which we approve or disapprove, but which occur in the real world. Ultimately – and crucially – all these are
permanent
aspects of social life.

Exploring the reasons why ideology came to stay as a category of political and philosophical analysis tells only part of the story. Concrete historical developments sustained the interest in ideologies more than the thoughts, however illuminating, of a few theorists. Both Gramsci and Althusser might have appreciated that. The advent of mass politics in Europe saw the consolidation of traditions of political thought such as liberalism, conservatism, and socialism. These complex movements and frameworks for political debate began to develop a life of their own, through the tenacity of their survival and through the front-line role they began to play in political decision-making. Ideologies, from this perspective, were political traditions that impelled individuals and groups to political action, and some of them exercised a huge impact on the formation of public policies and even on the fortunes of the states in which they prevailed. That process was aided by the close relationship established by political parties with these traditions of thinking. The people who promoted those traditions were not always keen to call them by the name ‘ideologies’ but ideologies they certainly were, though only in selective senses of the foregoing discussion. Indeed, while their promoters were bereft of a
theory
of ideology, the ideologies themselves amassed colossal influence through the development of programmatic politics: the introduction of party manifestos in the late 19th century, and the emergence of practical political thinkers who reinterpreted politics not only as a battle
among power holders and notables, not even solely as a clash of selfish and avaricious interests, but as a struggle over the minds of men and women.

A sensible way of comprehending the ideological belief systems that were organized around political traditions is to adopt a functional approach, that is, to identify the role they play in political life. Accordingly, here is a provisional definition that will be added to below:

A political ideology is a set of ideas, beliefs, opinions, and values that

(1) exhibit a recurring pattern

(2) are held by significant groups

(3) compete over providing and controlling plans for public policy

(4) do so with the aim of justifying, contesting or changing the social and political arrangements and processes of a political community
.

Let us unpack this definition.

The requirement of a recurring pattern is politically important. It signals that we are talking about traditions with staying power, not referring merely to idiosyncratic ‘flash-in-the-pan’ schemes, and that political institutions and practices can be sustained that intersect with the ideology in question. Liberalism, for instance, developed around the insistence of rising social classes on freeing themselves of despotic domination by ruling groups, and through the flowering of cultural views, associated with the Enlightenment, that put creative individuals at the centre of the world. Liberal parties emerged quite some time after those initial triggers, but persevered in demands to extend liberty and choice to marginalized groups and to break down barriers that impeded human
opportunities. That proved to be a long-term project that even now is far from complete. And while an ideology and a party sharing the same name are never identical, they are mutually supportive. The pattern itself, as we shall note at the end of the chapter, will be flexible rather than rigid.

The requirement that an ideology be held by significant groups alludes to its origins and to its contestability in a plural and contentious political world. Ideologies may, as Althusser claimed, be carried by conscious individuals, but they are, as Mannheim realized, social products. The significance of ideological producers is not easy to ascertain. We saw in the previous chapter that intellectuals are often identified as the authors of an ideology, but neither Gramsci nor Mannheim raised the possibility of there being different types of intellectual groups. In France, unlike the UK or the USA, intellectuals have maintained a strong presence in the political world. However, other significant groups have increasingly come into play. Significance may refer to the ability to control the media or to serve as political spin doctors, rather than to the relation of the group to the means of production. Or it may refer to the non-verbal communicative skills that now match verbal skills – advertising, logos, documentaries, symbols of colour and shape (a yellow ribbon, a red flag). In addition, interest and pressure groups may subscribe to a segment of an ideology – say the rights of pensioners. That segment will be part of a larger ideological family in which rights are promoted and redistribution to the disadvantaged is advocated. More amorphous and widespread support of the kind Gramsci discussed may be embedded in populist sentiment and opinion; for example, a refusal, on the basis of religious beliefs, to endorse the equal treatment of women. We shall return to these themes below.

Significance is ultimately a question of the political clout and the social import assigned to the relevant ideological producer. But it reminds us that in the main politics is about a range of different values and about the contests that occur not among individuals but
among larger human groupings. Ideologies reflect the rise and fall of groups along with changing fortunes and criteria of significance: being born into the aristocracy no longer guarantees one’s ideas a podium, as in the days of old. This may prompt a search for new support. Conservative parties, for example, adjusted to the loss of old social bases by appealing successfully to groups united on religious interests (European Christian Democracy, sections of the US Republican Party), on popular attitudes (anti-immigration, patriotism), and on the preservation of economic ascendancy (big business).

The requirement of competing over public policy reminds us that we are dealing with
political
ideologies. Ideologies are aimed at the public arena, and they usually are in contention over drawing up macro-programmes (as in party-political manifestos) for social and economic policy and for effective administration. Not every group plan is an ideology, but it may be interpreted as a part of larger ideological designs. The governors of a school may draw up plans for changing the pattern of intake of pupils, but that is not an ideology in the ‘grand traditions’ sense. It could, however, align itself with a particular ideology’s view of social integration.

Finally, ideologies are major exercises in swaying key political decision-makers as well as public opinion. Political actors are recruited through ideologies to important causes with immense practical consequences. In countries enjoying open politics, ideologies seek to justify their bids for support through activities ranging from persuasion to propaganda. Socialist parties throughout the 20th century have enlisted such support by producing pamphlets for working-class people (the famous Fabian Tracts, for instance), by publishing their own newspapers, and by providing social services to their members when those services were unavailable or too expensive to purchase on the open market. Socialist parties have generally aimed to contest and change existing policies, but other ideologies are bent on preserving them against sudden and what they might call ‘unnatural’ change.

One problem for the analyst of ideologies is that many holders of ideology, especially but not solely conservatives, have denied that they are ideological. Instead they have seen themselves as pragmatic, reserving the appellation ‘ideology’ only for the ideas of those political movements that issue plans for radical and total change. This undoubtedly reflects the problem that open contestation, and consequently the need for justification, have been largely absent in the totalitarian regimes discussed in
Chapter 6
– typically but not exclusively Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Their tauter and more lethal ideologies were imposed through force and terror with little appeal to the critical rational faculties of their citizens and subjects. The pernicious and virulent impact of these two regimes conferred undue salience on the variants of fascism and communism they advanced, and encouraged the general propensity to identify their features with those of ideologies in general. Hence learned treatises on ‘The age of ideologies’ misleadingly implied that only those closed and superimposed systems of ideas and practices qualified as ideologies, while conservatism, liberalism, and socialism were ‘non-ideological’.