We shall discuss the nature of ideology, and some key perspectives on it.

At the beginning of C19th, Destutt de Tracy referred to ideology as ‘the science of ideas’. Marx and Engels defined ideology as false consciousness, that is a distortion of reality – reality being the class struggle, and the distortion, the prevailing ideas of the ruling class.

However, Mannheim came to define ideology as ‘styles of thought’ about social phenomena, and therefore posited that Marxism itself was an ideology. Parsons saw ideology as the belief system shared by members of a collectivity, and as an interpretative scheme used by social groups to make the world intelligible to themselves. This may well be a distortion of reality, but not in the Marxist sense of ideas of the ruling class.

Ideology has four important characteristics:

• having a particular idea or belief that is related to holding one or more associated ideas or beliefs; e.g., the belief in freedom of speech is associated with freedom of association and of movement;
• such beliefs will, to a greater or lesser degree, have clarity, coherence and internal consistency, even though they may be based on one or more false premises;
• these ideas and beliefs are likely to reflect views about the nature of the human population as, for instance, egoistic, co-operative, rational, individualistic, communal or social; and
• such beliefs are likely to be associated with a particular social situation, or set of arrangements to be striven for, attained and maintained.

There are two schools of thought about the functions of ideology:

• ideology as a reflection of personality, as meeting the individual’s psychological needs; and
• ideology as a group response, the way in which a group explains and itself understands its position or situation in society.

Combining both, ideology is a means by which individuals can come to terms with the world and their place in it, or alternatively, a means to change it.

Marx and Engels argued that the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. This is the dominant ideology thesis. But the Marxist view is more complex than arguing that it is false consciousness, a distortion of reality that masks the inherent contradictions in society. The relationship between the mode of production and the ideas prevalent in society is simple in conception, but complex in practice, since it involves individual consciousness or perception. The economic foundation represents the material base of society that in turn determines the social superstructure including ideologies and societal institutions (such as political, military, religious, educational and kinship). As Marx states, ‘The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men (sic) that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.’

Whereas Marx and Engels viewed ideology as negative, Lenin saw it as positive. Lenin viewed ideologies as ‘system s of ideas or theories’ used by the protagonists of the class struggle. It is therefore possible to speak of a bourgeois ideology and a proletarian ideology, and to regard each economic class embracing an ideology that serves its own class interests. In this sense, ideology becomes the product of the political consciousness of classes, and led Gramsci to define ideology as a concept of the world that is implicitly manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and in all manifestations of individual life. Gramsci believed that ideologies are of two types:

• historically organic; and
• arbitrary or willed.

Gramsci favoured the concept of hegemony, or moral/spiritual supremacy, according to which a class rests on its ability to translate its own worldview into dominance. According to Gramsci, Marxists should adopt a non-Bolshevik strategy based on persuasion, culture and mass participation. He believed that intellectuals’ leftist ideas must gain ideological hegemony over the masses as the preparatory stage for radical social transformation. He wanted workers to embrace leftist ideas in the same way as the philosophies of the Enlightenment influenced the bourgeoisie.

Critics reject the traditional Marxist and the neo-Marxist view (i.e., the dominant ideology thesis) on the grounds that it is historically and empirically invalid. Subordinate classes do not believe, show or accept the dominant ideology, which has far more significance for the integration and control (i.e., the organisation) of the dominant class itself.

Ultimately, the conflict between the Marxist and non-Marxist views of ideology relates to its role: is it a major factor in the dominance of the ruling class? Or is it, as most non-Marxist believe, a number of coherent sets of ideas available about the world, characterised by varying distortions of reality?

Pareto believed that any social change comes from the top, through the actions of the elites. Pareto used concepts such as residues and derivations (i.e., sub-consciousness) that are similar to the concept of ideology. Pareto defined residues as manifestations of sentiments and feelings expressed in such ideals as honour, virtue and country that propel individuals to action. He thought of residues as basically psychic states that have no objective reality. Residues are distributed unevenly across the population. In turn, residues gave rise to derivations that are used by elites to rule societies. Derivations were rationalisations or psychological explanations of human actions. It is from these non-logical psychic forces that Pareto believed ideologies originate.

Bell argued that all ideologies outlive their usefulness, and this is known to as the end of ideology thesis. He pointed out that old C19th ideologies and intellectual debates had become exhausted, the rising Asian and African states are fashioning new ideas with different appeal for their own people.

In most advanced industrial societies, technology and modernisation have exhausted the old, traditional ideas, and therefore had lost their truth on the power to persuade. What had developed in these societies was a democratic consensus, characterised by an agreement on ends, and accompanied by some disagreement on the means to be used to achieve these ends. Lipset argued that under the impact of modernisation, developing countries would eventually conform to a similar ideological pattern. Bell, however, adopted a somewhat different view in that he did indeed look forward to the end of ideology, but not to the end of ideas and ideals as a force in politics and society.

The end of ideology school arose out of the undoubtedly lower profile that ideology enjoyed in real politics in the 1950s, especially in the form of consensus politics in the Western European countries. Equally, it could also be argued that the end of ideology thesis has penetrated the international sphere with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union.

Yet, first, the end of ideology thesis is itself an ideology, and must not be necessarily be seen as ‘the truth’. Second, the ideological conflict may have subsided or even disappeared, but the significance of ideas and values in politics is in no way lessened. Third, even if it is conceded that liberal-democratic values are the truth, this cannot prevent an ideological conflict emerging in the future. Indeed, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism could be seen as just such a challenge.

There is no doubt that ideologies exist: to deny it is to deny that nationalism, liberalism, socialism, fascism, anti-Semitism, apartheid, and so on have not powerfully influenced individuals’ social and political behaviour.

Research into political participation and political psychology suggests that there are essentially two views of the role of ideology: the minimalist and the maximalist. The minimalist view argues that individuals have low levels of political knowledge, do not use or even understand political ideas, have unstable political preferences, and that their political preference are frequently inconsistent with one another. The maximalist view is that individuals have coherent packages of beliefs, and that one or more these packages constitute an ideology. While there is evidence to support the minimalist position, it is a dubious assumption that such a view is true of all individuals. It is therefore more realistic to argue that many people are closer to the minimalist than the maximalist view, but that both are valid and should be seen as the extremes of a continuum.

People’s values and beliefs expressed in their likes and dislikes for both individuals and organisations, proposals and policies, but they do not articulate them in ideological terms. Nevertheless, they often reflect what analytically can reasonably be described as an ideological position. A distinction is thus drawn between overt and covert ideological positions.

However, while there is evidence that many people are able to identify parties and themselves in ideological terms, when asked appropriate questions in surveys, the evidence that they habitually think on such terms id far less strong; indeed for the great majority ideological concepts are not among their working stock of ideas when they think about politics. For instance, during the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe, while the appearance outwardly conformed to communism, beneath the surface, people held a more cynical view of reality, or believed as if they held such beliefs, or at least tacitly put up with them, or get along with those who did. As Havel wrote, ‘Communism means living a lie. One is not required to believe the lie, it is enough to accept life with it and within it. In so doing, one confirms the system, giving it meaning, create it and merges with it.’

At the highest and most overt level, ideology informs the behaviour of those most active in politics. For those who aspire to power ideology is often at its most overt and coherent, for those who old power ideology is invariably tempered by the need to compromise. The extent to which ideology is manifest or latent is likely to vary from society to society, and over time.