a system of views, ideas and values expressing the attitude of social groups, movements and parties to reality; usually exists in the form of concepts, doctrines, teachings that serve as the basis for political action.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
IDEOLOGY
from Greek idea - appearance, image, and logos - teaching, science, connection; literally: the science of ideas, the totality of ideas).
The word appeared in Napoleonic France and was introduced into circulation by D. de Tracy. Initially, he and his like-minded people intended to create a science about the patterns of change of ideas in society and about the impact of certain ideas on the mass consciousness. The project of “ideologists” was ridiculed, since positivist theorists like A. Saint-Simon and O. Comte declared that in the era of the height of the scientific and technological revolution, the myths of religions and ideologies were not relevant, for the era of scientific knowledge was coming, an era in which society would be governed in in accordance with scientific laws. There will be no competition of ideals, since in science there is no competition and disputes over how much two and two are. The only ideology of this non-ideological future society will be the ideology of glorifying great scientists and progressive figures and the fight against medieval, religious, mythological and ideological obscurantism.
Marxism inherited this scientific pathos and fundamentally opposed itself to ideology. Human consciousness is just something derived from human existence (see K. Marx, “German Ideology”), and therefore, firstly, no ideas can be imposed on people, since ideas are dictated to them by their existence, and secondly, science about ideas is meaningless; we need a science about being itself, that is, about the economic foundations of all ideologies. Therefore, in the USSR, ideology was then called not just communism, but “scientific communism.” And we should not have had disputes about the social structure precisely because the arguments, laws and evidence of science are the same for all rational beings. And science firmly and logically asserted that capitalism is being replaced by socialism. Only a madman could argue with the arguments of reason, which means his place was in a psychiatric hospital, where dissidents were sent.
True, back at the end of the 18th century. the philosopher I. Kant argued that science and consciousness in general do not so much reflect existence as they impose their own schemes on it, and therefore all the statements of science are not a set of truths, but represent only a set of hypotheses.
It took at least a century and a half for religious admiration for science in the Western world to give way to a more or less adequate assessment of it.
It turned out that in the USSR they misunderstood science, that its relative truths were made absolute, that Soviet science was a disguised religion, that is, an ideology. It is necessary to return to an “open society”, where scientific hypotheses compete in accordance with the true meaning of science. Therefore, it is extremely surprising that during the period of perestroika its inspirers and foremen declared their rejection of ideologies.
Like the Marxists of a century ago, they were confident that they had found the absolute truth. It’s just that now the absolute truth of communism in their heads has been replaced by the absolute truth of democracy. They did not need any competition of ideals, ideologies and hypotheses; everything was already known: there is, it turns out, a “highway of civilization.”
It is amazing that liberals themselves talked about the idea of an “open society” and did not understand that this idea presupposes that there are no “high roads of civilization” whatsoever. There are not and cannot be any “laws of history,” just as there are not and cannot be “ideal societies” either in Europe, or in the USA, or in China, call them “democracy” or “communism.” Both are just hypotheses, fundamentally refutable. There is only open and free competition of worldviews.
In the 20th century A. Gramsci wrote that modern power is based not so much on violence as on consent, and consent is a product of the adoption of a certain ideology. The largest theorist of power of the 20th century. M. Foucault devoted his entire life to the fight against the absurd and harmful idea of power as something negative, the idea that power is violence. The government rules precisely because it offers a new project for the world, offers something new and positive.
1) Ideology as a set of certain (usually political, but not always) ideas, ideas, beliefs, concentrated around certain basic values (humanism, liberalism, fascism, socialism, pacifism, Catholicism, postmodernism, etc.) and disseminated in society supporters (with a greater or lesser degree of aggressiveness depending on the social status of the bearers of these ideas). This interpretation goes back to the understanding of ideology in de Tracy ("Elements of Ideology", 1801-1815); here the ideology can be progressive, revolutionary, reactionary, oppositional and any other. The critical pathos of the speeches of the first ideologists became the subject of harsh assessments by Napoleon, who called them “carminatives and ideologists who always fought against existing authorities.” Particularly noteworthy is this rebuke from Napoleon: “Your ideologists destroy all illusions, and the time of illusions, both for individuals and for nations, is a time of happiness.” Here the term illusion is used in a figurative sense - as something unrealizable, a dream. But its main meaning is a deception of feelings, something apparent (an ideologist - a magician-illusionist, disguising himself as “one of his own”?). But Napoleon himself is revealed here as a true ideologist. Later (in 1895, “Psychology of the Crowd”) G. Le Bon also noted: “There is nothing more destructive than the ashes of dead gods.”
2) Ideology as any socially determined ideas and beliefs developed by various social groups (but not only classes) and processes (for example, competition). The main “figure” is K. Mannheim and his sociology of knowledge. V. Pareto believed that the nature of ideologization lies in the need to justify social behavior by creating pseudological theories or “derivations” (religious teachings, ethical and political doctrines, etc.) that obscure the true essence of religion, morality, and politics. Derivations (“derivatives”, secondary from the senses of formation) are: (1) statements presented as absolute truths, or (2) incompetent judgments justified by reference to authority, or (3) an appeal to generally accepted principles and feelings, or (4 ) purely verbal arguments, “verbal evidence” that has no objective equivalent. It is noteworthy that V. Pareto’s opinion is that false verbal formations, derivations, ideologies, and religions are hardly amenable to accurate scientific analysis. At the same time, V. Pareto did not at all belittle their social role; he believed that ideologies have great mobilizing power. Later, the interpretation of ideology as a universal property of everything “containing meaning” is articulated, as well as the attribution of ideologicality to any concept that contains a certain ideal opposed to existing social reality, and therefore such a concept turns out to be, by definition, utopian and eschatological.
3) Recognized as a Marxist (not without reason) tradition of understanding ideology as an instilled consciousness distorted by class interests (“false consciousness” - see one of F. Engels’ letters, vol. 39, p. 83). In this context, ideology is opposed to scientific knowledge as true, objective.
Marx himself, in relation to ideological consciousness, uses the epithet illusory (transformed), and not false, which, of course, is not the same thing, although close in meaning.
In Marx, two aspects of the analysis of ideology can be distinguished:
a) Objective grounds and real prerequisites for ideology (ideologization). For most of Marx’s texts, the term “ideology” is adjacent to the term “illusion,” which, in turn, has as its counterpart the concept of “reality,” and in a certain respect, reality that gives rise to an illusion about itself. Or, in other words, reality, which includes the illusion about itself generated by it. Or - ideology is an illusory idea of reality, caused by a given reality and included in it. Marx often clarifies this general idea with words about “inverted”, “turned upside down” consciousness.
Marx extended Feuerbach's approach to the criticism of religious consciousness to philosophy, law, politics, economics, morality and everyday consciousness. As in religion, here people can also be captured by ideological illusions generated by social existence. At the same time, for Marx’s approach to the problem of ideology, the most important thing is that the unity of being with the corresponding illusory consciousness is understood as universal and inseparable. The primordial form or primordial phenomenon of ideology is not deception, not a deception of the masses, but self-deception, the self-illusion of reality about itself: “The ideas that these individuals create for themselves are ideas either about their relationship to nature, or about their relationships among themselves, or about their own bodily organization... If the conscious expression of the actual relations of these individuals is illusory, if in their ideas they put their reality on its head, then this is again a consequence of the limited method of their material activity and their resulting limited social relations." (vol. 3, p. 24). And further: “If in all ideology people and their relationships turn out to be placed on their heads, as if in a camera obscura, then this phenomenon also stems from the historical process of their life, just as the reverse image of objects on the retina of the eye stems from the directly physical process of their life." So, ideology is the illusion of “the era about itself” (ibid., p. 25).
b) The difference between ideology and non-ideology.
So, the main difference between ideology and non-ideology is the difference between an illusory reflection of reality and its real reflection.
Science is ultimately responsible for the actual reflection of reality. The opposition between ideology and science is the fixation of the external boundaries of ideology.
The question of the internal boundaries of ideology can be transformed into the question of the possibility of objective social knowledge, a positive answer to which is given by the tradition of sociology - from Durkheim to all kinds of versions of structural-functional analysis and the systems approach in general. Non-ideologicality within ideology is also achieved by a unique, fundamentally non-doctrinal formal-logical critical-reflective (polemical-non-systemic) cognitive attitude. Here we should also add the rejection of the task of “building bridges” between what is and what should be: say what “is,” but do not say how it “should be.”
For M. Foucault, all knowledge is initially ideological, and the exact translation of F. Bacon’s famous aphorism is: “Knowledge is power.” G. Marcuse notes that in the modern era of dominant technological rationality, developed industrial culture is becoming more ideological than its predecessor: “The production sphere,” he writes, “the goods and services that it produces, “offer” (or introduce) the social system as a whole ... Products consume and manipulate people; they reproduce a false consciousness that is immune to its own lies."
It is obvious that in social practice itself, ideologies can contain signs of all three (or more?) varieties.
At the same time, ideology is considered as a product of the intellectual work of professional ideologists, different from the phenomena of mass consciousness. And in this sense, ideology is opposed to social psychology.
(A.A. Poskryakov. Fragment of a report at the Methodological Seminar of the Department of Sociology at MEPhI)
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
Whether we ourselves were afraid or who skillfully imposed on us a rejection of ideology, we no longer try to talk about it at all, shunning the word itself, although since the times of the ancient Greeks, ideology has meant the authentic, true image of existence, the comprehension of the ideal - its knowledge.
Ideology orients society.
Without an idea, an image of perfection, without defining it, society does not know where and what it is striving for, and then any party, faction, any leader who speaks skillfully and a lot can easily pass off their selfish interests as common ones, entice, captivate, lead behind us is society, so easily led astray without milestones set on it.
Only having an ideology, and therefore guidelines, priorities, and a scale of values, is it not difficult to figure out who is doing what - whether for the good or the evil of society and the state. If you don’t have those standards, do what you want, pass off what is black as white, what is alien to the nation as its fundamental interests, illness as the health of society, and the health of society as illness. In a word, do what you want, and there is no demand, no judgment; who is the healer, where the poison is - you can’t tell...
Previously, Russia was saved from any political infection by the fundamental instinct of national, Orthodox self-awareness, but it has been destroyed over the last century, and therefore, like a sliver, it throws Russians today into the muddy sea of political passions, and it is inscrutable which shore it may land on.
Easily caught up in the roar of experienced rallies, we rush headlong into God knows where.
Our people, among whose favorite toys there has always been Vanka-Vstanka, who in his invincibility is similar to the people themselves, have lost their foundation - the social ideal - and now look more like not Vanka-Vstanka, but like tumbleweeds, carried away either by a communist fairy tale or a democratic decoy, darting from Gorbachev to Yeltsin, from Yeltsin to Khasbulatov and eagerly looking out for a new leader on the horizon.
To live without ideology means to educate without ideals, and then it is easy for us to end up “instead of a helmsman with a simple oarsman, instead of a doctor with a sick person, instead of a dispassionate one with a person with passions, instead of a pier with a man with passions, instead of a pier with the abyss.”
The essence of the ideology is simple: this is what we are today, this is what we must become if we really want the revival of a sovereign Russia.
Only ideology is capable, as a measure of the goal, of determining what is bad and what is good for achieving the goal. Not in general, not party-wise: whether it is partocratic, whether it is democratic, that is not the point, what is the form, what is the vessel and what we call it at the moment - what is important is the goal that we want to achieve using this or that form of state building.
Not having an idea, an imagination of what society is striving for, the goals we want to achieve, is the same as setting off on a journey without having a prior idea of where we want to arrive. And, most importantly, why.
What does a rich Russia, strong in its former strength and confidence, that we dream of, mean, is certainly a Russia that has preserved its roots, its traditions, its national characteristics, then, naturally, there is a need for the priority of the national education of a youth who is able to be proud of his Fatherland, to believe into it and protect it.
Let it not be an ideology that sets everyone’s teeth on edge and is rejected, but more precisely and better than ideology - the conceivable ideal of a perfect Russia. Let there be a plan for the Russia under construction, not an ideological one, but an ideal one, related to the ideal. Where we are coming from and where we want to go - this is the course charted by ideology.
Understand and explain that this is not an external process of the movement of society, that this is primarily the internal path of ourselves. This is what we are, this is what we should become, and if not us, who are no longer able to walk this path, then our children and grandchildren. We must worry about their upbringing and development above all else if we really want to have a worthy future.
Ideology is the guiding principle of national policy. Under the influence of spontaneous contagion, mass movements, under the influence of imitation, enthusiasm, unconscious hypnotization by “alien nervousness,” a people is capable of leaving its fundamental national path, but in this state it is least capable of rational transformation.
We behave as if nothing had happened in Russia for the last seventy-five years: there were no stifling, oppressive grips of the partyocracy, mutilating the Russian soul, will and heart in the heavy atmosphere of censorship.
On the spiritual crisis in Russia: what we are
We saw evil in the totalitarian communist regime, considering, and rightly considering it, the fiend of our national troubles and domestic misfortune. It is a mistake that we considered such evil to be the only cause.
Yes, the abolition of the totalitarian communist regime makes it possible for Russia to finally find a state form worthy of it, to resume a meaningful economy based on private property, and to revive free Russian culture. But although the communist regime collapsed, the intervention of the communist state in all spheres of human life stopped, free, creative initiative seems to be reviving, but Russia still has a long way to go before it stands up to its full height, straightens its mighty shoulders, and takes a deep breath.
So far, only external forms are changing, but they are not the essence of powers, but the personal qualities of each of us: the Orthodox faith, conscience and loyalty to Russia. We, having waited for the change in external forms, without wanting to take a step towards changing ourselves, are waiting for the fulfillment of desires, like hungry jackdaws with their mouths open. Not wanting to change ourselves in our habits, in our faith, in our psychology of dependency and irresponsibility, moreover, already irritated that we are sitting for a long time with our mouths open. Not understanding, or worse, not wanting to understand, that the matter does not come down to the external order of life, but to the internal structure, structure and character of a person.
We do not want to understand that Russia is experiencing, first of all, not a political or economic crisis, but spiritual crisis.
After all, even with outward decency, order and freedom of social life, a person can raise in himself a godless, unscrupulous and shameless traitor, a corrupt scoundrel, a frightened and trembling sycophant - in a word, a pitiful and pitiable creature, on whom there is no state, much less a great and glorious you cannot build spiritual culture.
Our man turned out to be greedy in 1977 and then fell on the hook of greed, lured by the promise of getting land, factories, and factories at once... It was only later that they intimidated him, muzzled him, shackled him in fear and began to keep him in fear more tightly than in shackles .
Today we are again caught in greed. How quickly everyone rushed to get rich, fussily replacing “proletarians of all countries...” with “money has no smell.”
The humiliated and corrupted state of the Russian soul is our inheritance and our work. We must realize this humiliation, admit this depravity. We only advocate and rely on the expectation of laws and decrees, prohibitive, restrictive and others, but no law, no decree will help if we remain greedy, humiliated and corrupted.
Russians need to restore within themselves a living Christian conscience, faith in the power of good, a true sense of evil, a sense of honor and the ability to be faithful. Without this, Russia cannot be revived and its greatness cannot be recreated. Without this, the Russian state will crumble into abyss and mud.
Bolshevism made us deceitful and cowardly slaves. The Russian person must find the deceitful and cowardly slave within himself, trace him in all the nooks and crannies of his soul and cast him out as befits a free, worthy and spiritual person.
The doctrine of Russian national education: what we should become
Russia today needs a new substantive education of the Russian spiritual character. Not just in education, or even worse, what we call study, for education itself is a matter of memory, ingenuity and practical skills in isolation from spirit, conscience, faith and character.
Education without upbringing does not shape a person, but unbridles and spoils him, for it puts at his disposal vitally beneficial opportunities, technical skills, which he - unspiritual, unscrupulous, faithless and characterless - begins to abuse.
It must be admitted that an illiterate but conscientious person is a better citizen than an unscrupulous literate person, and that formal education outside of faith, honor and conscience creates not a national culture, but the depravity of a vulgar civilization.
We can tighten our belts, spend billions on the production of so-called educational literature, literature that is still defined as educational by certain experts, and, using the last state pennies to train excellent engineers, mathematicians, economists, we will raise a more sophisticated generation... of robbers.
Without love for the Fatherland, without national spirit they will rob Russia with tenfold energy, finding and inventing more sophisticated ways than the current ones to circumvent state laws. That is why Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Ilyin, Turgenev, Astafiev, Rasputin are the same textbooks, moreover, without them, physics and mathematics textbooks will not only not give us the expected effect, but will also harm Russia...
1. Definition of ideology
2. The essence of ideology
3. Types of ideologies
4. Ideology in modern Russia; problems, prospects
5. Ideological currents in the modern world
Classical ideologies
Radical and national ideologies
Ideology- This(Greek ιδεολογία, from Greek ιδεα - prototype, idea; and λογος - word, mind, teaching) - the doctrine of ideas.
ANDdeology is logical and psychological behavioral basis of the political management system.
ANDdeology is a system of views and ideas, political programs and slogans, philosophical concepts in which people’s attitudes to reality and to each other, which express the interests of various social classes, groups, and societies, are recognized and assessed.
Ideology –This a set of principles, norms and rules that define, establish and regulate relations within the sphere of social production and consumption.
Definition of ideology
There are quite a large number of definitions of ideology, which differ, in particular, in the assessment of the phenomenon they designate.
Ideology according to K. Marx is a false consciousness that expresses the specific interests of a certain class, which are presented as the interests of the whole society.
Ideology according to K. Mannheim is a distorted reflection of social reality, expressing the interests of certain groups or classes seeking to preserve the existing order of things; opposed to utopia.
Ideology according to A.A. Shagin - the class component of the state wealth management system, as well as (Philosophy + Political Economy + Sociology) × Method of cognition.
Ideology according to Roland Barthes is a modern metalinguistic myth, a connotative system that attributes indirect meanings to objects and socializes them.
Ideology according to V. A. Yanko. Ideology is ideally an instruction (a constellation of ideologies or rules).
Ideology is not science (although it may include scientific knowledge). Science strives to understand the world as it really is. Science is objective and impartial, but ideology is subjective. Ideology is characterized by a desire to simplify and the desire to present one side of reality as the whole picture. Simplified ideas are more easily perceived by the masses than a complex system of scientific evidence; in addition, ideology puts forward attractive (often unrealistic) ideas that are perceived by the people. Every ideology strives to spread widely among the population (propaganda). Propaganda can be: oral, printed, visual, agitation, and in the 20th and 21st centuries the media (mass media) appeared. Every ideology claims to be the one that provides correct knowledge about the world. Various political organizations strive to disseminate in society their assessments of the past and present, and their ideas about the future.
Political ideology, like any other, develops spontaneously or is created specifically from a set (constellation) of ideologies in order to fulfill its main function, namely: to ensure the flow of processes in the area it covers in the most effective mode and coherence, with a certain content specified by it, if the latter condition is included in ideology as a constituent attribute.
It is necessary to distinguish between ideology in general and political ideology in particular. Moreover, from meaningful interpretations of its ideologies or connections. The essence of political ideology comes down to the exercise of power.
This is not a ghostly illusion that we erect to hide from an unbearable reality, it is, in its very essence, a fantasy construction that serves as a support for our “reality”: an “illusion” that structures our concrete, real social relations and, moreover, masks the unbearable, real, an incomprehensible entity (what Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe call "antagonism", that is, a traumatic social division that cannot be symbolized).
The function of ideology is not to offer us a way to escape reality, but to present social reality itself as a refuge from some traumatic, real entity.
Origin of the term
The term “ideology” was introduced into scientific circulation by the French thinker of the early 19th century A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy. As a follower of the sensationalistic epistemology of J. Locke, he introduced this term to denote the doctrine of ideas, which he understood as the doctrine of the general laws of the origin of ideas from the content of sensory experience. This doctrine was supposed to serve as the basic principles for leadership both in science and in social life. Therefore, A.L.K. Destutt de Tracy saw in ideology a system of knowledge of the fundamental principles of morality, politics, and law.
With all further changes in the direct meaning of this term, the semantic shades of the original content of the concept “ideology” are as follows:
be a theoretical generalization of the original sensory ideas;
act as the most essential component of available knowledge;
in this regard, serve as the starting principles for practical activities
The essence of ideology
Ideology comes from a certain way of cognized or “constructed” reality, is focused on human practical interests and has the goal of manipulating and controlling people by influencing their consciousness.
It is founded on what James designated as the human “will to believe.” A significant element of irrationalism, necessarily inherent in any ideologist, also determines the real appearance of its creators: according to Le Bon, “brilliant inventors accelerate the course of civilization, fanatics and those suffering from hallucinations create history.”
Within the framework of ideology (in the context of people’s awareness of their own attitude to reality, as well as the essence of social problems and conflicts) contains goals and programs of active activity aimed at consolidating or changing these social relations. The core of ideology is a circle of ideas related to the issues of seizure, retention and use of political power by political subjects.
Ideology is based on the conflictual nature of the world of politics, its alignment according to the polar model “enemy - friend”, crystallizing supporters of a particular ideology. The degree of development and visibility of the image of the ideological enemy is rightfully considered to be the main basis for the cohesion of the social group - the bearer of I. Marx and Engels in The German Ideology (1845-1846) and later works understood I.:
a) an idealistic concept, according to which the world is the embodiment of ideas, thoughts and principles;
b) the type of thought process when its subjects - ideologists, not realizing the connection of their constructions with the material interests of certain classes and the objective driving forces of their activities, constantly reproduce the illusion of the absolute independence of social ideas; c) a related method of approaching reality, which consists in constructing an imaginary reality, which is presented as reality itself.
According to Marx, “our life does not need ideology and empty hypotheses, but so that we can live without knowing confusion.” Reality, according to Marx, appears in the mirror of ideology in a distorted, inverted form. Ideology turns out to be an illusory consciousness.
Marx's understanding of ideology was transformed thanks to Engels, who shared Fourier's critical analysis of the illusions of the coincidence of ideas and interests of people. Fourier criticized “philosopher-ideologists” for their excessive interest in ideas, for their focus on changing consciousness alone. In established Marxism, ideology was understood as a “false consciousness” generated by the “class interest” of the ruling classes, seeking to present it as the “interest of the entire society.”
Subsequently, in the Marxist tradition, the negative perception of the ideology of the “exploiting classes” formed an opposition with the “socialist” ideology, which was perceived purely positively.
The ideology of societies of a non-totalitarian (Western) type is characterized by the presence of the most powerful ideological apparatus in history, a certain “framework” pluralism (ban on the ideology of National Socialism and racism, “non-encouragement” of communist views), religious tolerance, “absent-mindedness” in the entire scope of non-ideological phenomena and so on.
The emergence of fundamentally new means and ways of describing and explaining social reality in the mid-20th century. determined the formation of original concepts of the essence and functions of ideology. Bakhtin in his interpretation of ideology tried to remove class and political contexts. “Ideological” for Bakhtin is a synonym for semiotic, symbolic in general: “The criteria of ideological evaluation (false, truth, justice, goodness, etc.) are applicable to every sign. The area of ideology coincides with the area of signs. An equal sign can be placed between them. Where the sign is There is ideology there." Bakhtin contrasted ideology with psychology as the realm of the “inner sign” and “inner speech.”
Bakhtin postulated the dialectical nature of this opposition, since the “internal sign” is also a sign, and therefore ideology is “individual”, and in a number of socio-psychological phenomena it acts as a “life ideology”. Everything psychological, according to Bakhtin, has its semiotic foundations: “Outside objectification, outside of embodiment in a certain material (the material of a gesture, an inner word, a cry), consciousness is a fiction. It is a bad ideological construction, created by abstraction from the concrete facts of social expression.” Bakhtin did not oppose psychology in general, but only its social objectifications in the form of ethical and legal norms, religious symbols, etc. To designate objectively existing forms of ideology, Bakhtin used the term “ideologeme.”
The interpretation of ideology as a universal property of everything semiotic prevented the specification of specific mechanisms of its functioning, although it eliminated the ideological preferences of its researchers, transforming their approach into an objective semiotic one (as opposed to the political engagement of representatives of Marxism).
The specification of semiotic mechanisms of ideology was one of the peaks of R. Barth's philosophical creativity. In “Mythologies” (1957), Barthes combined myth and mythology, calling them “metalanguage.” Barth did not consider it advisable to draw a semiotic distinction between ideology and myth, defining ideology as a mythical construction introduced into the framework of general history and meeting certain social interests. Following the tradition of defining a sign as an association of a signified and a signifier, and language as a system of signs, Barthes defined myth and ideology as “secondary semiotic systems”, “secondary languages”. The meaning of the signs of the primary sign system, the original “language,” is “emptied,” according to Barthes, by the metalanguage to a hollow form (preserved in a bloodless state), which becomes the signifier of both myth and ideology.
The flickering existence of primary meanings serves as an alibi for the concepts of metalanguage, i.e. for the signifieds of myth and ideology. This alibi motivates the ideological sign, presenting the connection of form with concept as something “natural” and “natural.” A critical attitude towards myth and ideology leads Barth to describe them in the image of a ghoul: “Myth is a language that does not want to die; from the meanings on which it feeds, it extracts a false, degraded being, it artificially delays the death of meanings and is located in them with with all the comforts, turning them into talking corpses."
Myth and ideology speak through the voice of the language-object, bringing it to life for the consumer, alternating its gutted form with its original meaning. The meaning of the metalanguage itself is “naturalized” in I. In “Fundamentals of Semiology” (1965), R. Barth noted that ideology is a constant search for values and their thematization. In the case of figurativeization, according to Barthes, ideological discourse becomes mythological. Kristeva used Bakhtin's term "ideologeme" to study ideology.
The latter was defined by her as an “intertextual” function, giving the text social and historical coordinates, as well as connecting the text with other practices of signification that make up its cultural space.
Ideology, according to Kristeva, is also present in the semiotic connotations of the researcher of ideology himself, which authorize his use of certain models and formalizations. It is impossible to get rid of these prerequisites, but it is possible to clarify them in an act of self-reflection. Eco considered the communicative functions of ideology, which “prevents us from considering semantic systems in the totality of their internal relationships” by limiting the area of possible connotations.
The ideological subcode excludes unwanted implications of the semantic system. Ideology acts as the signified of a given rhetorical subcode, and ideological contexts are formed by “sclerotically hardened messages.” Eco later described ideology as the recoding of a primary code, giving messages secondary meanings. Recoding for Eco is an interpretative modification of the primary code, leading to a non-standard use of the previous rule and creating a new rule. For example, rhetorical and iconological rules endow macroscopic fragments of primary messages with some meaning and recode them.
In totalitarian societies, ideology is transformed into a state religion with special dogmas, holy books, apostles, saints, god-men, liturgy, etc. The state in this case acts as an ideocratic system, within the boundaries of which the high priest, who can interpret and transform the postulates of ideology, acts as both the highest official and the political leader.
Types of ideologies
In the 19th century, 5 main ideologies emerged:
Liberal
Conservative
Socialist (Communist)
Anarchic
Nationalist
In the 20th century, fascist ideology appeared.
Recently, all politicians and parties, for pragmatic purposes, are increasingly abandoning stable ideology, that is, they are adopting anti-ideological tactics.
Since ideology determines the relations between market participants in the sphere of social production and consumption, then, obviously, there are only two ideologies that differ fundamentally. The first of them establishes equal rights for all market participants, regardless of the property they possess, and the second establishes unequal relations on the basis of any of the forms of property used in the course of market relations. (Here it is appropriate to note that power is also one of the forms of property.) It is quite obvious that there are very many options for implementing the Second Ideology and depending on what kind of property will be used to justify injustice, the name will be chosen, but the essence will not change. , everything will be done to justify exploitation.
Ideology in modern Russia; problems, prospects
After the collapse of the monopoly status of communist ideology in public opinion, a situation arose that experts called an ideological vacuum, i.e., there were no ideological and goal-oriented movements. But it didn't last long. The activity of the new political elites, who tried to defend the interests of groups entering the struggle for power, and most importantly, the desire of broad sections of the population to conceptualize their political feelings, hopes and disappointments, gave rise to a surge of various ideological doctrines. The temporary calm gave way to an ideological boom. However, despite the abundance of ideological constructs, three ideological currents currently occupy a dominant position in the political-ideological space: communist, national-patriotic and liberal-democratic.
At the same time, two trends are clearly visible in communist ideology. One of them expresses the desire to liberalize this doctrine, bringing it closer to the ideals shared by social democracy. This is expressed in the recognition of private property rights, the rejection of militant atheism, a more loyal attitude to human rights, the proclamation of norms of legal statehood, etc. However, such modifications, combined with the ideas of the priority position of public property, state regulation of the economy, preservation of social-class priorities, strict geopolitical goals and a number of other traditional provisions show the contradictory and inconsistency of this trend.
Along with it, there is also a fundamentalist movement, based on well-known political values and goals, excluding the very possibility of developing bourgeois-type relations in the country. Considering that real socio-economic and political processes are largely connected with precisely this perspective of the development of society, this ideological trend often provokes extremist demands and forms of political protest.
The surge in activity of national-patriotic ideologies that put the image of the Motherland at the center of their demands is due to the complex processes of development of the national self-awareness of the Russian people and especially the “crisis” of national identity, the loss of a sense of historical perspective and understanding of the level of self-esteem of the nation. In terms of its ideological and political content, this is the most controversial and diverse movement, gathering under its banner both adherents of the identity of Russia and its culture, advocating for their enrichment and development in the process of equal dialogue with other cultures and civilizations, and supporters of ethno-hegemonism directed against the rights other peoples and hostile to representatives of other national groups.
Liberal democratic ideology, adhering to its fundamental values, is represented by three relatively independent ideological tendencies. So-called radical liberalism insists on a consistent reduction in the regulatory role of the state and the encouragement of spontaneous processes, sees the main task in the implementation of macroeconomic reforms and the full adaptation of Western experience, opposes authoritarianism, but, nevertheless, allows for the possibility of overcoming the resistance of archaic social structures through violent measures. In contrast to this formulation of the problem, conservative liberalism, fearing the resistance of traditionalist-minded layers, advocates a maximum focus on existing economic ties, a greater role for the state in implementing the planned transformations, and achieving greater psychological comfort for the population when carrying out reforms.
The third version of liberalism is social liberalism. In its attitudes, it is quite close to social democratic rheology. The main value in it is freedom, understood not only in the spirit of classical liberalism as independence from the state and other people, but also as the establishment of approximately equal starting opportunities for all. This presupposes a positive attitude towards government programs in the fields of education, health and social welfare, recognition of the importance of the principles of social justice, the value of work, etc.
From a theoretical point of view, the dialogue between the noted ideological trends may well imply their certain convergence and even the synthesis of individual provisions. In practice, although there is a certain rapprochement of positions between them, on a number of political issues (for example, respect for human rights, protection of national interests and some other issues), confrontation still dominates, resulting in an increase in political tension and struggle.
As the experience of transformations in societies with transitional social relations shows, one of the most important conditions for stabilizing the political situation is the development of a long-term ideological and target doctrine that guides the state in its activities, which ensures the integration of the state and society, the integrity of the entire social system.
In turn, the condition for the development of this type of ideology is the achievement of that minimum compromise that would reflect the agreement of the main groups of society regarding the nature of the social system and future development prospects. Here, a special role belongs to the position of the authorities, their ability to express the interests of citizens and maintain their obligations to them.
Another condition for the effective development of state ideology is the preservation of the historical continuity of generations, careful consideration of the national, historical and geographical characteristics of the country.
Russia, apparently, has yet to find its new form of integral ideology based on a creative synthesis of liberal and national patriotic values with the best traditions of socialist thought and practice.
Ideologicallynocurrent in the modern world
Classical ideologies
The main types of political ideologies, which are defined by science as classical, include liberalism, conservatism, and socialism.
As an independent ideological movement, liberalism was formed on the basis of the political philosophy of English enlighteners in the late 17th - 18th centuries. The term “liberalism” came into widespread use in the first half of the 19th century in a number of Western European states and comes from the Latin “free,” “pertaining to freedom.” That is why all definitions of liberalism include the ideas of personal freedom.
The origins of the liberal worldview go back to the Renaissance. Representatives of the European and American Enlightenment, German classical philosophy, and European classical political economy contributed to the formation of a complex of ideas of liberalism.
Since its inception, liberalism has defended a critical attitude towards the state, the principles of political responsibility of citizens, religious tolerance, and humanism. The complex of ideas of classical liberalism includes:
in the social sphere: affirmation of the absolute value of the human person and the equality of all people, recognition of inalienable human rights to life, freedom, property;
in economics: recognition of private property, on the basis of which the public economy is based, demand for the abolition of restrictions and regulations by the state;
in the political sphere: recognition of human rights, separation of legislative and executive powers, recognition of competition.
The main problem of liberal ideology has always been the determination of the permissible degree and nature of government intervention in a person’s private life, the combination of democracy and freedom.
Attempts to resolve these issues and implement the ideas of classical liberalism led to the emergence of the concept of “new liberalism” or “neoliberalism” in the 20th century. Neoliberalists are attempting to reform classical liberalism, changing its form and ideological content. The political program of the neoliberals was based on the ideas of the need for the participation of the masses in the political process, agreement between the managers and the governed. In general, neoliberalism attempts to soften some of the extremes in the ideas of liberalism.
In Russia at the end of the 18th century, liberalism arose in the constant confrontation and overcoming of the traditions of autocracy and serfdom, and bureaucratic irresponsibility. It was aimed at recognizing the individual’s right to a dignified existence. Russian liberal thought during the period of its emergence was characterized by an anti-democratic tendency. At the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, there was a tendency towards convergence of the concepts of liberalism and democratic ideas. The development of liberal thought in Russia went mainly in line with the study of philosophical and legal issues.
Thus, liberalism at different stages of its development included various components and developed new doctrines. This strengthened his capacity, attracted supporters, but also made him more contradictory and heterogeneous.
The political ideology of liberalism began to meet less and less the requirements for scientific doctrines. There was a weakening of the ideological and political positions of liberalism. Today, liberalism faces the need to revise its ideological base, search for new internal trends and modifications.
The next main type of political ideology can be called conservatism. The prerequisite for the emergence of conservatism was the failure of liberalism after the French bourgeois revolution in the 18th century. The term “conservatism” was first used by the French writer F. Chateaubriand and denoted the ideology of the feudal-aristocratic reaction to the bourgeois revolution. The term itself comes from the Latin “I preserve, I protect.”
Conservatism as a political ideology represents not only a system of political consciousness that prefers the old system of government to a new one, regardless of its goals and ideological content, but also the principles of political participation, attitude towards the state, the individual, and the social order.
The ideological and political significance of conservatism is difficult to determine, since there are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, there is internal heterogeneity in the political ideology of conservatism. There are two ideological directions in its structure. One of which considers it necessary to maintain the stability of the social structure in its unchanged form. The second is aimed at eradicating opposition from political forces and proposes the reproduction of previous political forces. Here conservatism acts as a political ideology:
supporting existing orders;
returning to what was lost.
But different directions of conservatism have common characteristic features: recognition of the imperfection of human nature and the existence of a universal moral and religious order, the belief in the inequality of people from birth, the need for class and social hierarchy. This reveals a radicalism uncharacteristic of conservatism, a desire for forceful methods of resolving conflicts, although conservatism has confidence in the ability of politics to soften tensions between social strata.
In recent decades, three ideological movements have usually been distinguished in the world: traditionalist, libertarian and neoconservatism. The latter was formed as a response to the global economic crisis in the 70s of the 20th century.
Neoconservatism recognizes the need for government intervention in the economy, but assigns a significant role to market regulatory mechanisms. The political doctrine of neoconservatism contains a number of priority provisions: the subordination of the individual to the state, ensuring the political and spiritual community of the nation. The state of neoconservatives should be based on moral principles, provide the individual with the necessary living conditions on the basis of law and order, while developing the institutions of civil society, maintaining a balanced relationship between man and nature. At the same time, there is always a readiness of neoconservatism to use extremely radical means in relations with the enemy.
In modern Russia, conservatism manifests itself in a unique way. During the period of the dominance of liberalism, the term “conservative” was used to designate opponents from the CPSU. But soon conservatism was returned to its true meaning and it declared itself as a powerful political movement. Today, conservatism retains and increases its influence, but not as a political doctrine, but as an intellectual movement.
The third political ideology, conventionally defined as classical, is socialism. The emergence of socialism is associated with the centuries-old desire of the public masses for social justice and social protection of the individual. Traces of dreams are found already in antiquity, play a significant role in the Middle Ages, and challenge liberalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
During the period of development of industrial capitalism, which led to an increase in the size of the class of wage workers, it became necessary to express and protect the interests of this class. In this regard, doctrines are being developed that provide for a radical change in the structure of society, the replacement of capitalism with socialism without the exploitation of the masses by the bourgeoisie. As these ideas spread among workers, they began to be called socialist ideas and theories. By the middle of the 19th century, the main directions of socialist ideology had developed, and at the end they finally took shape, having a specific program, theoretical justification, and numerous supporters.
Followers believed that socialism is a society on the banner of which is inscribed “Everything in the name of man, everything for the good of man.” This is a society in which:
the means of production in the hands of the people, ending forever the oppression of man by man, social oppression, poverty and illiteracy of millions of people;
scientific and technological progress does not lead to unemployment, but to a steady increase in the well-being of the people;
an equal right to work and its remuneration is ensured in accordance with the principle “From each according to his ability to each according to his work”;
national inequality was eliminated, equality, friendship and brotherhood of all nations were established;
the ideas of freedom, human rights, the unity of rights and duties is ensured, the same laws and moral norms apply, one discipline for everyone, increasingly favorable conditions are being created for the comprehensive development of the individual;
A socialist way of life based on social justice, collectivism and mutual assistance has developed, giving people confidence in the future.
In general, socialism underestimates and even completely denies the importance of individual economic freedom, competition and unequal remuneration for work as a prerequisite for the growth of the material well-being of individuals and society.
Thus, the main advantages in the socialist doctrine belong to the state, not the individual, politics, not the economy.
To characterize socialism in Russia, the main thing is that socialist ideas were also supported by the practical organization of the matter. This was most widely reflected in “populism” - a stage in the history of Russian socialism. The means of implementing the ideas of “populism” were very diverse - from “going to the people” to “general rebellion” with the goal of seizing power by the people. That is, socialism allowed any methods of political struggle according to the principle: “the end justifies the means.”
A very characteristic feature of the 20th century were numerous attempts to modernize the theoretical basis of socialist ideology. But the divergence of the ideas of socialism from the trends of world development in the 20th century and their obvious inclination towards forceful methods of control have significantly weakened the political influence of socialist ideology in the modern world.
Radical and national ideologies
An important part of the political ideologies of our time are ideologies developing in line with radical traditions. Radical ideologies find it necessary to radically change the political and social system. There are right and left radicalism. Right-wing radical ideology manifested itself in various forms and mainly in the form of a fascist movement.
Currently, there is an ambivalent perception of fascism. Some understand by it a specific form of political ideology that was formed in Germany, Italy, and Spain in the 20s of the 20th century and served as a means for these countries to emerge from the post-war crisis. Others believe that fascism is an ideology that does not have a specific content and arises where political forces set the goal of suppressing democracy, seizing and using power.
The political basis of fascism everywhere expressed the interests of social circles that provided financial and political support and sought to suppress democracy.
Italy and Germany are considered the historical birthplace of fascism, and the founder of fascism is the former leader of the Italian socialists Benito Mussolini.
At the center of fascist ideology are the ideas of military expansion, militant anti-communism, racism, chauvinism, as well as the use of extreme forms of violence against the working class and all workers, the widespread dissemination of state-monopoly methods of regulating politics and the economy, demagoguery with the aim of creating a mass base for fascist parties and organizations.
The classic form of fascism was the National Socialism of A. Hitler. The German version of fascism was distinguished by a special reactionary irrationalism, a high level of totalitarian organization of power and extreme racism. The main concept of German fascism was the preservation of the purity of blood and race. The theorists of German National Socialism built their ideology by giving priority to a certain fictitious people - the “Aryans”. Consequently, the Germans, the British and a number of Northern European peoples were classified as real “Aryans”. The state was assigned a secondary role, while the preservation of the purity of the race was paramount.
Fascism played a decisive role in the outbreak of World War II, but suffered military and moral defeat. However, it was soon revived in the form of neo-fascism. Neo-fascist forces use the so-called. “strategy of tension”, organizing terrorist and other actions in order to create among the politically unstable part of the population the opinion that the current government is incapable of ensuring public order, thus pushing groups of voters into the “embraces” of neo-fascists. The actions of “neo-fascist” groups and movements jeopardized democratic institutions in various countries, served and continue to serve as the causative agent of political crises and tensions.
Thus, the most preferable ideological basis of fascism (right-wing radicalism) were doctrines containing recognition of the superiority of certain racial, social, class, and ethnic groups of society. Therefore, neither national, nor communist, nor socialist ideology, based on the principle of social reconstruction of society, maintaining a privileged position for any social group, layer, and offering radical methods and means to provide these groups with an appropriate social status, are immune from fascist degeneration.
The radical left movement historically arose as a reaction to social differentiation, the limitations of the liberal doctrine, the elitist nature of democracy, etc. During the period of the victory of several bourgeois revolutions in Europe, independent radical left movements arose. At the same time, a left-radical ideology arose in Europe, which, despite its internal heterogeneity and uncertainty, had a pronounced anti-conservative and anti-liberal character.
The development of radical left ideology, a set of ideas and concepts, occurs gradually. Left radicalism is increasingly turning to principles and ideas developing in the mainstream of socialist thought, but the main thing is that the radical left movement has always tried to find a fulcrum that could not only substantiate its positions, but also be a symbol of protest. The concept of left-wing radicalism is based on a wide range of ideas and principles, which is explained by its rapid evolution over several decades and the heterogeneity of its internal structure. Big business and the military-industrial complex became the objects of criticism of left-wing radicalism. Political demands came to the fore. Despite the legitimacy of most of the demands and their enshrinement in the Constitution, they were perceived by the authorities as a kind of challenge, political aggression and met with sharp opposition. Therefore, in the future, demands began to be put forward that were of a rebellious nature, aimed at breaking with the established system and its destruction. But the system survived, and left-wing political radicalism began to decline. Its participants dispersed into extremist and terrorist groups.
Along with the above ideologies, national ideologies play a large role in the world, especially in countries where the process of formation of national communities is underway. Nationalism interprets the “nation” as the highest ahistorical and supra-class form of social unity. Nationalism is characterized by ideas of national unity and exclusivity, which are developed depending on the historical situation and interethnic communication.
In general, ideologies of this type express the political demands of citizens whose interests in improving their social status are related to their nationality. In accordance with external conditions and the level of national self-awareness of the population, political forces may put forward demands for the protection of cultural identity, increasing geopolitical space, or protecting their own territories and sovereignty from external attacks.
In Russia at present, nationalism is often interpreted as a principle that requires that political and ethnic units coincide, as well as that the governing and controlled forces within these political units belong to the same ethnic group (E. Gellner). With this approach, nationalism can act as a field for the creative development of the nation, a means of its purification and self-development. In this capacity, nationalism appears not only in post-Soviet territories, but also in Russia, in its original Russian territories. not only in post-Soviet territories, but also in Russia, in its original Russian territories.
Strong support for national ideologies comes from religious beliefs. In general, the sphere of national relations is extremely complex. From the standpoint of national ideologies, a policy can be implemented to protect the cultural identity and political rights of the nation, its own territories and national sovereignty from external attacks. From the same positions, sentiments of ethnic hegemonism can be stimulated, conflicts and direct military action can be provoked.
Sources
ru.wikipedia.org Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia
www.gumer.info Library Gumer - philosophy
revolution.allbest.ru Abstracts
traditio.ru Tridicy - Russian encyclopedia
“At present, terrorism has become the main challenge to all humanity. Its scale, inhumanity and cruelty make it one of the most pressing and pressing problems of global significance. The so-called “ideology of terrorism” was formed. A well-functioning system of its distribution also affects the sphere of media activity.
It should be noted that terrorists have always sought to use existing media channels to disseminate their views and information about their activities. Moreover, they pursue the goal not only of achieving coverage of their actions, but also trying to obtain recognition from the media of the legitimacy and morality of their actions, to attract new members to terrorist and extremist groups...
Thanks to computer technology and modern mass media, terrorists’ access to the media has become significantly easier. It is not difficult today to create extremist or terrorist material and make it simultaneously accessible to millions of people. Internet resources provide virtually unlimited opportunities for propaganda and information activities.
Experts are increasingly, and not without reason, calling the Internet an “academy of terrorism.” Almost all terrorist, extremist and, as they like to call themselves, “rebel” organizations and groups have their own resources, with the help of which they propagate their gangster radical ideas.
We note that terrorism is unthinkable without information support. When preparing their criminal actions, terrorists expect to produce a loud propaganda effect and strive to achieve public and political resonance, primarily with the help of the media. And representatives of journalistic circles, in our opinion, should be clearly aware of this.
Terrorist activity, by its very nature, is aimed at producing a shocking effect on broad layers of society, through public opinion, influencing the adoption by authorities of a certain decision beneficial to terrorists. Carrying out their criminal plans, terrorists buy airtime at a bloody price, seeking wide coverage of their criminal acts in the media.
It is important for terrorists not to carry out the act as such, but to create an appropriate public response around it. The attacks were carefully orchestrated. You cannot follow the lead of terrorists by giving them a platform, as this provokes new acts of terror...
Recently, there has been a growing understanding of this in the journalistic community. Proof of this is the numerous charters and conventions adopted by the journalistic community.
We are talking about the need for media representatives to undertake voluntary obligations to refuse to give terrorists access to the information field, about non-disclosure of plans of anti-terrorist forces that have become known to journalists, about a moratorium on political, religious, ethnic and other comments at the time of a terrorist attack. Developing such a consolidated and operational model for covering the events surrounding the terrorist attack should be our main task, which the international community must solve as soon as possible, taking into account the growing threat of this crime on all continents.
I would like to draw the attention of the media to the need for representatives of the journalistic community to observe ethical principles and standards of professional conduct when implementing their tasks of providing society with timely and reliable information in the field of countering terrorism and extremism, so that ideologists and organizers of terror cannot use the media as a means of manipulative influence on the authorities and the population. In addition to the rules set out by the legislator, we urge journalists to:
Be tactful and attentive to the feelings of relatives and friends of victims of terrorism; show special sensitivity to eyewitnesses of events as sources of information;
Avoid excessive naturalism when showing places of events and their participants;
References to any creeds and religious dogmas in connection with terrorist activities are unacceptable, as they may negatively affect interethnic, interfaith and intra-confessional relations;
Be attentive to the use of certain terms in covering events; do not allow quoting the arguments or slogans of bandits and terrorists, do not use self-names that are beneficial to them (fighters for the faith, rebels, oppositionists, etc.);
Eliminate the use of terms and expressions that are used by members of the gangster underground to justify their criminal activities in the eyes of the population, to impart a religious and ideological character to their actions and status (for example, “shahid”, “jihad”, “amir”, “jamaat”, “ Mujahideen”, etc.).
By informing the public, suppress panic; it is necessary to monitor not only the meaning of what is said, but also the tone of the presentation;
Remember that media reports are publicly available, including to those who deliberately create panic situations;
Avoid identifying terrorism with any particular religion, race or nationality;
An important direction in the activities of journalists is to discredit the ideology of terrorism in society, creating an environment of intolerance towards any manifestations of violence, political and religious extremism, actions aimed at undermining the integrity of the state and inciting ethnic hatred. It is necessary to promote the dissemination of information revealing the criminal nature of terrorist and extremist organizations.
And for this purpose, the available opportunities are not yet fully used. But we are confident that combining the efforts of law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, public organizations, scientific circles, every citizen, and the media will allow us to effectively counter terrorist threats.”
Ideology is, of course, a spiritual education, due to the fact that, within the framework of its content, it constantly goes beyond the limits of everyday experience. However, the formed and current ideology of society has a predominantly practical purpose, which is why it unites people who share its principles, and also determines the motivation for their deeds and actions.
Interpretation of the concept in question
There are quite a few interpretations of this term.
- According to the sociologist K. Marx, ideology is a false consciousness that expresses the special interests of the corresponding class, which are presented as public opinion.
- Sociologist K. Mannheim interpreted the concept in question as a distorted, incorrect reflection of reality within society, which expresses the interests of specific classes or groups seeking to preserve the established order of things.
- Sociologist A. Gouldner believed that ideology is the result of socio-cultural changes that are associated with the crisis of classical methods of social reproduction, as well as the formation of a new type of rationality in European societies.
History of ideology
The main forms of political consciousness are political psychology and ideology, among which an increasing role belongs to the second form. According to the ancient Greek interpretation, ideology is the “study of ideas”, as it consists of two roots: “idea”, “logos”. This term was originally used in the works of Plato. His work combined a deep interest in social relations and philosophical idealism. It is the first root that is important, which was used by ancient Greek thinkers and served as the etymological designation of the newest field of knowledge, namely ideology. Subsequently, it was used to characterize social life in the form of its phenomenon and element of the consciousness of society.
The concept of “idea” appeared as a characteristic of being to designate the predominantly immaterial world. In addition, from the very beginning of the introduction of this concept into the scientific sphere, it was a kind of symbol of the opposition between phenomenon and essence, material and ideal, which has been preserved within the scientific world to this day. Ideology is the result of the growth of scientific knowledge, in particular its social orientation. Although it, together with the social sciences, continues to develop in opposition to the latter, both areas emerge due to the crisis of the “obsolete regimes”, as well as the various systems of authority founded by them. Changes in traditional society lead to the emergence of new expressions and new ways of explaining them, new interpretations of social life and corresponding projects for its transformation.
Like religion, ideology pays close attention to everyday life and strives, so to speak, to reconcile existing worlds. Public organizations turned to ideology as part of the defense of rationally based, public projects for the restructuring of society, relying on reason and evidence. In this regard, ideology marks the emergence of a new mode of political discourse (principles according to which reality is presented and classified in relation to certain time periods), calling for action, but not justifying it by attracting tradition or authority, or purely emotional rhetoric. But nevertheless, ideology is closely interconnected with the formation of a nation and a national state. Over the past few centuries they have stimulated and complemented each other.
Most of the political events of the period of maturation, the Great French Bourgeois Revolution, were based on dynamic and radical changes both in practical life and in the consciousness of French society. This phenomenon interested many French scientists in the sphere of social consciousness as an opportunity to control society through ideas. In 1796, the French scientist A. D. de Tracy used the term “ideology” in one of his works (“Etude on the ability to think”) to characterize the science of ideas. He subsequently developed this concept in a multi-volume work entitled “Elements of Ideology.” The scientist justifies this by the desire of large owners to appropriate state power, using the services of outstanding scientists and writers who managed to turn public opinion against the regime existing at that time. Since that moment, in many social sciences, various kinds of views have appeared regarding this socio-political phenomenon, but still the majority of researchers were of the opinion regarding the idea of the content and significance of ideology as a political instrument that is capable of developing specific goals for direct political development, as well as uniting people , unite their political energy, ensure strengthening and, as a result, play a significant role in public life.
Typology of ideologies
In the 19th century there were the following main ideologies.
- Liberal (within the framework of classical liberalism, this is a religious-secular ideology: the coexistence of religious-Protestant values and secular liberal-educational values; and neoliberalism is only secular: the idea of privatization of state property).
- Conservative (ideas of the inviolability of existing traditions of the past).
- Social democratic (communist ideology: a theoretically formed narrow system of worldviews).
- Nationalist (fascism: exaggerated manifestation of deep nationalist feelings).
Ideology of state and politics: definition
The relationship between these two phenomena is the most important issue within the philosophical and theoretical aspect. This significance is due to the need to identify the essence of the differences between such concepts as “ideology of the state” and “political ideology”.
It would be correct to differentiate them by content. Thus, the ideological work of all political parties that strive for power and state ideological activity are completely different phenomena (types of political activity). They have different goals, objectives, scales and even the means used.
Firstly, state ideology and politics are qualitatively different social phenomena regarding their essence. The first is the program of life of a particular state in the current and long term, and the second is a specific form of abstract logical thinking within a certain topic (a system of ideas and ideas that express the interests, ideals and worldview of a social community, grouped by a political party whose goal is to conquer or maintaining political power).
Their distinctive features
As has already become clear, these ideologies pursue different goals. Thus, state ideology is aimed at solving the problems of simplifying existing power relations, and political ideology is aimed at gaining power.
Also, state ideology and politics have fundamentally different carriers (subjects). In the first case - a specific state or nation as the overwhelming majority of its citizens, and in the second - only part of the state or nation.
As for the mechanism of functioning of these ideologies, we can say that state ideology is implemented through a powerful, branched system of various government institutions, and ideology is still deprived of such powerful means of disseminating its ideals, values and ideas. However, this state of affairs can change dramatically, due to the fact that a political party that is guided by a certain doctrine is able to achieve the desired political power either peacefully or through revolution (as a state ideology). For example, such an ideology as the official nationality (autocracy-Orthodoxy-nationality), which emerged in the 19th century. as the ideology of Russia (the Russian state), it was unable to resist the pressure of the Social Democratic one and was forced to step aside.
Another distinctive feature of the concepts under consideration is the criterion of ideological source: state ideology is closely tied to a particular state or nation and is based on its foundations and traditions (this ensures its stability), and political ideology crosses state borders (for example, social democratic, liberal ideology, etc.) . P.). They have the opportunity to theoretically and materially influence from the outside (ideology is developed by theorists of a particular state, but its implementation is carried out outside its borders).
You can also turn to the historical premises of these ideologies. Here the picture is as follows: state ideology takes shape during its emergence as a religious consciousness (mainly at the earliest stages of state development), and political ideology is developed at a higher level of social development (when powerful social classes enter the political arena).
But it is worth clarifying that these ideologies should not be separated 100%, since they are organically interconnected and act as a dialectical identity of opposite sides of social life.
The relationship between legal ideology and politics
It is known that law and the state are closely interconnected both genetically, functionally, and substantially, which is justified by the presence of a common denominator - political power (it is materialized through the laws it creates).
According to the Saratov scientist A.V. Malko, legal policy is a systematic, consistent and scientifically based activity of both state and municipal bodies, aimed at creating an effective regulatory mechanism (legal), as well as at the civilizational use of legal means to achieve the intended goals.
He also highlighted its characteristic features:
- relationship with legal activities;
- diversity (criminal, family and marriage, constitutional, financial, etc.);
- the ability to manage complex processes of legal evolution of a particular country while increasing the organization and orderliness of the legal component of life.
According to A.P. Korobova, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between concepts such as “legal policy” and “legal ideology”, because otherwise, if legal policy is interpreted as a complex of ideas, then it will be impossible to distinguish it from legal ideology.
Many agree with the opinion of S.S. Alekseev regarding the degree of correlation of the concepts under consideration. Legal ideological ideology is the closest basis for policy in this area. So, we can say that legal ideology is an idea, program, model of state legal activity, and legal policy is legal activity in itself (its direct, rough form). The first concept precedes the second.
Social component of ideology
The specificity of the phenomenon under consideration is its emergence on the basis of economic relations already existing in society with a reflection of reality through the so-called prism of these relations.
Within the framework of a class society, economic relations are class interests, which is why the peculiarity of ideology is its presentation in the form of a reflection of reality through the same prism of the interests of specific classes, their systems of views, ideas.
Ideology is the self-consciousness of classes, a theoretical weapon (this is the main social function). If we talk about her from the point of view of the exploiting classes, her theories justified oppression and social injustice. And within the working class, it served to liberate it in particular and society as a whole from oppression and exploitation, as well as to build a communist society. In the first case, ideology is illusory in nature, and in the second it is scientific (Marxism-Leninism).
Conditions for the formation of this phenomenon
Socio-historical practice proves that the formation of ideology implies the presence of two conditions:
- the presence of a specific objective picture (objective laws of society and nature known by the ideologist and science);
- there must be an ideal, subjective reason, some stability, a significant tendency in social psychology.
In a situation where social ideology arises for no reason (not reflecting a significant trend in social psychology), then it is “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” It doesn’t matter what kind of ideology promises people, they will still not need it. Conversely, every ideology that influences social life always has a specific cause.
There have been cases in history when public ideology arose without the necessary conditions (without scientific support and social laws). Then it is not recognized as an ideology in its essence, but is a utopia or a certain religion, and cannot act as a materially meaningful, immediate, productive goal of people. However, ideology can have extensive spiritual or ethical value, acting as a distant, teleological goal, due to which it can still attract the attention, minds and souls of many people.
The phenomenon under consideration within the framework of modernity
Many modern (political) ideologies consist of those that develop along the path of radical traditions. They consider it necessary to make fundamental changes in the political and social system. It is customary to distinguish radicalism into right and left. The first is mainly in the form of a fascist movement.
Today, a dual perception of such a phenomenon as “fascism” has formed. Some consider it a specific form of political ideology that developed in Italy, Spain, and Germany in the 20s. XX century and acting as a means of exiting these countries from the severe post-war crisis, while others are a meaningless ideology that arises in places where political forces are aimed at suppressing democracy and seizing power.
The central place in fascist ideology is occupied by ideas regarding military expansion, racism, anti-communism, chauvinism, the use of radical measures against all workers and the working class, the widespread spread of state-monopoly techniques and methods of regulating the economy and politics, demagoguery to strengthen the positions of fascist organizations and parties.
Russian ideology of the future
Many experts believe that the main conditions and factors for its formation are those listed below.
- De-prioritizing political goals. Understanding ideology as a system of values, intended government guidelines, influencing ethical comfort, mentality, spiritual health, interpersonal relationships, positive moods in society.
- Approval of a system of competent value-goals, focused on uniting society according to the priority principle “for”, regardless of confessional, stratum-class, political, ethnocultural, gender views and differences regarding the prosperity of Russia.
- Appeal to invaluable historical experience with regards to ensuring the development and interrelation of the cultural identity of indigenous Russian ethnic groups in a single all-Russian culture.
- A detailed study with subsequent consideration of traditional interests, global claims of our civilization in the form of a chronological hierarchy to ensure national security and state leadership on the world stage.
- Actively positioning the necessity and importance of Russia for the entire world community in the form of a strong “bridge” between East and West.
The national ideology of our time should become the basis for the National Doctrine of Russian development being developed today in the future. But first, it is necessary to finally decide on the role and place of Russia within the world community.