An ideology is that set of ideas and beliefs which seeks to articulate the basic values of a group of people – what they cherish for themselves and for others. Ideologues are related to interests, but in a complex and uncertain manner. Ideologies demand partisanship, i.e., involvement in the struggle for power, and not mere commitment to the pursuit of ideas as an end in itself
“Ideology is a disputed concept; its meaning is not transparent”. (Gary K. Browning) It is used as a system of political, legal, ethical, religious and philosophical views and ideas. It can be a set of empirically derived scientific statements or a programme based on certain principles or goals, or a loose statement of certain ideas, goals and ends with means to realize them..
The concept was first used in the 17th century by Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836) of France as ‘ideologie’ (French) or ‘ideology’ English) which meant ‘science of ideas.’ Condillac defined it as ‘study of ideas based on sensory experience’. Since then it has carried many meanings. Napolean and Jeremy Bentham used it in a pejorative sense and scoffed at it. German philosophers like Kant and Hegel used it in a broader philosophical sense as ‘theory of knowledge’. Marx and Engels considered it as a by-product of false consciousness. For Minogue, it was an escape from the realities of practical life to imaginary Utopias.
In its neutral sense also there is no unanimity. Social scientists find it as ‘a set of symbols’ (Lasswell), ‘crecenda and miranda’ (Merriam), ‘myth’ (Sorel), ‘political formula’ (Mosca), ‘derivations’ (Pareto), ‘a culture system’ (Apter), etc.
R.M. McIver observes it as, “any scheme of thinking characteristic of a group or class”. Dahl defines it as” a set of more or less persistent, integrated doctrines that purport to explain and justify leadership in the system”. Louis Wirth appreciates it as “complexes of ideas which direct toward the maintenance of the existing order”. Lyman Tower Sargent examines it as “a value or belief system that is accepted as fact or truth by some groups”.
Meehan includes in the term:
(a) A pattern of belief relating to some particular aspects of social, political or economic life,
(b) A programme of action, and,
(c) Element of irrationalism or absolute faith.
It is now used in a social-scientific sense. It refers to a more or less coherent set of ideas that provide the basis for some kind of organised political action. In this sense all ideologies (i) offer an account or critique of the existing order, usually in the form of a ‘world view; (ii) provide the model of a desired future, a vision of the ‘good society’; and (iii) outline how political change can should be brought about. Ideologies thus straddle the conventional boundaries between descriptive and normative thought, and between theory and practice. In sum, it is a set of ideas which are adopted by a group to motivate it for the achievement of some predetermined goals.
In the tradition of Karl Mannheim, William Conolly has argued that it was time that ideology be neutrally defined and its applicability generalised to encompass all political interpretation, from radical polemics to orthodox and scientific treatises in Political Science. He defines it as “a set of empirical claims not fully tested, and for practical purposes not fully testable, which functions both to orient political activity and to preserve from destruction of values and higher level beliefs cherished by its authors and supporters”
Eugene J. Meehan deals with characteristics of ideology in his study of British foreign policy. According to him, ideologies have direct and immediate relation to international affairs. They play a vital role in human behaviour of groups. Ideologies appear different from each other. Externally, they relate to the area of human behaviour, which they affect, demands made upon the supporters and complexity of doctrines.
They depend on absolutes which often provide solutions to the insoluble. For this they restrict their discussions on the first principles. Each one of them passes through (a) initial statement of principles by the founder; (b) their elaboration by specific group of disciples, and (c) development of priesthood to apply them to all problems. The process of interpretation goes on constantly. Ideology turns important only when it becomes a social force carrying mass acceptance. Followers both support and control those who accept the ideology.
There are three levels: (i) masses, (ii) secondary group consisting of individuals who accept the basic principles and programme of action, and (iii) concentration of authority in the hands of a relatively small number of persons. For seeking approval of the masses, level of complexity is lowered to a common denominator. To create ‘we-feeling’, there are simple answers and widespread use of symbols. Value judgements are not necessarily based on facts. Any means justifies the end when the end is an absolute postulated by the ideology.
According to Dahl, development of an ideology is an essential feature of all political systems. Leaders in them usually espouse a set of more or less persistent and integrated doctrines that purport to explain and justify their leadership in the system. They develop it to endow their leadership with legitimacy and convert their influence into authority. It is more economical to rule by means of authority than by means of coercion. The leaders usually espouse an ideology that justifies not only their own leadership but also the political system itself.
An official or reigning ideology usually contains standards for appraising the organisation, policies and leaders of the system. It often gives an idealised description of the way in which the system actually works and should work. When a reigning ideology is widely accepted, its leaders would endanger their legitimacy if they violate its prescribed norms. Ideologies vary enormously from one system to another.
Even when it is entirely integrated or internally consistent, it may not be necessarily static. New situations need new explanation and emphasis on newer goals. Sometimes unrelated and inconsistent elements creep in. Sometimes ambiguities may prove positive as they permit flexibility and change in the system.
It is also a fact that even a reigning ideology is not uniformly accepted by all members of an organisation. Most of its members have only the most rudimentary knowledge of the ruling ideology. Many others have their own private views. Some of its members may reject it or adhere to rival and conflicting ideologies and create a crisis of legitimacy. Ideologies have their rise and fall. A revolutionary or opposing ideology may emerge as reigning ideology after some years.