GVPT 459Y Notes

Defining Ideology

Formal Definitions:
- “a verbal image of the good society and of the chief means of constructing such a
society” (Downs 1957)
- “the way a system—a single individual or even a whole society—rationalizes itself”
(Knight 2006)
- “actors’ theorization of their own position, and available strategies, in a political field”
(Martin 2013)
- “systems of socially shared ideas, beliefs, and values used to understand, justify or
challenge a particular political, economic, or social order” (Homer-Dixon et al. 2013)
- “the idea that political opinions and attitudes are linked together in a coherent system”
(Carmines and D’Amico 2015)

Unifying Themes
- Coherence:
o Set of ideas interconnected or linked by an underlying logic (aka “constraint”)
- Stability
o Relatively stable set of ideas, such as over time
- Contrast
o Can be distinguished from other sets of ideas

Origins
- Word origin tied to 1789 French Revolution and notion of popular sovereignty, used
positively
- Then used by Napoleon (“ideologues”) as a slur for those who opposed his dictatorship
- But by mid-19th century, “ideology” being criticized both by existing political leaders as
well as radical revolutionaries

Critical Perspectives in the 19th Century

- For rules, “ideology”= irrational dedication to liberal democratic principles
- For philosophers and revolutionaries inspired by Marx and Engels, “ideology” =
dangerous rationale for class oppression, an illusion serving to conceal the material
interest of those in power, and to justify and maintain the status quo

Ideology in the 20th Century

- Interest in “ideology” skyrocketed, despite some claims about the “end of ideology” and
the inception of a new, more rational, and more empirical era, guided by science
- With growing “behavioral” emphasis in the social sciences in 1960s, “ideology” then
began to lose its pejorative connotations, seen more neutrally as any belief system—a
fairly benign “organizing device”
3 Approaches
1. Conceptual
a. Focus on ideas, ideational content, morphological structure, historical genealogy
2. Discursive
a. Focus on communicative practices through which ideology is constituted and
transmitted, with emphasis on underlying power, interest, and institutional
domination
3. Quantitative (Conventional Social Science)
a. Focus on individual attitudes of political elite’s vs mass public, cognitive
underpinnings, psychological traits, scales and measurement
b. Also: interviews, ethnography, participant observation, and other qualitative
methods

Spatial vs. Non-Spatial

- Spatial: can represent ideology spatially in a graph, with each axis representing one
dimension of a propose ideological space, typically as bipolar (from one pole to the
opposite pole)
- Example: ideology as one dimension
- Example: American National Elections Study

Multidimensionality?
- “Social”- attitudes toward traditional moral and cultural values, including abortion,
marijuana use, role of religion in public affairs, same-sex marriage
- “Economic”- attitudes toward role of government in economy, including progressive
taxation, government spending on social services, regulation of markets

Some Criticisms of Spatiality

- Issue preferences do not always accord with ideological self-identification
- Many people identify as more “conservative” but then report “liberal” positions on
issues
o How to explain? Ideology may have both “operational” (specific attitudes / issue
positions) and “symbolic” aspects (preferred labels people use to identify
themselves)
- Assumption of “bipolarity,” with ideology understood in terms of “opposites”
- Thus, opposite ideological poles share the same perceptual framework of the world;
they just view and judge it from “opposite sides of the field”
- But, people self-labeling as “liberal” or “conservative” might do so for very different
reasons
o So can we really reduce ideologies to systems of beliefs that are inherently
opposite?
- Are ideologies primarily issue-oriented, at all? Could a dimensional continuum focus
more on attitudes toward means and approaches to reform, rather than specific issues
and ends?
- Too complex, and not broadly generalizable beyond the US context
- Can’t reduce ideology to dimensions at all
- Ideologies are meaningful in light of the distinctive combinations of symbols or ideas
they integrate