Quantitative Data Analysis

Many thinkers within the Marxist tradition have attempted to analyze, elaborate and revise the concept of ideology. Inside the Marxist concept of ideology there are included the views of Gramsci and Althusser.

The view of  Gramsci: Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks (1929 – 1935, while imprisoned by Mussolini’s fascist regime) develops his positions on ideology, with a central reference to the concept of “hegemony”. The dominated classes have a more active role, both in relation to Marx and Engels (who estimated that the proletariat will acquire revolutionary consciousness after first falling into a state of impoverishment (due to capitalism), and in relation to Lenin (he argues that intellectuals will not come from the subordinate classes and will extrinsically undertake to represent their interests and lead their struggle). Gramsci anticipates the production of ideology from within the subordinate classes themselves, within which “organic” intellectuals will emerge, who will express on their own the ideas that will challenge the hegemony of bourgeois ideology. For Gramsci, the achievement of hegemony (ideological dominance at all levels – in discourse, popular culture and everyday life) is a prerequisite for the success of the socialist assumption (proletariat (and not bourgeoisie) rule). Gramsci certainly does not question the role of the state (the political institutions, the coercion and violence that they use to secure the established order). But he attributes special importance to the influence exerted by institutions such as the educational system, the (Catholic) Church and military service.

The view of  Althusser:  Althusser retains some basic assumptions about ideology from Marx and Engels (he separates ideology from science and truth, while relating it to material social relations), while revising some others (he believes that ideology is eternal and ineradicable and understands quite differently the way in which it is formed and the role it plays). Also, the importance of each mechanism fluctuates. For example, in the capitalist state the school has a fundamental role (generally reproducing the dominant ideology but also prescribing the particular social position that each of the students will take in the future). The great mass of youth is made up of workers and small farmers. Another section continues its studies but falls short along the way and fills the positions of small and medium-sized executives, employees, small-medium-state functionaries and petty bourgeois of all kinds. A final section manages to reach the top (of studies), and either falls into the semi-unemployment of intellectuals, or supplies society with the agents of exploitation (capitalists, managers), the agents of violence (soldiers, policemen, politicians, administrative officials, etc.) and professional ideologists (all kinds of priests, the majority of whom are fanatical “popular”). Although ideology “calls” individuals as subjects, it does not transform them into truly independent and autonomous actors. However, it makes them perceive their life and their relationship with society and the world as if they were such. Although this particular position shows a distortion of reality, it should not be equated with the false consciousness of Marx and Engels, nor is it something that will be eliminated in the future, for example in the context of a classless society.

Ideology and contemporary reality: Ideologies emerge in a context of pluralism and competition of ideas and interpretations, when traditional narratives have collapsed (or are being strongly challenged). (Dominant View).

The dominant view is that ideology and ideologies are a modern phenomenon. It is an anachronism to reduce ideology to the context of traditional societies (they had a religious, metaphysical worldview and legitimized social and political reality in their narrative).

Today,  ideology is an interdisciplinary subject that is being studied intensively.

Approaches:

(a) conceptual: Study of concepts, which are utilized by ideologies in order to be constituted as systems of ideas. In this context, concepts as units of meaning are interrelated, acquire their contents and are articulated in an overall view. Thus, ideology resembles a form of political theory with reference to specific thinkers who are considered to formulate the ideology in question in a comprehensive and documented manner. It is also recognized that ideology is applied to living political reality.

(b) Discourse analysis:

General Principles:

• Discourse is considered constitutive of society (although it is influenced by other social structures and this leads to it being shaped by those exercising power as it is a means of exercising this power),

• discourse is also essentially linked to ideology (as a system of ideas it is produced and becomes the object of communication through discourse) however in this direction the study of ideology through discourse constitutes a critique of ideology (an ideological discourse can present power relations as natural, depoliticized or even legitimized or question the given of the existence of these relations or their legitimization).

Some Emblematic Approaches: “Essex School” (with Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek as its main representatives and the central concept of the signifier void: the absence of the real. The competition between ideologies can be interpreted as a competition over the meanings that the political vocabulary acquires with the aim of asserting as self-evident and unquestionable the specific narrative, which thus becomes hegemonic), “rhetorical conception of ideology” (recent approach, with the political argument as the central concept, which is also the unit of analysis. Here ideology is not taken as a given (as a single set of ideas) but rhetorical acts are part of the ideology itself and set their own specifications and limitations, e.g. the use of threats and intimidation is included in the rhetorical possibilities of fascism, but not of liberalism).

(c) quantitative:

These approaches to the study of ideologies – quite popular in the US and rather marginal in Europe – utilize statistical studies and quantitative data related to political behavior and the cognitive processes involved in the formation of ideology. The analysis is often done in terms of political psychology and is considered data related to electoral behavior. It is often taken for granted in these analyses that an ideology is a series of simply and concisely formulated assumptions commonly accepted by everyone (whether someone embraces the specific ideology or not).

Ideology and other relevant disciplines:

            Religion:

Similarities:

• integrated systems of thought and behavior.

• They seek to interpret the world and dictate attitudes and behaviors resulting from their interpretation (analytic and normative intent).

• They provide meaning and identity to individuals, using symbolic and ritualistic means (such as monuments, banners and flags, anthems, etc.).

Differences:

They give different answers regarding the existence of evil and how to deal with it. (Religions approach evil in terms of theodicy (God’s justice). They promise the salvation of the soul, but this promise is placed after the earthly life (in the afterlife), while ideologies  answer to the question of evil in terms of human justice (if evil prevails, we must fight it by changing social conditions)).

Political Theory and Political Philosophy:

Definition

Political theory (in the past): refers to the successive examination of the considered classical thinkers of politics, i.e. those who constitute the Canon of political thought, as it has historically evolved.

Problem: The confusion of political thought and political theory.

Political theory (today): distinct branch of political science (examines aspects of the political phenomenon in a generally more abstract and less empirical way, focusing on the concepts, principles and values ​​of politics).

Difference with political thought:

• Systematics (policy scholars of theory locate in a political theorist (thinker) the formulation of a single and comprehensive view whether it has an analytical intent or is normative)
• The discourses accepted (by political theory) must display logical structure, coherent argumentation, not be stereotyped or clichéd, and address fundamental political issues.

Political theory and political philosophy are perceived as approximately the same (in an environment of interdisciplinarity in the social sciences and humanities, political theory and political philosophy converge, communicate and ultimately merge).

DIFFERENCES

• The 2 fields (philosophy and political science) use different methods and techniques.
• Political philosophy formulates answers, to be carried out in a regime of “questioning”, something that is not equally necessary for political theory.
• A work of political philosophy can critically explore even just one concept, while political theory tends to have a more comprehensive and inclusive intention.

Political ideology is perceived as a lower-class political philosophy/theory (by Political Philosophers). WHY: because they compare it to political philosophy and find it inferior (by the criteria of political philosophy).It is considered a simplified version of it (with gaps, contradictions and frivolous, dogmatic formulations), or they equate it with propaganda. (a biased conclusion as it is based on a misunderstanding of the content of political ideology).

Differences between political ideology and philosophy (Freeden, 2004):

• Political ideologies are addressed to large groups of people, while political philosophy is addressed to a specialist audience (political philosophers and a philosophically educated public).
• Political ideologies are collective products of groups and communities, while works of political philosophy are individual results (products of particularly talented and highly educated individuals in philosophy).
•  Political ideologies involve emotions in their analysis, while political philosophy excludes them from analysis.
• The criterion of success for a political ideology is whether it has managed to mobilize a significant number of people and/or significant groups for its goals, while the criterion of success for a political philosophy is whether it has convinced the specific audience it is addressing with logical argumentation.
• In political philosophy the language used is characterized by precision, clarity and always making the intention towards the audience to which they are addressed apparent while on the other hand in political ideologies messages may be transmitted that are deliberately ambiguous, unclear, coded, or are expressed without the knowledge of the subjects themselves who express them (this is considered primary material for examination and study within the framework of an ideology).
• A good argument in political philosophy is rational, internally consistent, reflective and self-critical, while in a political ideology the main thing is that it succeeds in transforming (or maintaining) political practices in the direction it desires, imposing its ideas.

Sources

• Vandoros, S. (2015). Introduction to political ideologies. Athens: SEAB National Technical University of Athens. Available at: http://www.kallipos.gr