Every political concept can be defined only within the intellectual, political and cultural conditions that prevail within which it acquires its primary, at least, meaning. For example, there is no single definition of freedom, the state or democracy as they are human inventions, which arose at some specific moment, in order to define an idea, a practice or a phenomenon. As human history evolves, the concepts themselves may change.
Here the traps of essentialism and anachronism come into play. That is, on the one hand, we should not perceive a concept (and with it a property, a state, a phenomenon and so on) as unchanging and stable in time (essentialism). On the other hand, every time we wish to analyze a past situation, we must see whether the concepts we use are actually applicable to it and, if so, to what extent they are modified from its modern version (anachronism).
“Ideology”: coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796.
His intention: to separate ideas from anything questionable or unknown, disconnecting them from metaphysical or psychological connotations.
Purpose: the foundation of a new scientific discipline with the object of studying ideas.
Enlightenment and French Revolution: it acquires a political dimension (it is not objective except from the point of view of the inspirer of the ideology and his companions).
1. its critical character requires the rearrangement of cognitive objects (for example, the shrinkage and degradation of theology, also affecting the authority of the clergy),
2. A generally critical approach to power from a liberal perspective. (Ideology is primarily opposed to the Old Regime as a system of domination that exploited (and) error and ignorance to impose itself and reproduce itself) ->Generalization: critical stance against any authority that is based on false doctrines.
The Marxist concept of ideology: Tracy’s conception failed, but the word “ideology” took on a new meaning. Ideology is given a derogatory connotation, since it refers to error, falsehood, deception and is opposed to reality, truth and science.
They question the way in which de Tracy understood the role of ideas in this perspective. They criticize primarily the idealism of Hegel and his followers, denying the primacy of idea. Self-identifying as materialists, they argue that ideas should be understood as derivatives of material conditions and therefore as something secondary. Key points: 1. Humans are, first of all, beings who care for their survival and the satisfaction of their biological needs. That is why they mainly work and produce goods. In this context, they are involved in complex social relations and relations of production and exchange, which also include the division of labor (if we exclude primitive forms of coexistence). 2. Humans are thinking beings. They think during the production process, but it is a practically oriented thought that comes to support the material relations of production. In the development of human history, the division of labor is characterized, among other things, by the separation that ensures them, as a special group (class), a privileged position in the social formation of which they are parts. They produce ideas that present the existing social order as given, natural and self-evident, which entails the view of the existing relations of production as equally given and indisputable and the decisive distinction between those who own the means of production (ruling class) and those who do not own the means of production, but offer their labor power (dominated classes).
Thus, a relationship of injustice and exploitation exists (the ruling class, which owns the means of production, appropriates the social wealth produced by the labor of the dominated classes). However, capitalist relations of production, through bourgeois ideology, consider individuals as if they are assimilated on the basis of their human nature. And this ideological construction produces real results, precisely because the proletarian accepts it and mistakenly believes that it operates freely and voluntarily.
Another characteristic of ideology is the inversion of reality (e.g. in religion, in reality, it is not God who created humans – as the relevant ideological construction wants –, but humans who invent God. However, they invent him in such a way that it appears that he is the creator of humans. Ideology acts in this case by creating an illusion, a delusion, which pushes believers to seek redemption and solace in the afterlife, while at the same time calling on them to comply with the authorities in their worldly lives.
Distinction between “base” and “superstructure”: The base includes everything directly involved in the economic process, essentially the relations of production and the forces of production. The superstructure includes more or less everything else, namely the state and political institutions, culture and intellectual products, religion and ideology. Although the exact relationship connecting the two levels is not absolutely clear, the base is of paramount importance to the superstructure, which appears as something secondary.
According to an economicist reading, the relationship that characterizes them is strictly one-way, that is, the base (priority) decisively determines the forms that the superstructure takes, which as such lacks any autonomy. Furthermore, the superstructure can be related to the base to a certain extent and therefore should not simply be reduced to it.
Sources
- Vandoros, S. (2015). Introduction to political ideologies. Athens: SEAB National Technical University of Athens. Available at: http://www. kallipos.gr
Quantitative Data Analysis 
Leave a comment