Political Ideologies: A Comparative Approach

A Comparative Approach

Mostafa Rejai

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000149715
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Designed for classroom use, this book develops a framework for the comparative analysis of political ideologies and examines the most prominent political ideologies of modern time. This revised edition has been enlarged to include feminism and environmentalism.

Part I Comparative Framework

1 Comparative Analysis of Political Ideologies

Any effort at adequate analysis of political ideologies* is contingent upon a clear understanding of (1) what ideologies are, (2) when and how they arose historically, and (3) what functions they perform for individuals, societies, and governments. These three interrelated issues constitute the subject of this chapter. A clarification of the first issue, as we shall see, is particularly helpful for developing a framework for comparative analysis of political ideologies.

*The terms "ideologies," "doctrines," and "belief systems" are used interchangeably throughout this book.

The Nature of Ideologies

Definitions of ideology are legion. Some writers emphasize the sociological components of ideology, others its psychological characteristics, and still others its psychocultural features. No one definition is intrinsically better than any other. The acid test is utility in scholarly discourse. The superiority of one definition over another lies in the extent to which it provides a more adequate, more searching, more powerful explanation of the phenomenon at hand.

Any adequate conception of ideology must meet certain explicit criteria. It must be neutral rather than pejorative. It must be reasonably precise without being unduly restrictive. And it must be, at least in principle, operational—that is, applicable to the "real world." Rather than merely setting down a definition of ideology, I will try to identify and disentangle its major dimensions or components. This done, perhaps we will be in a better position to pull the loose ends together into a coherent framework for analyzing—and comparing—political ideologies.

The concept of ideology embraces five important dimensions:

1. Cognition: knowledge and belief
2. Affect: feelings and emotions
3. Valuation: norms and judgments
4. Program: plans and actions
5. Social base: supporting groups and collectivities

Three clarifications are in order before we proceed to consider each dimension in turn. First, the first three dimensions are adapted from the sociologist Talcott Parsons's conception of culture. Moreover, the five components are not mutually exclusive—that is, although analytically distinct, they overlap to some extent. Finally, all ideologies share these five components to a lesser or greater extent—that is, not all ideologies are equally strong in all dimensions.

The Cognitive Dimension

"Cognitive dimension" refers to an ideology's "world view"—its outlook on society and politics, its perception of social and political reality. An understanding of this dimension, which is the most comprehensive, will put the other four components into perspective.

The world view of an ideology contains certain elements of knowledge and certain elements of belief. Knowledge is subject to the rules of logic; it is internally consistent, for example. And knowledge is subject to the tests of science—replicability and verifiability, for instance. By contrast, beliefs are not necessarily either logically coherent or scientifically established. Beliefs are accepted or adhered to on the basis of socialization, or habit, or repetition. In other words, there is no necessary consistency between beliefs and reality.

Taking this argument one step further, we can see that all ideologies have certain elements of distortion, illusion, or myth. An ideology may have a big myth or a small myth, but a myth nonetheless there shall be. So that the communists, for example, have the myths of a classless society and of the unity of the working class. The Nazis had the myths of the super race and of the superhuman leader. And in American society in the last three decades, we have had President Kennedy's "New Frontier," President Johnson's "Great Society," President Nixon's "Generation of Peace," President Carter's "Human Rights," President Reagan's "Counterterrorism," President Bush's "Thousand Points of Light," and President Clinton's "New Covenant."

The idea is not to cast a negative light on myth or to be pejorative about it. The reality, if I may put it this way, is that every society is founded upon myth and is saturated in myth. We all need myth and we cannot function without myth. We cannot deal exclusively with reality on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis. Myth cushions reality for us and makes us feel good about ourselves and our society.

Consider some examples from classical mythology. Consider the myth of Oedipus or the myth of Sisyphus. The idea of myth does not say that a story is true or that it is false—only that it is accepted. And the reason it is accepted is that it teaches us a moral lesson and helps guide our thoughts and actions. Therein lies the importance of myth.

Myth also simplifies. Any system of thought depends on simplification and interpretation of reality. Any exercise in communication is also an exercise in simplification. We do not internalize—or express—reality wholesale; we do so only in partial or segmental fashion. To use an ancient illustration from Plato, when we look upon the natural landscape, we see trees—many different kinds of trees—but we do not see all the trees, nor do we see the essence of tree or "treeness." Similarly, we may have seen many horses in our lives, but not all horses and not "horseness." Our perception of trees or of horses is a partial and simplified one; so is our communication of what we have perceived. In short, reality is far more complex than thinking about reality or communicating the results to others. Another function of myth is to simplify reality for us and to communicate it in an instantaneous fashion.

Simplification takes place, to a large extent, through the use of symbols. All political ideologies—all systems of thought—engage in symbolic perception and symbolic communication.

Symbols take two forms, linguistic and nonlinguistic. By linguistic symbols I mean that we frequently rely on words and speech in order to convey a message in a quick and efficient manner. When we appeal to "law and order," for example, this may well be a shorthand for saying that we do not tolerate any challenge to the status quo, or to our convenience, security, and possessions. As another illustration, consider the national organization whose acronym is FLAG. "F" stands for family; "L," for life; "A," for America; "G," for God. FLAG: Family, Life, America, God. So what we have here is a double symbol: each letter stands for an idea or a symbol; the acronym in entirety stands for a symbol.

Now, to appreciate the full burden of this symbol, one should know that FLAG is a "pro-life," or anti-abortion, organization. So, FLAG issues an emotional appeal to family, life, America, and God as it issues an appeal to the flag. FLAG drapes itself in some of the great values of American society. At the same time, it is an attempt at preemptive symbolism: it claims total legitimacy for itself, while denying the "pro-choice" group any justifiability. Indeed, "pro-life" is itself an exercise in preemptive legitimacy in that it carries the clear implication that the opposition is, by definition, "anti-life" or "pro-death." (This illustration teaches us that we should always be very sensitive to the ways in which people use or manipulate language. Sometimes we are not mindful of how critically important language is. We hear—or use—words and expressions in such a way as to evoke certain memories or sentiments or emotions, to identify ourselves in desirable ways, and to locate the opposition in an unfavorable light.)

Among nonlinguistic symbols, we should note national monuments, national holidays, and the like. What does the Washington Monument mean? And the Statue of Liberty? And the Fourth of July? Certainly, these are profound expressions of a nation's history embodying national values and evoking intense emotions. Whether linguistic or nonlinguistic, then, symbols capture vast expanses of meaning and convey that meaning in an instantaneous way.

The Affective Dimension

The discussion of myth and symbol brings into focus the second dimension of ideology: its emotive (that is, emotion-laden) content. This component is rather self-explanatory and does not require extended elaboration.

If they are to be viable and enduring, political ideologies must appeal to people's emotions. Accordingly, all ideologies are to some extent emotive in content, approach, and function. In any ideology there are elements of emotionality alongside elements of rationality. It is the balance between the two that varies from ideology to ideology. The ideology of fascism/nazism is an intensely emotional ideology; the ideology of communism is a rational, calculated ideology; the ideology of democracy is supposedly the most rational.

But even very rational ideologies remain rational only in normal times and conditions. A national crisis may quickly set an ideology off on an emotional course. American experience with hostage taking and other acts of international terrorism (as we perceive them) amply bear this out. Recent American encounters with Iraq, Iran, and Libya have been particularly telling in this regard.

The central issue, then, is: Under normal circumstances, how rigid—or how flexible—are we about our belief systems? How intensely do we feel? In this context, some scholars have found it useful to distinguish between open and closed belief systems. An open ideology is one that admits new evidence and information, undergoing modification and change in the process. A closed ideology does not accommodate new evidence and information; its attitude is, to use a cliché, "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts." Regardless of the relative openness or closedness, a most distinctive feature of all ideologies is an appeal to human passion, an eliciting of emotive response.

It is important to realize that ideologies cannot force themselves upon the people—or at least that they cannot rely on coercion and force alone. To one degree or another people must voluntarily identify with an ideology and extend support for it. And one's sense of identity is enhanced if "cold, hard" reasons for identification (for instance, prospects of personal gain) are combined with emotional ones (for example, prospects of national greatness).

The Evaluative Dimension

Ideologies embody normative elements. Specifically, ideologies make value judgments in two ways: negatively, by denouncing an existing system of social and political relationships; positively, by putting forth a set of norms according to which social and political reconstruction is to take place.

At least in the beginning, as they start to emerge, ideologies denounce the existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond reform—and they do so by appealing to high-sounding moral principles. Moral outrage and indignation are indispensable to any ideology. The attack against existing society is presented, rationalized, justified, and dignified in the light of an appeal to "higher" principles.

For illustration, consider the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson opens the Declaration by announcing the necessity to sever long-established ties with Britain, proceeds to a lengthy catalog of all the evil things the British have done in the thirteen colonies, and defends the need for independence by appealing to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The bulk of the Declaration is a negative statement of the practices and institutions of the colonial society we reject. The British, says Jefferson, have subverted our legislative and judicial systems; they have kept standing armies in times of peace; they have quartered troops among us, etc. This is what I mean by the negative value judgment of ideologies.

The positive values of an ideology revolve around such central norms as liberty, equality, fraternity, humanity, and the like. The normative propositions are characteristically presented as factual statements.

To return to the example of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson specifies some of the positive goals we seek in the following manner:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

All ideologies propose to move toward a "good society," however defined. Some ideologies posit an ultimate value, a final good, autopia. Marx's idea of a classless society is an apt illustration.

Ideologies, as we can see, contain statements concerning the allocation of scarce societal resources (for example, power and wealth). Such allocation naturally involves adjustments and compromises among conflicting interests and demands. It also entails questions of rulership, authority, and legitimacy.

In this context, political ideologies are systems of beliefs and values focused primarily on such questions as: By what criteria are conflicting values and interests to be adjusted? Who (what person, group, or institution) has the authority to play a role in such adjustments, and under what conditions? Under what circumstances is the legitimacy, or popular acceptability, of a regime called into question? Under what conditions should one regime be replaced by another?

The Programmatic Dimension

The values, goals, and objectives of an ideology are embodied in a more or less comprehensive program of activities. Ideologies, as many have point...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Part I. Comparative Framework
• Part II. Selected Ideologies
• Part III. Recapitulation
• Appendixes
• Index
• About the Author