Political Ideology in Britain

Robert Leach

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781350312074
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political History & Theory
• Index: Politics & International Relations

As well as introducing the "mainstream" ideologies of Liberalism, Conservatism and Socialism, this text examines challenges from nationalist, feminist and Green thinkers, amongst others. Now in its third edition, it includes a new chapter on anarchism and assesses the continuing disillusionment of Britain with the ideas of the "Westminster elite".

1

Introduction: Ideology in British Politics

Political ideas and ideologies

While the serious study of political ideas goes back at least as far as Greece of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, the study of political ideologies, such as liberalism, conservatism and socialism, is of more recent origin. The term ‘ideology’ is itself problematic and contested (see below) but for the present may be loosely defined as ‘any system of ideas and norms directing political and social action’ (Flew, 1979: 150). The key words here are ‘system’ and ‘action’. An ideology involves, first, an interconnected set of ideas that form a perspective on the world. Second, ideologies have implications for political behaviour – they are ‘action-oriented.’

Most of the political ideologies that influence the way we think and act today have developed relatively recently, shaped directly or indirectly by the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, the American and French revolutions and industrialization, although influenced by older ideas. Thus while conservative habits of thought are perhaps as old as humanity, conservatism as a coherent political perspective was only expressed more systematically in response to radical political doctrines that sought to change the world, such as liberalism and socialism. Nationalism and feminism grew in the nineteenth century, but became more widely influential later. Some ideologies, including fascism and green thinking, were essentially products of the twentieth century, although again their core ideas developed out of, and in opposition to, mainstream political thinking from the Enlightenment onwards.

Before we proceed to a more detailed examination of specific ideologies it is important to discuss some general issues surrounding the study of political ideologies. Thus this opening chapter explores the nature of political ideology and its relationship with power and interests. It examines key elements of ideologies and their conventional classification on a left–right scale. It looks at the different levels at which ideologies are held and expressed. It concludes with a brief introductory discussion on the role of ideology in British politics.

Ideas, power and interests

How important are political ideas? Ideas, it might be urged, are the lifeblood of politics. There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. Thus the ideas expressed in the American Declaration of Independence or the French revolutionary slogan ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ transformed the world. The Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels inspired a revolution in Russia and an economic and political system that once dominated a third of the globe. More recently the rediscovery of the idea of the free market has stimulated political and economic change over the western, former communist and Third World.

From another perspective, politics is essentially about power and interests rather than ideas. As Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic (tr. Cornford, 1945, 18) cynically argues, ‘just or right means nothing but what is to the interest of the stronger party’. Ideas of what is right involve rationalizations of interest. Those in power are well-placed to ensure that the ideas that are widely accepted are those that are in accordance with their own interests, or, as Karl Marx put it much later, ‘The ruling ideas of every age are the ideas of the ruling class.’

Marx was concerned with the source of ideas. How and why do ideas originate? One of his targets was idealism, the philosophical approach derived ultimately from Plato but featuring especially Kant and Hegel, that suggested that ideas are the ultimate reality, and the motive force in human history. Against this, Marx presented his own materialist conception of history. ‘Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life’ (Marx, 1977, 164). In other words, our experience of the world shapes our outlook, not the other way round. Thus ideas reflect social and economic circumstances. Marx, moreover, saw society as deeply divided, so that the moral and political ideas expressed at any time reflect conflicting class interests.

Such an approach provides insights into the mainstream ideologies of the western world. Thus traditional conservatism may be linked with landed interests, liberalism with financial and industrial capital, and socialism with the interests of the industrial working class. Conservatives, liberals and many non-Marxist socialists would deny that their political convictions reflected such specific class interests, but claim instead that they have a universal relevance, and draw support across classes. Nevertheless, analysis of the membership, electoral support and policies of political parties associated with these ideologies suggests some significant, if not overwhelming, connections with class interests.

Relating political ideas to material interests is certainly a fruitful approach, whether ideologies are linked exclusively to economic classes in the Marxist sense, or associated more broadly with other interests in society, such as those based on gender, religion, nation or ethnicity. It does make sense to ask who is putting forward particular doctrines and why, and whose interests they serve. Answers to such questions can be very illuminating. Even so, there are ideologies such as environmentalism (or green thinking) that are less easily equated with specific interests within human society. Moreover, while ideologies may be strongly associated with material interests, this does not necessarily mean that they have no intrinsic validity.

Marx himself generally employed the term ‘ideology’ in a pejorative (or negative) sense, and identified ideology with illusion. The prevailing ideas in any society, he suggested, will reflect the existing power structure, the current pattern of domination and subordination, partly because those with economic and political power will be well-placed to control the spread of ideas, through, for example, education and the mass media. It follows that subordinate classes may not understand the real basis of power in their society, nor their own exploitation, but will hold a distorted, mistaken view of reality. Marx commonly used the term ‘ideology’ to describe this distorted view that a social class, such as manual workers, might have of their own position in society as a whole. Much of the prevailing wisdom of his day, such as the free-market ideas of the classical economists, Marx regarded as ideological rather than scientific. Their theories served the interests of capitalism. By contrast, Marx thought that his own method provided a powerful tool for penetrating below the surface and understanding the real economic and social forces which shape change. Thus Marxism was science rather than ideology, which Engels later described as ‘false consciousness’. However, Marx sometimes used the term ideology in a more neutral sense, and later Marxists, such as Lenin, Gramsci and Lukacs assumed a need to promote a working-class socialist ideology to counter the dominant ruling class ideology.

Ideology as dogmatism: the ‘end of ideology’

Some modern, particularly American, social scientists have also, like Marx, employed the term ideology in a highly pejorative way, but in a quite opposite sense to his. Thus non-Marxist economists, soci-ologists and political scientists emphasized the need for detached, value-free, rigorous empirical research – which they saw as the essence of social science method. Marxism was regarded, by contrast, as dogmatic, unscientific and ‘ideological’. Ideology was identified particularly with closed ‘totalitarian’ systems of thought, under which heading they included both fascism and Marxist-inspired communism. Ideology was the enemy of western pluralist democracy. The future lay with non-ideological thinking, pragmatism rather ideology. Preconceived ideas and all-embracing theories were useless or positively dangerous.

Just as many Marxists did not think their own political ideas were ‘ideological’ so these western political thinkers did not consider that their analysis was ideological either. An ideology was the political outlook of someone else. Their own ideas were scientific and non-ideological. Thus the triumph of pluralist liberal democracy marked ‘the end of ideology’ (Bell, 1960) More recently Fukuyama (1992) declared the fall of the Berlin wall and Soviet communism secured the victory of liberal capitalism and the ‘end of history’.

Ideological conflict and consensus

In Britain and western Europe ideological conflict apparently gave way to an ideological consensus (or agreement) in the post-Second World War era. In Britain it appeared that leading Labour and Conservative politicians increasingly shared the same assumptions, and often the same remedies. There was widespread acceptance ‘across the party divide’ of the social welfare ideas of William Beveridge and the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, and this was accordingly described as the Keynes–Beveridge consensus (Kavanagh, 1990, 34–60). Over western Europe generally there was a similar ‘social democratic’ consensus around the welfare state and managed capitalism (Judt, 2005, 360–73).

The extent of ideological consensus in the post-Second World War era has arguably been exaggerated. However, a widespread consensus does not necessarily imply the ‘end of ideology’ in Bell’s sense. Rather it may suggest the dominance of a particular ideology, the acceptance by the political establishment, and perhaps the bulk of the masses also, of a set of ideas that becomes the ruling political orthodoxy. Indeed, as some twentieth-century Marxists like Gramsci have argued, the dominance of such a single ‘hegemonic’ ideology may be more the norm than the exception. It may become so widely accepted and unchallenged that it is not even perceived as ideological, but simply ‘common sense’ or ‘the way things are’, to which ‘there is no alternative’. It is only when the assumptions behind such a dominant orthodoxy are eventually challenged that its ideological character is acknowledged.

Contemporary approaches towards the study of ideologies

As McLellan (1995, 1) has ironically observed, ‘Ideology is someone else’s thought, seldom our own,’ underlining the pejorative interpretation of ideology both by Marxists and leading anti-Marxists, such as Oakeshott (1962) or Minogue (1985). An alternative approach assumes that all political thinking, including our own, is ideological (Freeden, 1996, 2003). The use of the term ‘ideology’ does not, by itself, imply any kind of judgement on the validity of the ideas discussed. Ideology is not necessarily to be identified with illusion or unreflecting dogma, nor should it be contrasted with ‘truth’ or ‘science’. Moreover, while ideologies may be employed to legitimate existing systems or regimes, they can also be used to justify their overthrow. Ideologies may thus be conservative, reformist or revolutionary, moderate or extremist. They may be associated with conflicting interests in society, but also with a system of belief that appears to command general assent. This more inclusive approach to the study of ideology (Seliger, 1976, 91–2), has now become sufficiently common to be described as mainstream, and implicitly or explicitly underpins a burgeoning literature surveying modern political ideologies (e.g. Adams, 1993, 1998; Eatwell and Wright, 1999; Eccleshall et al., 2003; Vincent, 2010; Heywood, 2012).

While not neglecting the importance of social context, power and interests, some exponents of this modern approach to the study of ideology also draw more freely on the older study of political theory and philosophy, and treat political ideas as worth studying in their own right. Thus Freeden (1996, 7) seeks to ‘reintegrate’ the investigation of political ideologies ‘into the mainstream of political theory’. He links ideologies with ‘social groups, not necessarily classes’. He argues that ideologies ‘perform a range of services, such as legitimation, integration, socialization, ordering, simplification, and action orientation, without which societies could not function adequately, if at all.’ He sees ideologies as ‘ubiquitous forms of political thinking’ which are ‘inevitably associated with power, though not invariably with the threatening or exploitative version of power’. But he also argues that ‘ideologies are distinct thought-products that invite careful investigation in their own right’ (1996, 22–3), and goes on to treat them essentially as a specialist branch of political theory.

Studying ideology: the issue of bias

Vincent (1995, 20) observes, ‘We examine ideology as fellow suffer-ers, not as neutral observers.’ The warning is apt. This is not a subject in which one can expect objectivity. Those who write about ideologies in general have their own ideological convictions, which may be more or less apparent, however hard they seek to write dispassion-ately. Accounts of specific ideologies are even more likely to be partisan. Much of the literature on feminism or the greens is written by committed supporters, and some is frankly propagandist. Modern accounts of racism and fascism are almost universally hostile. Accounts of the mainstream ideologies of conservatism, liberalism and social-ism are more mixed. A few may be obviously and markedly critical (e.g. Honderich, 1990, on conservatism), but even where they are clearly sympathetic overall, they will frequently reflect a particular interpretation or tendency.

Such obvious bias by both proponents and antagonists is scarcely surprising. Ideologies are action-oriented – paraphrasing Marx, they seek to change the world, not just interpret it. Those who are ideologically committed seek converts to their cause. Even academics who affect greater detachment inevitably have their own views which, consciously or unconsciously, influence the way that they treat their subject. Moreover, as we have seen, the study of ideology itself inevitably reflects ideological preconceptions. There are very different views on the definition and nature of ideology, and the relationship of ideology to power and interests on the one hand and science and truth on the other.

All this suggests some problems for students, both in terms of interpreting what others have written on specific ideologies and ideology in general, and in terms of formulating and presenting their own views. However, the contested nature of the subject matter does not mean that in the study of ideologies ‘anything goes’, allowing a free rein to the ventilation of personal prejudices. As in any subject for academic study there is an obligation to standards of accuracy over detail and rigour in analysis. Views attributed to particular thinkers, politicians, or parties require supporting evidence. The reasoning behind infer-ences and causal connections should be explained. Above all, awkward facts that do not fit a favoured interpretation should not be ignored. A particular standpoint or theory may ultimately be rejected, but in academic discourse there is a presumed obligation to present it fairly and accurately first.

Political ideologies are the very stuff of controversy, which is why many find them fascinating. But this means that no one who comes to the study of political ideologies can be free of preconceptions. It may seem difficult entirely to separate academic enquiry from personal political convictions, yet commitment to a particular political position should not preclude some reasonably dispassionate examination of its development, supporting interests, core principles and problematic areas. Equally, opposition to a particular ideology is not compromised by an attempt to understand its appeal to others. There are advantages to be derived from ‘knowing your enemy’. Even ideologies such as fascism or racism that may inspire repugnance still require some reasonably detached analysis to explain their apparent appeal to many, both in the past and today.

A one-sided or inadequate view of an ideology may not reflect prior prejudice, but simply weaknesses or bias in the source material. The best safeguard against falling for a partial, narrow or eccentric interpretation of an ideology is to read widely, but always critically. Contrasting interpretations, including both hostile and sympathetic treatments, should be deliberately sought out. Such an approach will help to identify both points of agreement and controversy. In all reading a questioning, sceptical approach should be adopted. Nothing should be taken on trust (including what is written here!). It is often useful to attempt to discern the author’s perspective. To know that a particular writer is a Marxist, a conservative or a neo-liberal may assist in interpretation, and also suggest critical questions.

Elements of ideologies

Although political ideologies may radically differ in terms of assumptions and practical implications, it is possible to identify some key elements that provide a basis for comparison. Three elements may be broadly identified – an interpretation of existing economic, social and political arrangements, a vision of the future, and a strategy for realizing that future. While ideologies are essentially action-oriented and prescriptive, any prescription for political and social action must ultimately rest on some assumptions, however crude, about existing society and human behaviour. For those who are broadly happy with existing economic, social and political arrangements, the vision of the future may closely resemble the present, and the strategy will be one of seeking to maintain the status quo. Those profoundly dissatisfied with the present will consider ways to achieve radical change or revolution.

Any view of existing circumstances will commonly include some assumptions about human nature and individual motivation. Indeed such assumptions lie behind the ideas of most of the great political thinkers of the past. Plato, Machiavelli and Hobbes, for example, were all fairly pessimistic about the capacity of human beings to live together sociably and co-operatively, without a considerable element of coercion or brainwashing, while Aristotle, Rousseau, and, in the last analysis, Marx, had a more optimistic view of human potential for fruitful co-operation. Among modern political ideologies, socialism is essentially optimistic, and traditional conservatism rather pessimistic about human nature. Free-market liberalism, drawing heavily on classical economics, sees individuals as motivated by self-interest, but suggests that the net consequence of everyone pursuing their own self-interest will be the greatest ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures, Tables and Boxes
• Preface
• 1 Introduction: Ideology in British Politics
• 2 Liberalism
• 3 Conservatism
• 4 Socialism, Social Democracy and Labour
• 5 Anarchism
• 6 Nationalism
• 7 Racism, Fascism and Populism
• 8 Multiculturalism
• 9 Feminism
• 10 Green Ideology
• 11 Changing Ideologies?
• Bibliography
• Index