Ideologies and Political Theory - Essay Example

Political ideology represents the way that a certain collective believes about a certain topic or range of topics. Ideologies can represent different factions of society, as with political parties, and can also be broadly used in describing a leader who must govern a nation made up of different ideologies. At the core of an ideology is a commonality with the community who shares the ideology. Political myth is closely related to ideology, and can be said to be inextricably linked to ideology, as ideology is so much a part of what makes up a political myth. Nevertheless, it is slightly different, in that an ideology is an intangible thing, as it is a belief. On the other hand, a political myth is a tangible – it might be a narrative, a story or a poem. It is often an embodiment of an ideology, however, so this is another way that it is related to ideology. This paper will attempt to explain ideologies and political myths, then demonstrate how the two are related and where they diverge. The nature of political ideology is that there is a certain belief system that is shared by the individuals who subscribe to that particular ideology. This is a rather simplistic deconstruction, but this is the basic of the word “ideology”. There are competing schools of thought, according to Freeden (1996). On the one hand is the Marxist conception of ideology, which views ideology as ephemeral, historically situated, and a way for dominant class to rule the proletariat. For Marx, ideology is all about domination and control, and is not a part of individual consciousness (Freeden, 1996, p. 15). In fact, Marx thought of ideologies as being a “false consciousness”, in that he believed that the ideologies did not spring from an individual’s consciousness, but, rather, were imposed upon the individual by the social world (Plamenatz, 1970, p. 23). On the other hand, there are the political scientists who view ideology in the plural form, and is a means to understand social phenomenons, by examining “the existence of organized, articulated, and consciously held systems of political ideas incorporating beliefs, attitudes, and opinions, though latent beliefs are also included” (Freeden, 1996, p. 15). For these political scientists, ideology springs forth from the individual, and their beliefs drive the political ideas and landscape, not the other way around, as Marx believed. Flood (1996) uses the word in a neutral way, in that, in his view, or at least for the purpose of his book Political Myth, no one ideology is superior or inferior to any other ideology (Flood, 1996, p. 15). By maintaining a neutral stance, Flood is able to do a comparative analysis of the structure, function and content of different ideologies, and allows for an objective critical analysis (Flood, 1996, p. 16). Ideologies may encompass a certain political philosophy, such as conservatism or liberalism, that is delivered to the masses through speeches, broadcasts and advertisements. This is overt ideology. Less overt are leaders of a country who must govern the entire country, not just ideological factions; political analysts and newscasters who purport to deliver unbiased coverage of events; and makers of documentaries. These are all part of the ideological framework, whether the ideological discourse is overt, as in the case of political speeches and conservative commentators, or less overt, as in the case of the newscaster delivering the nightly news (Flood, 1996, p. 17). Many people may claim not to be an ideologue, in that, they claim that they vote for issues, not people and ideas. These are the so-called “independents” in the context of the political parties. For a great many of these individuals, the word “ideology” has a pejorative tone, particularly when the term ideology can be perceived to mean “systematically distorted communication” or “false ideas which help to legitimate a dominant political power”, two definitions proferred by Terry Eagleton in Ideology (Eagleton, 1991, p. 1). Therefore, ideology is not necessarily a positive trait for many people, and “ideology, like halitosis…is what the other person has (Eagleton, 1991, p. 2). However, Flood states that even these individuals are ideological, as the way that they approach issues is a product of their values, ideas and beliefs that they have picked up through their families, education, family and media (Flood, 1996, p. 17). The masses, even those who claim not be overtly political, are still subjected to ideas that are put forth by ideological carriers, and arguments are reiterated through one’s individual environment. Because of this, an individual has a worldview that, while not consistently and coherently encompassing an ideology per se, nevertheless has positions that reflect ideology, if these positions are nothing more than an amalgam of ideas from different ideologies (Flood, 1996, p. 18). The functions of ideology are both to cleave and to split. Ideologies serve to integrate individuals, perhaps to a political party or a broad ideal, and they also serve as a means for competition. In this way, they have the ability to both stabilize a society, in that they give authority and legitimacy to the government leader, and they also have the ability to split society and be the basis of great conflict and upheaval (Flood, 1996, p. 19). The way that they serve as the bases for either conflict or stability is through the internalization in each individual member of society. The individuals of society view their social reality through the prism of their ideologies, and this is how they make sense of their world (Eagleton, 1991, p. 2). Thus, these beliefs become not only ingrained, but become an individual’s reality and world perception. When a belief is so a part of an individual that it is that individual’s reality, then it can either be the cause of great stability, if the majority of the individuals share the ideology of their leader, or great instability and conflict, if the opposite is true (Flood, 1996, pp. 19-20). In other words, ingrained ideologies cause individuals to classify certain things are right, wrong, evil and good. If society reflects what the majority deem good and right, then the result is great stability. If society reflects what the majority deem evil and wrong, then conflict and war will most likely result. Thus, the ingrained nature of ideology gives rise to mythology. Like ideology, mythology represents a way that individuals look at the world, and, like ideology, mythology provides the basis for legitimacy and beliefs in certain institutions. Flood begins the discussion about mythology by examining sacred myths, as these are the basis for political myths. These myths, which are narratives, serve as explanations. For instance, the sacred myth explains how the world came to be formed, and how god, man and nature are all related. What a sacred myth does is, essentially, explains the universe (Flood, 1996, p. 33). On a more prosaic level, myths also function as a way for a group of people to understand themselves by offering “charters, warrants, validations, legitimations, and authoritative precedents for beliefs, attitudes, and practices in any important domain of social existence” (Flood, 1996, p. 35). It also anchors a community by giving the community shared meanings and sacred objects around which the community coheres (Flood, 1996, p. 37). Additionally, as with ideology, myths give legitimacy to institutions and hierarchies within a given society. Also like ideology, myths can serve as a basis for opposition, “when they are used to consolidate one group’s identity in opposition to another group” (Flood, 1996, p. 37). From this brief examination of sacred myths, one can link these myths directly to politics and ideology. As with ideology, myths serve a function, and that is to bind a community, or, conversely, to tear a community apart. Myths would seem to be related to the Marxian view about “false consciousness”, in that these stories impose, in a way, a set of beliefs that the community might not otherwise share as part of their innate conscious mind, and they direct the individual’s activity, even if the activity is not inherently rational (Plamenatz, 1970, p. 24). At the same time, myths are also internal, in that they can be seen as “outlets for feelings and excuses for action” (Plamentaz, 1970, p. 25). According to Vilfredo Pareto, myths are residues, with different contents between each individual story, but with the same function, and they spring from an individual’s instinct; Georges Sorel, similarly, state that they spring from impulse (Plamentaz, 1970, p. 124). In fact, Georges Sorel stated that myth is a useful way to organize the masses, and unify the proletariat. In keeping with Pareto’s view that humans are not rational, or, at least, that non-rational behavior outweighs rational behavior, these myths, which, for Sorel, were an “image or enabling fiction” , functioned as a unifier, as the myths represent intuition, not considered analyses. In this way, the myths become capable of evoking in the masses the “sentiments which corresponds to the different manifestations of the war undertaken by Socialism against modern society” (Eagleton, 1991, pp. 186-187). The proletariat needs a “romantic symbol” to rally around, and this “romantic symbol” appeals to the intuition, as opposed to reason, of the people, thus appealing to the dominant part of human behavior, which is the non-rational component. Sorel refers to this as “integral” which is in opposition to analytic knowledge (Eagleton, 1991, p. 187). Put another way, myths appeal to the inner core of an individual, the part of a person that is the same, no matter how much information and knowledge is presented to him. Corbett (1965) sees this as fundamental, as all individuals have an innate sense of right, wrong, good, evil, approval and disapproval, and these are concepts that are learned in the cradle, long before we have formed the words to describe them (Corbett, 1965, p. 174). It is this fundamental core from which myths spring, and to which myths appeal. It is on this level, according to Sorel, that political commitment is fostered, as it depends more on emotion and faith then on rational persuasion (Flood, 1996, p. 72). Therefore, a political myth serves the same function as an ideology, and is closely related to ideology. Flood believes that myths are complementary to ideologies, as they are vehicles for ideological beliefs and support ideological arguments (Flood, 1996, p. 42). These stories are based in ideology, and can serve as an account for political events, both past and present, while being viewed through ideological prisms made up of the goals, assumptions and values of the people creating the myths (Flood, 1996, p. 42). In this way, the events that are recounted in the narrative that comprises the myth is but one aspect of the story, and whether or not they are true is important, but seemingly ideologically neutral. On the other hand, the framing, selection and interpretation of the political myth is what serves as the vehicle for the ideological discourse (Flood, 1996, p. 43). Moreover, whether one believes in the myth does not necessarily correspond with ideology. One’s ideology may be in line with what the myth is based upon, but still not believe the facts to be true, even if they agree with the spirit of the story. On the other hand, one might believe the facts to be true, but still not agree with the ideology that is being represented. In this way, myths do not perfectly line up with ideologies (Flood, 1966, p. 44). Political myths are not judged on whether or not they are true, but, rather, whether or not they serve the function that they need to serve. If the story is not true, but is believed to be true by the segment of society for which they are aimed, then the story has served its purpose and it can be categorized as a political myth (Flood, 1996, p. 45). However, Leonard Thompson asserts that the factual bases for the myths is important, because, if the myth is not true or based on reality, then it becomes an “implausible myth” (Flood, 1996, p. 46). Myths have many functions. One of these is to provide distorted information that is intended to influence the audience towards a course of action or viewpoint (Flood, 1996, p. 47). This is a conscious decision on the part of the storyteller, and it is the basis for propaganda. Another function of myths is to persuade but not mislead. The person who tells the story wants to persuade his group, because he believes that is for their own good. This is the objective desire of the mythmaker, and the myth, or the story, is what he creates to accomplish this goal. Therefore, the story is chosen in a deliberate manner, and is chosen and interpreted in a way as to accomplish what the speaker sets out to do (Flood, 1996, pp. 54-55). The events of the story are thus edited to comport with the message, with parts of the story that contradict the message being left out and parts of the story that support the message being emphasized or highlighted. Thus, the political myth is only partly based upon reality, even if the story itself is based upon true facts (Flood, 1996, p. 56). Thus, this is another way that political myths are related to political ideologies. Like ideologies, the myths go through the storyteller’s filter. Also like ideologies, the facts that support the story are emphasized, while the facts that contradict the story are either ignored or downplayed. This is much like the notion that one’s ideology causes the individual to interpret information according to his or her own ideological premise, with facts that suit the ideology being used to bolster the ideological mindset, and contradictory facts being either ignored or rationalized so that they somehow fit the core ideology. Mythmaking works much the same way. Conclusion Political ideology and political myth are closely related. One’s ideology is a part of the individual. It is how he or she looks at world, and makes sense or reality. It is a prism through which a person views his or hers environment and what comes into the environment. While not everybody will admit to an ideology, or towards being ideological, Flood would state that this is not necessarily true. Everybody has beliefs that he or she holds dear, and these beliefs are shaped through the person’s environment, upbringing, experience, etc. There really is no way that a thinking individual can go through life without developing an ideology. This does not mean that a person subscribes to a political belief or political party. One can be independent in their party affiliation, but this does not mean that this person is not ideological. It just means that they are not political, or that they are cynical and do not believe in politics or politicians. Nevertheless, as long as that person has beliefs, he or she is ideological. Political myth is related to this. Political myth is a way to reinforce ideologies, as well as use ideologies to form these stories. One’s ideology is a major way that these stories are formed, as the teller of the stories will inevitably, even if it is unconscious, edit the story according to the speaker’s personal ideology. The parts of the story that comport with the personal ideology will be emphasized, while contradictory parts will be deleted or deemphasized. In this way, political myth is inextricably linked with ideology. Political myth is also closely related to ideology, because political myths are really an expression of ideology. These stories are the living embodiment of ideology, and the vehicle to transmit these ideologies to the masses. One can argue that one cannot have a political myth that is ideology free. Further, ideologies and politic myths have similarities in that they are both ways to unify the masses, as well as a means for conflict. Ideologies are a way for the collective to come together with common ideas and beliefs. They are also a reason why an individual can become rigid, to the point where that person is right and everybody who does not agree with that person is wrong. This is the basis for conflict, in that an ideological pure individual, or, more accurately, a group of ideologically pure individuals, will try to impose their will upon others who do not agree. This is where conflicts begin, and is a major basis for war. Political myths have similar functions – they also serve to unite the masses, although they function in a different way than ideologies in this regard. Where ideologies are deeply held beliefs, and this is the basis for the unification of individuals, a political myth is more a symbol of a belief as opposed to being itself a belief. A political myth can convince those who might have an opposing ideology to convert, but mainly they give embodiment to the beliefs that are held by the community around which the myths coalesce. This is yet another way that ideologies and political myths intersect, even though they are not precisely the same. Sources Used Corbett, Patrick (1965). Ideologies. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. Eagleton, Terry (1991). Ideology. London: Verso. Flood, Christopher (1996). Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction. London: Garland Publishing, Inc. Freeden, Michael (1996). Ideologies and Political Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Plamenatz, John (1970). Ideology. London: Praeger Publishers. Read More