Concept of Ideology and Discourse - Term Paper Example

Concept of ideology A number of definitions look at different aspects of ideology, each trying to emphasize a different point. The different types of ideologies are sequestered by the types of groups that possess these ideologies, i.e. social, political, professional, religious, sexual, etc. This sequence of area under discussion may look in a way rather inconsistent in their initial look but when ideology is taken into account all these themes of peripheral existence tend to fall accordingly. This is because the binding force among all these variables is the single most important factor that motivates, provokes and in the ultimate long run consequences the basic theme into a result oriented, socially negative or positive, structural framework. Ideologies are fundamental beliefs which control, coordinate and influence to the point of subjugation other social basic beliefs. As per Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary online the word ideology is enumerated or defined as noun [C or U] A theory, or set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party or organization is based. For example, a religious ideology will control rituals and tolerance capacity toward other religions, feminist ideology will control aspects in gender equity and so on. Ideology "emerges from a context of thought which foregrounds the confrontation between idealism and materialism, from Marx's emphasis upon the material aspects of social life and a parallel suspicion of mental or ideational dimensions" (Purvis & Hunt). Ideology can also be described as fundamental social values or beliefs which exist in an abstract manner, like for example, equality. Ideologies can also be totally rationalistic and at the same time ideologies can be based on complete irrationality. As Eagleton expresses it, "An interesting feature of this 'end-of-ideology' ideology is that it tends to view ideology in two quite contradictory ways, as at once blindly irrational and excessively rationalistic." (Eagleton) What is common to most definitions of ideology is that it 'serves to sustain relations of domination'. This throws up the question whether only those beliefs non-ideological when they are not in power, and ideological when they are This definitely needs a slightly broader accentuation. As Martin Seliger puts it, ideology is a justification for 'organized social action and specifically political action, irrespective whether such action aims to preserve, amend [] rebuild a social order'(Eagleton). In the same lines the definition of 'power' changes into a 'intangible network of force which weaves itself into our slightest gestures and most intimate utterances' (Eagleton). In this case, ideology is bound and limited to political power gains, without which the term 'ideology' would cease to exist. It is important to note here that "ideologies are the outcome and function of given relations of production and the class interests they give rise to. They are extensions and instruments of this regime of power - they conceal and 'mask' these relations of domination and the various social contradictions they give rise to" (Purvis & Hunt). Ideology definition can be further fine-tuned to include the fact that it exists when it can discriminate between power that acts on a respective social order, and the one that is not. Ideologies "are extensions and instruments of this regime of power - they conceal and 'mask' these relations of domination and the various social contradictions they give rise to" (Purvis & Hunt). Ideology in other words is the means with which men, as social animals, define rules for their socio-political conflicts; the process which uses power to uphold certain social levels; or as Althusser aptly said, "the organization of signifying practices which goes to constitute human being as social subjects, and which produces he lived relations by which such subjects are connected to the dominant relations of production in a society.'(Eagleton). Ideology is a deifinite set of social beliefs deeply entrenched in the psyche of the group and shared in equal measure by a group, used for organizing other social forms or beliefs through attitudinal influence. Ideology can be applied to categories of abstract groups such as identity and people relationships, as also to norms, communal aims, and values. It is in this context that the ideology determines what is good or right (we) and what is bad or wrong (they) and controls our grasp of the reality around ourselves and the world. Eagleton wisely points out here, "One reason why moral judgements do not seem to us as solid as judgements about the physical world, is that we live in a society where there are fundamental conflicts of value." (Eagleton). Here ideology can also be interpreted as knowledge. Knowledge which shared and internalized by a certain group of people. Knowledge is not synonimous with idelogy, it is rather the basis of a any structured group ideology. Oherwise put, ideology can also be interpreted as specifically focussed knowledge which is shared by a social group. When you look at ideology from this angle, the relationship between ideology, knowledge and discourse can be visible. Knowledge becomes the fundamental base for the construction and understanding of discourse. Keeping in mind that group knowledge shared by a social group will most definitely be ideologically biased; this concept should spill over in the discourse. However, there exists knowledge outside this social group which is non-ideological which forms a common ground for communication, though not translated directly into discourse. In order to change an ideology a great number of discourses and experiences are needed. As Eagleton indicates, "If someone really does believe that all childless women are thwarted and embittered, introducing him to as many ecstatic childfree women as possible might persuade him to change his mind. To deny that ideology is fundamentally an affair of reason is not to conclude that it is immune to rational considerations altogether." (Eagleton) Concept of Discourse By definition, discourse is a linguistic unit consisting of a number of sentences such as discussions, arguments, speeches or conversations. As per Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary online the word discourse means: noun FORMAL 1. [U] Communication in speech or writing. 2. [C] a speech or piece of writing about a particular, usually serious. In social sciences by 'discourse' it is meant an institutionalized thought which draws boundaries of defines the limits of a particular topic. For example: the discourse of postmodern theories binds the mind of the believer of this theory to open up borders of literature and venture into terrain or territories that they believe to have never been ventured before. They put up the slogan to break all boundaries and existing map contours. Applying all these techniques of openness they did also applied a number of doctrines those ultimately bound this ideology into yet another closed door discussion. Thus the discourse of postmodernism did draw a line for this ideology of postmodernism. Socially speaking, a discourse is the ever pervasive means in a society which affects our behavior, attitude and thought. Discourses determine the positive and negative interpretation of the same subject, and in turn set the ideology of a set of people. Discourse can be translated into defining reality as perceived by an individual or social group. Discourse "derives its significance from its central role in the linguistic turn in modern social theory. Provides a term with which to grasp the way in which language and other forms of social semiotics not merely convey social experience, but play a major part in constituting social subjects" (Purvis & Hunt). In the same context when ideologies are so much influenced and controlled by discourse there must be a certain order of movement from discourse to ideology. For example, discourses follow a structure code such as 'ours' or 'we' when referring to the in-group and 'their' or 'they' when referring to the out-group. All variables in a discourse will bear a definite ideological mark. Of course, only the contextual variable of the structure of a discourse may be influenced; the grammatical ones cannot be changed ideologically because it belongs to the language which is neutral to any ideology, with the exception maybe of gender ideology where the structure variable are more ideologically sensitive. Hence, the ideological discourse can be reflected in a general strategy to positively project the in-group and negatively represent the out-group. This strategy applies to all walks of life whereby there is high emphasis on 'our' good things and low emphasis on bad things, while for the other (out-group) it is opposite, i.e. emphasize the bad and reduce emphasis on their good. Hence, discourses are not static, totalized, or idealized unison of terminology and significances, rather dynamic interest fields which reflect tensions, conflicts, engagements and contradictions. According to Foucauldian notion of discourse, "'Subjects' along with their means to reflect upon themselves, are discursively constituted." (Purvis & Hunt). Ideology and discourse From the above it can be said that ideology can be termed as the ground beliefs that motivate an explicit social group. This in turn forms the base for discourse and social norms or practices. Hence, there is the assumption that an ideology is disseminated and assimilated by discourse as represented in written and/or spoken communication and interaction. In other words, when a group legitimizes their actions through explanations and motivational communication, they use ideological discourse. "Ideologies are directly and forcefully linked to class interests, to ensuring and protecting certain relations of production, while discourses are certainly linked to power, it is often via certain formations of knowledge, particular social constructions of the world which typically extend the interests of certain institutional bases." (Purvis & Hunt) There is a great tendency to classify ideology and discourse on the same syntax. However, once you reduce the ideology to the level of discourse, it will not be possible to have any ideological studies of different social practices. Discourses do not explicitly and exclusively express ideologies and the surmise that discourses are more visible than minds is not well founded. In fact, ideological discourse acts as a bridge between ideology and discourse, both being two different, dynamic theoretical objects. The discourse theory "arises from an intellectual climate where the role of language, structures and communicative interaction are prioritized [and] attempts to effect a breach with pervasive dualities by starting with language as defining character and condition of sociality" (Purvis & Hunt) A group's ideological structure is gradually developed by continuous application of ideological discourse. For example, children have very little or no ideological notions. It develops with time as they grow older. The driving force behind this development is mostly economical. Other factors to this advancement towards 'coming to age' could be enumerated as social, religious, parental, political, environmental and sometimes genetically inherited. Incidental or other wandering or floating factors should also be taken into consideration while determining the development tendency. People translate discourses into mental models. While some ideologies are imbibed quickly and intimately with a top-down approach, like religion, political affiliation, etc. The study bringing to light the many kinds of structure and types of discourses will be very complex in its dissection of the way and means of reproduction and dissemination of ideology within the social group as a whole. This is particularly ideological discourses are very rarely a direct manifestation of the primary ideology. "Discourses are not representations of a more or less distorted reality. Discourses should be understood as 'economies' with their own intrinsic technologies, tactics, effects of power, which is turn they transmit." (Purvis & Hunt) Since ideology has multidisciplinary theory background, the relationship between ideology and discourse has been narrowed down. Discourses and more accurately ideological discourses are the creation of representations of social groups whose underlying ideologies control and bias their mental models. This explains the why and how ideological discourses are created and assimilated by the social groups and internalized by its constituent members. Hence, it is clear that ideology is not exclusively projected by discourse, so it these two terms though similar, cannot be interchangeable, since ideology can be expressed and projected through a number of varied social norms and values along with other variables like religious, parental, political, environmental and sometimes genetically inherited. However, the acquisition of an ideology, its legitimization and other ideological parameters totally relate to knowledge and are mostly discursive. While ideology "implies the existence of some link between 'interests' and 'forms of consciousness', interests are identifiable in a form that is distinguishable from the form in which these interests are experienced" (Purvis & Hunt). Discourse on the other hand, "remains self-consciously neutral or skeptical about whether discourse as a form of existence is connected with elements, such as are invoked by notions of interest, that are external to the discursive content of lived experience". (Purvis & Hunt). When the ideologies are translated into discourse, they are articulated using the same ideology's structures, such as the in-group and out-group polarization from positive 'we' to negative 'they'. Hence, few discourses are not controlled ideologically; and none of the structures of discourse consists of exclusively ideological utility and function. "Discourses are not representations of a more or less distorted reality. Discourses should be understood as 'economies' with their own intrinsic technologies, tactics, effects of power, which in turn they transmit." (Purvis & Hunt) The notion of ideology is a product of knowledge which extends itself from thought to experience, based on the dualism action theory oscillating between action and consciousness. Discourse on the other hand is almost exclusive to thinking and is a product of an unequal mix of knowledge and language representation. Both are linked to power, but differently. Ideologies protect and promote certain power of social interests, while discourse is an extension of the ideological behavior. With ideology the notion of truth is distorted as it relies heavily on the group's interpretation of truth and falsity. Hence, ideologies are slightly 'distorted ideas'; while with discourse 'truth' and 'falsity' are its functional constituents. The limitations of ideology can be highlighted with the help of the notion of discourse in terms of definition and applications, subject vs object. Ideology cannot exist without discourse, while discourse can exist without ideology, theoretically speaking. In terms of definition, ideologies always stand 'in virtual opposition to something that counts as truth' in Foucault's terms while discourse have their own intrinsic functional vitality. While ideologies are objective, discourse is subjective. Ideology cannot be promoted, disseminated or assimilated without discourse, whether written or spoken. Its limitations are defined by the notion of discourse since ideologies attract attention to the externality of an experience which is internalized in the concept of thinking and living experience. Ideology cannot focus on the internal features of social action. Discourse is not necessarily related to the humanist side, as Freeden observes "one of the central features of being human. That crucial factor prevents the perceived world from being meaningless or random to its viewers, although students of ideology will always challenge the permanence or absoluteness of the articulated, hegemonic, discourse". (Freeden) In conclusion both discourse and ideology complement each other "shifting between disparate interpretations of the world and in refashioning those interpretations, particularly in a society that encourages ideological diversity" (Freeden). They are mighty different in approach, theory, form and relationship and even their views on truth and reality. The discourse will not be able to replace ideology since it is too straight-jacketed and ideology cannot be promoted and sustained without ideological discourse through which assimilation of beliefs, thoughts and disseminations of views and attitudes can circulate among social groups. Each notion has its own limitations, but if they are used together they complement each other beautifully - discourse giving new depth and accurate definition to ideology, while ideology gives discourse "the urges to shake off the organization of the world into two great realms of mental and material". It is obvious that one cannot in reality exist with meaning within social context, without being complemented by the other. While ideology tends to "expand to a vanishing point [] for a term to have meaning , it must be possible to specify what, in particular circumstances, would count as the other of it - which does not necessarily mean specifying something which would be always and everyone the other of it" (Eagleton) This is totally balanced by the notion of discourse which is more related to the humanist side as Freeden mentions "that crucial factor prevents the perceived world from being meaningless or random to its viewers, although students of ideology will always challenge the permanence or absoluteness of the articulated, hegemonic, discourse". (Freeden) Reference: Eagleton, T. Ideology: an introduction. Chapter 1 'What is ideology' Verso, 1991. pp. 1- 31. Freeden, Michael. Ideology: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2003): pp. 103-113. Purvis, T. & A. Hunt. "Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology." British Journal of Sociology Vol. 44,3. (1993): pp. 473-499. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.aspkey=22199&dict=CALD http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.aspkey=38923&dict=CALD Read More