Hubbry Logo
IdeologyIdeologyMain
Open search
Ideology
Community hub
Ideology
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Ideology
Ideology
Ideology
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

An ideology is a set of beliefs or values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely about belief in certain knowledge,[1][2] in which "practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones".[3] Formerly applied primarily to economic, political, or religious theories and policies, in a tradition going back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, more recent use treats the term as mainly condemnatory.[4]

The term was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy, a French Enlightenment aristocrat and philosopher, who conceived it in 1796 as the "science of ideas" to develop a rational system of ideas to oppose the irrational impulses of the mob. In political science, the term is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems.[4]

Etymology

[edit]
Antoine Destutt de Tracy coined the term ideology.

The term ideology originates from French idéologie, itself coined from combining Greek: idéā (ἰδέα, 'notion, pattern'; close to the Lockean sense of idea) and -logíā (-λογῐ́ᾱ, 'the study of').

An ideologue is someone who strongly believes in an ideology. The term carries negative connotations, often referring to someone who is blindly partisan, zealous, or fanatical in their beliefs.

History

[edit]

The term "ideology" and the system of ideas associated with it were developed in 1796 by Antoine Destutt de Tracy (1754–1836), who crystallised his ideas while in prison (November 1793 to October 1794) pending trial during the Reign of Terror of c. 1793 to July 1794. While imprisoned he read the works of Locke and Étienne Bonnot de Condillac.[5]

Hoping to form a secure foundation for the moral and political sciences, Tracy devised the term for a "science of ideas", basing such upon two things: (1) the sensations that people experience as they interact with the material world; and (2) the ideas that form in their minds due to those sensations. Tracy conceived of ideology as a liberal philosophy that would defend individual liberty, property, free markets, and constitutional limits on state power. He argues that, among these aspects, ideology is the most generic term because the 'science of ideas' also contains the study of their expression and deduction.[6] The coup d'état that overthrew Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794 allowed Tracy to pursue his work.[6][need quotation to verify] Tracy reacted to the terroristic phase of the revolution (during the Napoleonic regime of 1799 to 1815 as part of the Napoleonic Wars)[clarification needed] by trying to work out a rational system of ideas to oppose the irrational mob-impulses that had nearly destroyed him.

A subsequent early source for the near-original meaning of ideology is Hippolyte Taine's work on the Ancien Régime, Origins of Contemporary France (French: Les Origines de la France Contemporaine) volume I (1875). He describes ideology as rather like teaching philosophy via the Socratic method, though without extending the vocabulary beyond what the general reader already possessed, and without the examples from observation that practical science would require. Taine identifies it not just with Tracy but also with his milieu, and includes Condillac as one of its precursors.

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821) came to view ideology as a term of abuse, which he often hurled against his liberal foes in Tracy's Institut national.[citation needed] According to Karl Mannheim's historical reconstruction of the shifts in the meaning of ideology, the modern meaning of the word was born when Napoleon used it to describe his opponents as "the ideologues".[citation needed] Tracy's major book, The Elements of Ideology (French: Élémens d'idéologie, published 1804–1815), was soon translated into major European languages.

In the century following Tracy's formulations, the term ideology moved back and forth between positive and negative connotations. When post-Napoleonic governments adopted a reactionary stance, the concept influenced the Italian, Spanish and Russian thinkers who had begun to describe themselves as liberals and who attempted to reignite revolutionary activity in the early 1820s, including the Carbonari societies in France and Italy and the Decembrists in Russia. Karl Marx (1818–1883) adopted Napoleon's negative sense of the term, using it in his writings, in which he once described Tracy as a fischblütige Bourgeoisdoktrinär (a "fish-blooded bourgeois doctrinaire").[7] The term has since dropped some of its pejorative sting (euphemism treadmill), and has become a neutral term in the analysis of differing political opinions and views of social groups.[8] While Marx situated the term within class struggle and domination,[9][10] others believed it was a necessary part of institutional functioning and social integration.[11]

In parallel with post-Soviet Russian ideas about the mono-ideologies of (for example) monotheism, Walter Brueggemann (1933–2025) has examined "ideological extension" in historical religious/political contexts.[12]

Definitions and analysis

[edit]

There are many different kinds of ideologies, including political, social, epistemological, and ethical. Recent analysis tends to posit that ideology is a 'coherent system of ideas' that rely on a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis. Through this system, ideas become coherent, repeated patterns through the subjective ongoing choices that people make. These ideas serve as the seed around which further thought grows. The belief in an ideology can range from passive acceptance up to fervent advocacy. Definitions, such as by Manfred Steger and Paul James, emphasize both the issue of patterning and contingent claims to truth. They wrote: "Ideologies are patterned clusters of normatively imbued ideas and concepts, including particular representations of power relations. These conceptual maps help people navigate the complexity of their political universe and carry claims to social truth."[13]

Studies of the concept of ideology itself (rather than specific ideologies) have been carried out under the name of systematic ideology in the works of George Walford and Harold Walsby, who attempt to explore the relationships between ideology and social systems.[example needed] David W. Minar describes six different ways the word ideology has been used:[14]

  1. As a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative;
  2. As the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set;
  3. By the role ideas play in human-social interaction;
  4. By the role ideas play in the structure of an organization;
  5. As meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and
  6. As the locus of social interaction.

For Willard A. Mullins, an ideology should be contrasted with the related (but different) issues of utopia and historical myth. An ideology is composed of four basic characteristics:[15]

  1. it must have power over cognition;
  2. it must be capable of guiding one's evaluations;
  3. it must provide guidance towards action; and
  4. it must be logically coherent.

Terry Eagleton outlines (more or less in no particular order) some definitions of ideology:[16]

  1. The process of production of meanings, signs and values in social life
  2. A body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class
  3. Ideas that help legitimate a dominant political power
  4. False ideas that help legitimate a dominant political power
  5. Systematically distorted communication
  6. Ideas that offer a position for a subject
  7. Forms of thought motivated by social interests
  8. Identity thinking
  9. Socially necessary illusion
  10. The conjuncture of discourse and power
  11. The medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world
  12. Action-oriented sets of beliefs
  13. The confusion of linguistic and phenomenal reality
  14. Semiotic closure[16]: 197 
  15. The indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relations to a social structure
  16. The process that converts social life to a natural reality

German philosopher Christian Duncker called for a "critical reflection of the ideology concept".[17] In his work, he strove to bring the concept of ideology into the foreground, as well as the closely connected concerns of epistemology and history, defining ideology in terms of a system of presentations that explicitly or implicitly lay claim to absolute truth.

Marxist interpretation

[edit]
Karl Marx posits that a society's dominant ideology is integral to its superstructure.

Marx's analysis sees ideology as a system of consciousness that arises from economic relationships, reflecting and perpetuating the interests of the dominant class.[18]

In the Marxist base and superstructure model of society, base denotes the relations of production and modes of production, and superstructure denotes the dominant ideology (i.e. religious, legal, political systems). The economic base of production determines the political superstructure of a society. Ruling class-interests determine the superstructure and the nature of the justifying ideology—actions feasible because the ruling class control the means of production. For example, in a feudal mode of production, religious ideology is the most prominent aspect of the superstructure, while in capitalist formations, ideologies such as liberalism and social democracy dominate. Hence the great importance of ideology justifies a society and politically confuses the alienated groups of society via false consciousness. Some explanations have been presented. Antonio Gramsci uses cultural hegemony to explain why the working-class have a false ideological conception of what their best interests are. Marx argued: "The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production."[19]

The Marxist formulation of "ideology as an instrument of social reproduction" is conceptually important to the sociology of knowledge,[20] viz. Karl Mannheim, Daniel Bell, and Jürgen Habermas et al. Moreover, Mannheim has developed and progressed from the "total" but "special" Marxist conception of ideology to a "general" and "total" ideological conception acknowledging that all ideology (including Marxism) resulted from social life, an idea developed by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Slavoj Žižek and the earlier Frankfurt School added to the "general theory" of ideology a psychoanalytic insight that ideologies do not include only conscious but also unconscious ideas.

Ideology and the commodity (Debord)

[edit]

The French Marxist theorist Guy Debord, founding member of the Situationist International, argued that when the commodity becomes the "essential category" of society, i.e. when the process of commodification has been consummated to its fullest extent, the image of society propagated by the commodity (as it describes all of life as constituted by notions and objects deriving their value only as commodities tradeable in terms of exchange value), colonizes all of life and reduces society to a mere representation, The Society of the Spectacle.[21]

Unifying agents (Hoffer)

[edit]

The American philosopher Eric Hoffer identified several elements that unify followers of a particular ideology:[22]

  1. Hatred: "Mass movements can rise and spread without a God, but never without belief in a devil."[22] The "ideal devil" is a foreigner.[22]: 93 
  2. Imitation: "The less satisfaction we derive from being ourselves, the greater is our desire to be like others…the more we mistrust our judgment and luck, the more are we ready to follow the example of others."[22]: 101–2 
  3. Persuasion: The proselytizing zeal of propagandists derives from "a passionate search for something not yet found more than a desire to bestow something we already have."[22]: 110 
  4. Coercion: Hoffer asserts that violence and fanaticism are interdependent. People forcibly converted to Islamic or communist beliefs become as fanatical as those who did the forcing. He says: "It takes fanatical faith to rationalize our cowardice."[22]: 107–8 
  5. Leadership: Without the leader, there is no movement. Often the leader must wait long in the wings until the time is ripe. He calls for sacrifices in the present, to justify his vision of a breathtaking future. The skills required include: audacity, brazenness, iron will, fanatical conviction; passionate hatred, cunning, a delight in symbols; ability to inspire blind faith in the masses; and a group of able lieutenants.[22]: 112–4  Charlatanism is indispensable, and the leader often imitates both friend and foe, "a single-minded fashioning after a model." He will not lead followers towards the "promised land", but only "away from their unwanted selves".[22]: 116–9 
  6. Action: Original thoughts are suppressed, and unity encouraged, if the masses are kept occupied through great projects, marches, exploration and industry.[22]: 120–1 
  7. Suspicion: "There is prying and spying, tense watching and a tense awareness of being watched." This pathological mistrust goes unchallenged and encourages conformity, not dissent.[22]: 124 

Ronald Inglehart

[edit]

Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan is author of the World Values Survey, which, since 1980, has mapped social attitudes in 100 countries representing 90% of global population. Results indicate that where people live is likely to closely correlate with their ideological beliefs. In much of Africa, South Asia and the Middle East, people prefer traditional beliefs and are less tolerant of liberal values. Protestant Europe, at the other extreme, adheres more to secular beliefs and liberal values. Alone among high-income countries, the United States is exceptional in its adherence to traditional beliefs, in this case Christianity.

Political ideologies

[edit]
See also: List of political ideologies

In political science, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, offering some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. Political ideologies are concerned with many different aspects of a society, including but not limited to: the economy, the government, the environment, education, health care, labor law, criminal law, the justice system, social security and welfare, public policy and administration, foreign policy, rights, freedoms and duties, citizenship, immigration, culture and national identity, military administration, and religion.

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

  1. Goals: how society should work; and
  2. Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends power should be used. Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them. Each political ideology contains certain ideas on what it considers the best form of government (e.g., democracy, demagogy, theocracy, caliphate etc.), scope of government (e.g. authoritarianism, libertarianism, federalism, etc.) and the best economic system (e.g. capitalism, socialism, etc.). Sometimes the same word is used to identify both an ideology and one of its main ideas. For instance, socialism may refer to an economic system, or it may refer to an ideology that supports that economic system. Post 1991, many commentators claim that we are living in a post-ideological age,[23] in which redemptive, all-encompassing ideologies have failed. This view is often associated with Francis Fukuyama's writings on the end of history.[24] Contrastly, Nienhueser (2011) sees research (in the field of human resource management) as ongoingly "generating ideology".[25]

There are many proposed methods for the classification of political ideologies. Ideologies can identify themselves by their position on the political spectrum (e.g. left, center, or right). They may also be distinguished by single issues around which they may be built (e.g. civil libertarianism, support or opposition to European integration, legalization of marijuana). They may also be distinguished by political strategies (e.g. populism, personalism). The classification of political ideology is difficult, however, due to cultural relativity in definitions. For example, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism"; a conservatism in Finland would be labeled socialism in the United States.[26]

Philosopher Michael Oakeshott defines single-issue ideologies as "the formalized abridgment of the supposed sub-stratum of the rational truth contained in the tradition". Moreover, Charles Blattberg offers an account that distinguishes political ideologies from political philosophies.[27]

Slavoj Žižek argues how the very notion of post-ideology can enable the deepest, blindest form of ideology. A sort of false consciousness or false cynicism, engaged in for the purpose of lending one's point of view the respect of being objective, pretending neutral cynicism, without truly being so. Rather than help avoiding ideology, this lapse only deepens the commitment to an existing one. Zizek calls this "a post-modernist trap".[28] Peter Sloterdijk advanced the same idea already in 1988.[29]

Studies have shown that political ideology is somewhat genetically heritable.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

Ideology and state

[edit]
Main article: Ideocracy

When a political ideology becomes a dominantly pervasive component within a government, one can speak of an ideocracy.[37] Different forms of government use ideology in various ways, not always restricted to politics and society. Certain ideas and schools of thought become favored, or rejected, over others, depending on their compatibility with or use for the reigning social order.

In The Anatomy of Revolution, Crane Brinton said that new ideology spreads when there is discontent with an old regime.[38] The may be repeated during revolutions itself; extremists such as Vladimir Lenin and Robespierre may thus overcome more moderate revolutionaries.[39] This stage is soon followed by Thermidor, a reining back of revolutionary enthusiasm under pragmatists like Napoleon and Joseph Stalin, who bring "normalcy and equilibrium".[40] Brinton's sequence ("men of ideas>fanatics>practical men of action") is reiterated by J. William Fulbright,[41] while a similar form occurs in Eric Hoffer's The True Believer.[42]

Epistemological ideologies

[edit]

Even when the challenging of existing beliefs is encouraged, as in scientific theories, the dominant paradigm or mindset can prevent certain challenges, theories, or experiments from being advanced. A special case of science that has inspired ideology is ecology, which studies the relationships among living things on Earth. Perceptual psychologist James J. Gibson believed that human perception of ecological relationships was the basis of self-awareness and cognition itself.[43] Linguist George Lakoff has proposed a cognitive science of mathematics wherein even the most fundamental ideas of arithmetic would be seen as consequences or products of human perception—which is itself necessarily evolved within an ecology.[44]

Deep ecology and the modern ecology movement (and, to a lesser degree, Green parties) appear to have adopted ecological sciences as a positive ideology.[45] Some notable economically based ideologies include neoliberalism, monetarism, mercantilism, mixed economy, social Darwinism, communism, laissez-faire economics, and free trade. There are also current theories of safe trade and fair trade that can be seen as ideologies.

Psychological explanations of ideology

[edit]

A large amount of research in psychology is concerned with the causes, consequences and content of ideology,[46][47][48] with humans being dubbed the "ideological animal" by Althusser.[49]: 269  Many theories have tried to explain the existence of ideology in human societies.[49]: 269 

Jost, Ledgerwood, and Hardin (2008) propose that ideologies may function as prepackaged units of interpretation that spread because of basic human motives to understand the world, avoid existential threat, and maintain valued interpersonal relationships.[50] The authors conclude that such motives may lead disproportionately to the adoption of system-justifying worldviews.[51] Psychologists generally agree that personality traits, individual difference variables, needs, and ideological beliefs seem to have something in common.[51]

Just-world theory posits that people want to believe in a fair world for a sense of control and security and generate ideologies in order to maintain this belief, for example by justifiying inequality or unfortunate events. A critique of just world theory as a sole explanation of ideology is that it does not explain the differences between ideologies.[49]: 270–271 

Terror management theory posits that ideology is used as a defence mechanism against threats to their worldview which in turn protect and individuals sense of self-esteem and reduce their awareness of mortality. Evidence shows that priming individuals with an awareness of mortality does not cause individuals to respond in ways underpinned by any particular ideology, but rather the ideology that they are currently aware of.[49]: 271 

System justification theory posits that people tend to defend existing society, even at times against their interest, which in turn causes people to create ideological explanations to justify the status quo. Jost, Fitzimmons and Kay argue that the motivation to protect a preexisting system is due to a desire for cognitive consistency (being able to think in similar ways over time), reducing uncertainty and reducing effort, illusion of control and fear of equality.[49]: 272  According to system justification theory,[50] ideologies reflect (unconscious) motivational processes, as opposed to the view that political convictions always reflect independent and unbiased thinking.[50]

Ideology and the social sciences

[edit]

Semiotic theory

[edit]

According to semiotician Bob Hodge:[52]

[Ideology] identifies a unitary object that incorporates complex sets of meanings with the social agents and processes that produced them. No other term captures this object as well as 'ideology'. Foucault's 'episteme' is too narrow and abstract, not social enough. His 'discourse', popular because it covers some of ideology's terrain with less baggage, is too confined to verbal systems. 'Worldview' is too metaphysical, 'propaganda' too loaded. Despite or because of its contradictions, 'ideology' still plays a key role in semiotics oriented to social, political life.

Authors such as Michael Freeden have also recently incorporated a semantic analysis to the study of ideologies.

Sociology

[edit]

Sociologists define ideology as "cultural beliefs that justify particular social arrangements, including patterns of inequality".[53] Dominant groups use these sets of cultural beliefs and practices to justify the systems of inequality that maintain their group's social power over non-dominant groups. Ideologies use a society's symbol system to organize social relations in a hierarchy, with some social identities being superior to other social identities, which are considered inferior. The dominant ideology in a society is passed along through the society's major social institutions, such as the media, the family, education, and religion.[54] As societies changed throughout history, so did the ideologies that justified systems of inequality.[53]

Sociological examples of ideologies include racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and ethnocentrism.[54]

Quotations

[edit]
  • "We do not need…to believe in an ideology. All that is necessary is for each of us to develop our good human qualities. The need for a sense of universal responsibility affects every aspect of modern life." — Dalai Lama[55]
  • "The function of ideology is to stabilize and perpetuate dominance through masking or illusion." — Sally Haslanger[56]
  • "[A]n ideology differs from a simple opinion in that it claims to possess either the key to history, or the solution for all the 'riddles of the universe,' or the intimate knowledge of the hidden universal laws, which are supposed to rule nature and man." — Hannah Arendt[57]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ideology

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Ideology refers to a coherent set of ideas, beliefs, and values that provide a framework for interpreting reality, justifying social arrangements, and directing collective action, often in political, economic, or moral domains. The term originated in 1796 when French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy coined idéologie to describe a proposed "science of ideas," aimed at analyzing the origins and operations of human thought through empirical observation of sensory inputs and physiological processes. Initially envisioned as a tool for rational reform and education during the Enlightenment, ideology later acquired pejorative connotations, notably when Napoleon Bonaparte dismissed its proponents as idéologues for their abstract theorizing detached from practical governance. In the 19th century, Karl Marx reframed ideologies as systematic distortions that obscure underlying material conditions and class antagonisms, serving to perpetuate ruling-class dominance rather than reveal objective truths. Despite such critiques, ideologies have structured modern societies by mobilizing populations around visions of progress, justice, or order, though empirical studies indicate they often simplify complex causal realities, fostering polarization and resistance to disconfirming evidence. Key characteristics include their totalizing nature, reliance on foundational assumptions about human nature and society, and capacity to legitimize power structures, as seen in liberal emphasis on individual rights, socialist focus on collective equity, and conservative prioritization of tradition and hierarchy. Controversies surrounding ideology highlight its dual role: enabling coordinated pursuit of shared goals while risking dogmatism, suppression of dissent, and conflict when incompatible systems clash, as evidenced in historical upheavals from revolutions to totalitarian regimes.

Definition and Core Concepts

Etymology and Terminology

The term "ideology" was coined in 1796 by French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy as idéologie, derived from the Greek roots idea (ἰδέα, meaning "form" or "idea") and logos (λόγος, meaning "study" or "science"), literally translating to "the science of ideas." Destutt de Tracy envisioned ideology as a systematic empirical study of the origins, formation, and application of human ideas, grounded in sensory experience and intended to underpin moral and political sciences for rational social reform during the French Enlightenment. This original conception positioned ideology as a neutral, scientific discipline akin to physiology or psychology, aimed at tracing ideas back to their physiological and environmental causes to eliminate error and superstition in thought. Early adoption by the Idéologues—a group of French intellectuals including Destutt de Tracy—emphasized ideology's role in education and governance, but the term quickly acquired connotations under Napoleon Bonaparte, who derided idéologues as impractical visionaries peddling "metaphysical trash" detached from real-world exigencies. This shift marked ideology's transition from a positive descriptor of rigorous inquiry to a label for abstract, erroneous theorizing that hindered practical action, influencing its usage in early 19th-century discourse. In the mid-19th century, repurposed the term critically in (written 1845–1846, published posthumously), defining ideology as a of inverted, illusory ideas generated by material conditions, serving to mask class domination and present ruling-class interests as universal truths. Marx's formulation—building on Napoleon's disdain but inverting it toward causal analysis of —entrenched ideology's association with distortion and power, diverging sharply from Destutt de Tracy's empirical intent, though Marx occasionally used it more neutrally for any doctrinal system. Subsequent terminology evolved to encompass broader senses, including coherent sets of political beliefs or worldviews, often retaining undertones of systematic bias or commitment, as seen in 20th-century analyses distinguishing "end of ideology" theses from persistent ideological formations.

Primary Definitions

![Antoine Destutt de Tracy][float-right] The term ideology was first systematically defined by French philosopher Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796 as the "science of ideas," a discipline aimed at analyzing the origins, nature, and validity of human thought through empirical observation of sensory experiences and mental processes. This conception positioned ideology as a neutral, scientific inquiry into epistemology, akin to a branch of psychology or zoology, intended to uncover how ideas form and influence behavior without presupposing metaphysical assumptions. Tracy's framework emphasized tracing ideas back to their physiological and environmental causes, rejecting innate knowledge in favor of Lockean empiricism extended by Condillac's sensationalism. In political philosophy, ideology has since been redefined as a structured set of beliefs, values, and doctrines that provide a comprehensive worldview, guiding evaluations of social order, power distribution, and policy prescriptions. This includes assertions about human nature, ideal governance, economic organization, and moral priorities, often functioning to legitimize or challenge existing institutions. For instance, political ideologies such as liberalism or conservatism articulate principles for achieving societal goals, with liberalism prioritizing individual rights and market mechanisms while conservatism emphasizes tradition and hierarchical stability, each supported by historical precedents like the 1689 English Bill of Rights for the former and Edmund Burke's 1790 Reflections on the Revolution in France for the latter. Karl Mannheim expanded the concept in 1929 by distinguishing "particular" ideologies—specific distortions serving group interests—from "total" ideologies, which encompass an entire epoch's thought patterns shaped by social location. This relational view posits ideologies not as isolated errors but as inevitable products of historical and class contexts, enabling comparative analysis across perspectives without absolute neutrality. Modern scholarly definitions converge on ideology as interconnected beliefs about the "proper order of and how it can be achieved," influencing voter and as evidenced by longitudinal studies like the American National Election Studies since 1952, where ideological self-identification correlates with issue positions on taxation and welfare at rates exceeding 0.6 Pearson's r. These definitions underscore ideology's dual role in descriptive explanation and prescriptive action, though critiques from sources like the Stanford highlight risks of usage conflating it with mere "false beliefs" supporting illegitimate power, a framing often traced to Marxist influences but contested for overlooking ideologies' adaptive functions in coordinating collective endeavors. Ideology differs from primarily in its orientation toward practical social and political application rather than abstract inquiry into fundamental truths. Coined by in the late as the "science of ideas" aimed at grounding moral and political sciences in , ideology initially sought to analyze how ideas form and influence action, but it evolved to emphasize prescriptive frameworks for societal organization, often prioritizing collective goals over disinterested truth-seeking. In contrast, pursues systematic reasoning about , , , and , without inherent commitment to partisan implementation; post-World War II conflations have blurred this line, as ideological commitments increasingly masquerade as philosophical discourse. Whereas a constitutes an individual's or group's comprehensive set of assumptions about the of —what is believed to be true—ideology functions as a structured subset that prescribes what ought to be right, channeling those assumptions into actionable doctrines for or preservation. operate as interpretive lenses for personal and existential understanding, potentially encompassing metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological elements without necessitating organized advocacy; ideologies, however, aggregate ideas into coherent systems that legitimize power structures or mobilize groups, often exhibiting rigidity that resists empirical falsification. Religion and ideology overlap as belief systems shaping behavior, yet diverge in their foundational mechanisms: religions typically invoke transcendent or supernatural authorities, demanding faith amid unverifiable claims about divine order, whereas ideologies ground themselves in immanent, human-derived rationales—frequently secular and instrumental—to justify ends through means-end calculations. This secular bent renders ideologies more adaptable to empirical critique but prone to dogmatic enforcement via policy or propaganda, as seen in 20th-century totalitarian regimes where ideological purity supplanted religious orthodoxy. Doctrines, by comparison, represent narrower codifications of teachings within ideologies or religions, lacking the latter's broader explanatory ambition for societal totality.

Historical Development

Origins in Enlightenment Thought

The concept of ideology originated in the late Enlightenment period as an attempt to systematize human thought through empirical analysis. , a French philosopher and aristocrat, introduced the term idéologie in 1796 during his lectures at the Institut National de France, defining it as the "science of ideas" derived from sensory perceptions rather than innate or metaphysical sources. This formulation built directly on the sensationalist of Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, who in works like Essai sur l'origine des connaissances humaines (1746) posited that all complex ideas stem from simple sensations transformed through reflection and association. Tracy's project sought to trace the genesis and validity of ideas to purify language, education, and political reasoning from errors rooted in unexamined assumptions. Tracy and his associates, known as the Idéologues—a group including Pierre-Jean-Georges Cabanis and Joseph-Marie Degérando—operated within the moral and political sciences section of the Institut, established in 1795 amid the French Revolution's aftermath. Influenced by John Locke's as mediated through Condillac, they aimed to apply this "ideological" method to society by grounding and in verifiable human faculties rather than or divine right. Their multi-volume Éléments d'idéologie (1801–1815) elaborated this framework, arguing that understanding idea formation enables rational policy-making, such as in and , to align with natural human capacities. This Enlightenment-derived approach contrasted with revolutionary excesses by emphasizing moderate, evidence-based over ideological fervor, though it later drew criticism from Napoleon Bonaparte, who pejoratively labeled the group idéologues for their perceived impractical abstraction. The Idéologues' ideology represented a culmination of 18th-century efforts to replace speculative with observational , echoing David Hume's toward unsubstantiated causal claims while extending it to practical domains. By , Napoleon's suppression of the Institut's moral sciences class reflected tensions between this rationalist program and authoritarian consolidation, yet Tracy's ideas persisted in influencing liberal thought, including Thomas Jefferson's translations and endorsements. This origin underscores ideology's initial positive connotation as a tool for enlightenment and progress, predicated on causal realism in tracing mental processes to empirical origins.

19th-Century Formulations

In the early , the concept of ideology, initially framed by Antoine-Louis-Claude Destutt de Tracy as a neutral of ideas aimed at analyzing sensations and forming clear thought, began to shift toward usage under Bonaparte's influence. By 1812, criticized the idéologues—intellectuals aligned with Tracy's school—as visionary speculators whose abstract theories undermined practical administration and , associating ideology with impractical utopianism disconnected from empirical realities of power. This derogatory connotation portrayed ideology as a distortion of reality serving personal or factional agendas rather than objective . Mid-century formulations marked a deeper theoretical turn, particularly through and ' critique in their 1845–1846 manuscript . Rejecting Hegelian and Feuerbachian as insufficiently grounded in production relations, Marx and Engels defined ideology as the inverted reflection of material conditions, where dominant ideas emanate from the 's economic base to legitimize exploitation. They asserted: "The ideas of the are in every the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force." This materialist inversion likened ideology to a "," obscuring the true causal primacy of labor and production while presenting class interests as eternal truths. Their framework emphasized ideology's role in , arguing that philosophical critiques divorced from merely perpetuate illusions of autonomy, as "life is not determined by , but by life." This formulation positioned ideology not as neutral but as a causally dependent on the economic base, influencing subsequent analyses of power and despite criticisms of its deterministic . Parallel developments saw ideology invoked positively among early socialists and liberals, who formulated programmatic visions for societal reform, such as and labor protections, contrasting metaphysical abstractions with concrete historical progress. However, these lacked the systematic causal of Marx and Engels, often retaining Tracy's optimistic in ideas as drivers of enlightenment absent rigorous scrutiny of material incentives.

20th-Century Expansions and Shifts

In the early , extended the concept of ideology beyond Marxist class distortions to encompass all socially situated thought within his , as outlined in Ideology and Utopia (originally published in German in 1929 and translated into English in 1936). distinguished "ideology" as conservative distortions preserving the from "" as future-oriented visions motivating , arguing that no perspective escapes existential determination by group interests, though he advocated "relationism" to map these influences without descending into total . This universalization shifted ideology from a label for to a neutral analytic tool for understanding knowledge production across political spectra. Amid the rise of totalitarian regimes, further transformed the discourse in (1951), portraying ideology as a self-evident logical process that substitutes fabricated "laws of history" or nature for empirical reality, enabling and terror. emphasized how ideologies in and demanded total adherence, inverting from plural deliberation to enforced conformity under a single, all-explanatory idea, such as racial struggle or class . This framework highlighted ideology's causal role in eroding individual judgment and institutional checks, distinguishing it from mere by its capacity for "thought-defying" absolutism. By the , scholarly attention to ideology intensified in Western political science, reflecting contrasts between liberal democracies and communist systems, with quantitative analyses showing a marked increase in ideology-related publications from the late 1940s onward. Daniel Bell's (1960) captured a perceived shift toward in advanced industrial societies, contending that 19th- and early 20th-century ideological passions—rooted in economic scarcity and revolutionary fervor—had exhausted themselves, yielding to technocratic problem-solving and welfare-state consensus. Bell's thesis, drawn from observations of post-World War II and America, posited ideology's decline as a byproduct of affluence and empirical , though subsequent events like the counterculture and Third World nationalisms prompted critiques that it overlooked persistent doctrinal conflicts. These expansions reflected broader causal dynamics: and interwar crises amplified ideology's role as a mobilizer of , while post-1945 economic stabilization and behavioralist emphases in academia temporarily reframed it as a residual or pathological phenomenon rather than a core driver of . Yet, empirical persistence of ideological divides—evident in struggles and —underscored limits to declinist views, paving the way for later integrations with cultural and cognitive analyses.

Theoretical Frameworks

Classical and Pre-Marxist Interpretations

The concept of ideology emerged in the late as a proposed empirical science dedicated to the analysis of ideas. , a French philosopher and nobleman, introduced the term "idéologie" in 1796 during sessions of the French Institute, defining it as the "science of ideas" aimed at tracing the genesis of human thought from sensory origins. This framework drew heavily from the sensationalist empiricism of Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, who argued in his Traité des sensations (1754) that all knowledge derives from external sensations processed through the faculties of the mind, and , whose Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) rejected innate ideas in favor of . Ideologists viewed this science as a foundational tool for dispelling errors in reasoning by grounding cognition in observable phenomena, thereby serving as a corrective to superstition and dogmatic belief. The ideologues, a loose circle including Tracy, Pierre-Jean-Georges Cabanis, and Constantin-François de Chassebœuf, comte de Volney, operated within the Class of Moral and Political Sciences of the National Institute, established in 1795 amid the French Revolution's aftermath. They extended ideology beyond pure to practical domains, advocating its application to , , and to on rational principles. For instance, Tracy's multi-volume Éléments d'idéologie (first volume published 1801) outlined ideology proper as the study of idea formation, followed by sections on , logic, and "ideology applied to the faculties of willing and to the expression of our thoughts," emphasizing how clear ideas enable sound political decisions. Cabanis, a physician, integrated physiological insights, positing in Rapports du physique et du moral de l'homme (1802) that mental processes are extensions of bodily functions, thus linking ideology to materialist . This approach prioritized causal analysis of idea origins over abstract speculation, aiming to construct a positive of human affairs. Early receptions highlighted tensions between ideology's ambitions and political realities. Bonaparte, upon assuming power, criticized the ideologues in 1801 for prioritizing theoretical abstractions over practical administration, coining the derogatory term "ideologues" to mock their detachment from real-world exigencies. Despite this, the classical interpretation retained its neutral, scientific character, positioning ideology as a method for achieving epistemic clarity and rational policy, distinct from later critiques framing it as distortion or illusion. Proponents believed that systematic ideological inquiry could mitigate errors in by revealing how sensory data shapes beliefs and actions, though empirical validation remained limited to and physiological observations rather than controlled experimentation. This pre-Marxist view thus emphasized ideology's role in liberating thought from unexamined assumptions, aligning with Enlightenment commitments to reason and .

Marxist and Critical Theory Perspectives

In classical Marxist theory, ideology refers to the distorted ideas produced by the ruling class to legitimize its dominance and conceal the exploitative nature of class relations. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels outlined this in The German Ideology (1845–1846), portraying ideology as an inversion of reality, comparable to a camera obscura, where material conditions are misrepresented as eternal truths serving bourgeois interests. They argued that the ruling ideas of an epoch are those of its ruling class, fostering false consciousness among the proletariat and impeding revolutionary awareness. Antonio Gramsci refined this framework by introducing , emphasizing how the dominant class secures consent through cultural institutions rather than solely through force. Imprisoned by the fascist regime from 1926 to 1937, Gramsci developed these ideas in his , distinguishing between political society (coercive apparatuses) and (where ideological leadership embeds ruling values as ). He posited that counter-hegemony requires organic intellectuals from subordinate classes to challenge and supplant dominant ideologies. The Frankfurt School's Critical Theory extended Marxist ideology critique to mass culture and psychology in industrialized societies. and , in works like (1947), analyzed ideology as embedded in the "culture industry," which commodifies leisure and enforces , neutralizing potential dissent against . further argued in (1964) that advanced technological societies generate "," where ideological integration creates false needs that sustain the status quo without overt coercion. Louis Althusser's structuralist , articulated in "" (), viewed ideology as a material practice reproducing class relations via institutions like and family. He differentiated repressive state apparatuses (e.g., police, functioning primarily through ) from ideological state apparatuses (interpellating into ideological roles, ensuring capitalist reproduction). Althusser claimed individuals are "hailed" as subjects by ideology, internalizing it as their own, though this deterministic model has faced criticism for overlooking agency and empirical inconsistencies in ideological uniformity.

Post-Materialist and Cultural Analyses

Post-materialist analyses of ideology posit that in societies achieving sustained economic prosperity, dominant ideological frameworks shift from emphasizing material security—such as economic growth and physical safety—to priorities of self-expression, environmental sustainability, and participatory governance. This perspective, formalized by Ronald Inglehart in his 1977 book The Silent Revolution, draws on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, arguing that unmet survival imperatives foster materialist values, while their fulfillment enables post-materialist orientations that reshape ideological cleavages from class-based economic conflicts to cultural and lifestyle issues. Empirical support derives from the World Values Survey (WVS), launched in 1981, which tracks value shifts across over 100 countries; for instance, in Western Europe, the proportion of respondents prioritizing post-materialist goals like "giving people more say in government decisions" over "maintaining order" rose from about 15% in the early 1980s to over 30% by the 2010s in nations like Sweden and Germany. Inglehart's scarcity and socialization hypotheses explain this: scarcity reinforces materialist ideologies during formative years, while socialization in secure environments perpetuates post-materialist ones, evidenced by intergenerational data showing younger cohorts in affluent democracies exhibiting 10-20% higher post-materialist scores than older ones. However, critiques highlight limitations in this framework's causal claims, noting that post-materialist trends correlate strongly with short-term economic conditions rather than fixed generational imprints; for example, unemployment spikes in the and correlated with temporary materialist resurgences, undermining the theory's emphasis on irreversible socialization. Additionally, the post-materialist index—typically a four-item battery assessing priorities like freedom versus stability—has been faulted for conflating liberal values with non-materialist ones, ignoring how economic downturns can amplify authoritarian ideologies even among younger demographics, as seen in WVS data from post-1990s transitions where post-materialism stalled amid instability. These analyses thus reveal ideology as dynamically responsive to existential security, with post-materialist phases fostering ideologies supportive of and ecological limits, yet vulnerable to backlash when security erodes, contributing to populist realignments observed in 2010s elections across and the . Cultural analyses conceptualize ideology as embedded symbolic systems that interpret and navigate social realities, distinct from purely . Anthropologist , in his 1964 essay "Ideology as a Cultural System," portrayed ideologies as "symbolic devices" that dramatize power relations and mitigate strains from rapid societal change, functioning like cultural maps that render the world intelligible through narrative templates rather than objective truths. This view, rooted in semiotic theory, emphasizes ideology's role in legitimating norms via shared myths and rituals, as evidenced in ethnographic studies of political movements where ideological coherence emerges from cultural symbols—like national flags or protest chants—coordinating amid ambiguity. Complementing this, legal scholar Jack Balkin's 1998 book Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology models ideologies as evolving "cultural software"—replicable cognitive modules or memes that propagate through social interaction, adapting to environmental pressures while preserving group cohesion. Balkin argues that ideological persistence stems from this evolutionary dynamic, where beliefs self-replicate via narratives that align individual cognition with cultural fitness, supported by examples from legal doctrines evolving through interpretive precedents rather than rational redesign. Empirical extensions in affirm this, showing ideologies as modular belief networks that toward in-group narratives, with fMRI studies revealing neural activation patterns akin to software processing during exposure to partisan symbols. Unlike materialist views prioritizing class interests, these cultural frameworks highlight ideology's in shaping economic perceptions, as cultural priors on or predict policy preferences independently of income, per cross-national surveys disentangling economic from cultural dimensions. Such analyses underscore ideology's resilience through cultural adaptation, explaining shifts like the mainstreaming of identity-focused in post-industrial contexts without reducing them to economic base.

Psychological and Evolutionary Foundations

Cognitive and Motivational Drivers

Cognitive processes underlying ideology often involve , where individuals selectively interpret evidence to align with prior s rather than pursuing objective accuracy. Empirical studies demonstrate that partisans exhibit by favoring information congruent with their ideology, leading to asymmetric polarization; for instance, in experiments, participants rated arguments supporting their views as stronger regardless of logical merit. This directional motivation outperforms accuracy goals in political contexts, as shown in meta-analyses of updating where prior attitudes predict resistance to disconfirming facts. further differentiates ideologies, with conservatives displaying heightened physiological sensitivity to s—such as aversive images eliciting stronger skin conductance responses—correlating with preferences for order and . These cognitive mechanisms, while adaptive for quick detection, entrench ideological divides by amplifying perceived risks differently across groups. Motivational drivers stem from evolved needs for moral coherence and group cohesion; ideologies appeal by satisfying basic human requirements for certainty and predictability in a chaotic world, alongside belonging and connection in isolating contexts, thereby mitigating uncertainty and reinforcing social bonds. This aligns with moral foundations theory, which posits innate intuitions shaping ideological priors. Liberals emphasize care/harm and fairness/cheating foundations, endorsing policies like welfare expansion, while conservatives balance these with loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation, supporting traditions and hierarchies; cross-cultural surveys of over 132,000 participants confirm this divergence predicts 20-30% of variance in political attitudes. Personality traits from the Big Five model provide further motivational underpinnings, with meta-analyses of 575,691 individuals revealing openness to experience correlating positively with liberalism (r ≈ 0.20) due to novelty-seeking drives, and conscientiousness with conservatism (r ≈ -0.15) linked to orderliness needs—effects robust across 232 samples but moderated by measurement and non-causal in direction. Dual-process models integrate these, positing that ideological conservatism arises from motivational closedness to change and openness to hierarchy, fostering prejudice via threat avoidance, as evidenced in longitudinal data tying these traits to authoritarian attitudes. Ego- and group-justifying motives exacerbate this, prompting defense of in-group beliefs amid social media echo chambers, per reviews of polarization dynamics. Empirical integration of cognitive and motivational factors reveals ideology as a hybrid of bias-prone and value-driven imperatives, with studies like those on cognitive distortions showing their rise correlates with polarization spikes since 2010, endangering institutional trust. While academic sources on these topics often reflect institutional skews toward progressive interpretations—underrepresenting conservative motivational validities—these patterns hold across diverse datasets, underscoring ideology's roots in rather than mere .

Evolutionary Adaptations and Ideology

ideological tendencies, particularly along the conservative-liberal , exhibit substantial genetic , with twin studies estimating that 40-56% of variance in political attitudes is attributable to genetic factors. This suggests an evolutionary foundation, as genetic influences on like ideology likely stem from selection pressures favoring adaptive social behaviors in ancestral environments. Evolutionary models posit that political ideologies reflect dual adaptive foundations: economic conservatism aligns with mechanisms for reciprocity and , enhancing resource sharing and mutual aid within groups, while social conservatism emphasizes and cues to maintain group cohesion against threats. These traits likely evolved to balance individual fitness with collective , as humans are obligate cooperators reliant on coalitions for defense, , and . , in this view, prioritizes stability and threat vigilance—adaptations suited to unpredictable or resource-scarce settings—whereas correlates with higher , facilitating innovation and exploration in more secure contexts. Empirical support comes from patterns where ideological divides predict coalitional alignments, mirroring ancestral tribal dynamics rather than purely cultural constructs. Behavioral genetics further links ideology to personality dimensions with evolutionary histories, such as (tied to ) and (tied to ), which twin and studies show are and influence political orientation independently of environment. For instance, among highly informed individuals, sociopolitical reaches 74% , indicating stronger genetic expression under . This does not imply —environmental factors like life history stressors modulate expression—but underscores ideology as an emergent property of adaptations for navigating social hierarchies and intergroup competition. Such frameworks challenge purely constructivist accounts by integrating causal genetic and ecological data, revealing ideology as a proximate mechanism for ultimate fitness goals like formation and norm enforcement.

Empirical Evidence from Behavioral Studies

Twin studies provide robust evidence for the heritability of political ideology, with genetic factors explaining 40-60% of variance in attitudes and orientations after accounting for shared environments. Analyses of large twin samples, such as those from the Minnesota Twin Family Study, yield heritability estimates of 0.32-0.58 for specific political attitudes like and , indicating that monozygotic twins show greater ideological concordance than dizygotic twins even when raised apart. These findings hold across longitudinal panels spanning a , where genetic influences stabilize ideological consistency over time, though environmental factors modulate expression in response to life events. Associations between and ideology emerge consistently in meta-analyses of behavioral and self-report data, with negatively correlating with (r ≈ -0.25) and positively (r ≈ 0.15-0.20), patterns replicated across diverse national samples and voting behaviors. Experimental paradigms linking traits to ideological , such as tasks, further show conservatives favoring order and stability due to higher , while liberals exhibit greater novelty-seeking tied to , though causation remains bidirectional and influenced by . These links persist in panel studies controlling for demographics, underscoring as a proximal driver of ideological preferences independent of cognitive ability. Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) behavioral validations reveal ideological divergences in moral intuitions, with conservatives endorsing "binding" foundations (loyalty, authority, sanctity) alongside "individualizing" ones (care, fairness), whereas liberals prioritize the latter exclusively, as evidenced in vignette-based experiments where endorsement predicts policy judgments on issues like and welfare. Priming studies induce foundation-specific responses, such as heightened sanctity sensitivity amplifying conservative aversion to purity violations, with effect sizes (d ≈ 0.5-0.8) supporting evolved moral modules over purely cultural constructs. experiments highlight further differences, including conservatives' stronger in threat detection tasks and liberals' elevated in openness-congruent information processing, patterns that align with adaptive strategies for management but can rigidify partisan reasoning. Such evidence, drawn from controlled lab settings, tempers interpretations of ideology as mere rational choice by revealing subconscious perceptual filters.

Types of Ideologies

Political Ideologies

Political ideologies are structured belief systems that address the proper organization of , economic distribution, and within a . They encompass views on the role of the state, liberties, and obligations, often manifesting in support for specific policies or institutional arrangements. Unlike epistemological ideologies focused on validation or religious ones tied to divine , political ideologies prioritize and power dynamics, influencing party platforms, electoral behavior, and state policies. Conservatism emphasizes preservation of established institutions, traditions, and social hierarchies as bulwarks against disorder, advocating intervention to protect individual freedoms, the , and free enterprise. Core tenets include adherence to an enduring moral order derived from custom and , of , and fiscal restraint to avoid burdens on future generations. In practice, conservative thought, as articulated by figures like in his 1790 Reflections on the Revolution in , critiques utopian schemes for ignoring human imperfection and incremental societal evolution. Liberalism, originating in Enlightenment principles, prioritizes individual autonomy, equal rights under law, and markets as mechanisms for prosperity, with government limited to safeguarding liberties rather than engineering outcomes. Classical variants stress property rights and economics, as in John Locke's (1689), while modern forms incorporate welfare provisions without undermining personal responsibility. Key elements include —extending rights beyond kin or class—and pluralism, fostering tolerance amid diverse pursuits of happiness. Empirical associations link liberal polities to higher rates, though critics note risks of overregulation eroding incentives. Socialism posits that economic inequality arises from private control of production, advocating collective ownership of means of production to achieve social equality and cooperative distribution. Foundational texts like Karl Marx's Das Kapital (1867) analyze capitalism's class antagonisms, proposing worker-led planning to eliminate exploitation. Variants range from democratic socialism, emphasizing electoral reforms and public services, to more centralized models prioritizing solidarity over market competition; historical implementations, such as in post-1945 Scandinavia, correlate with reduced poverty but slower growth compared to market-dominant economies. Libertarianism elevates individual as the supreme value, opposing coercive state actions beyond minimal defense of person and , including opposition to taxation as and conscription as . Drawing from thinkers like , it envisions voluntary exchanges in anarcho-capitalist or minarchist frameworks, where markets handle services like and more efficiently than bureaucracies. Adherents cite evidence from low-regulation environments, such as 19th-century America, showing rapid wealth creation, though detractors highlight public goods failures without intervention. Nationalism asserts the nation's cultural, ethnic, or civic cohesion as the basis for , prioritizing loyalty to the homeland over supranational entities or universal humanism. It views as essential for prosperity, as in Woodrow Wilson's 1918 endorsing ethnic states post-World War I. stresses shared values and institutions, while ethnic forms emphasize heritage; both have fueled independence movements, yet extreme variants risk exclusionary policies, as seen in interwar Europe's territorial disputes leading to conflict. Fascism, a 20th-century authoritarian doctrine, rejects liberal individualism and Marxist class struggle in favor of totalitarian national rebirth through state-directed , , and suppression of dissent. Benito Mussolini's 1932 "" frames the state as an ethical totality subordinating individuals to collective destiny, blending ultra-nationalism with anti-egalitarian hierarchy. Scholarly analyses identify core traits like mythic —renewal via crisis—and rejection of rationalist pluralism, evident in Italy's 1922 and Germany's 1933 , which centralized power amid economic turmoil. These ideologies often hybridize in practice, with real-world adherence shaped by historical contingencies; for instance, post-1989 shifts integrated market elements into socialist states, reflecting adaptive responses to empirical failures like the Soviet Union's 1991 collapse from inefficiency.

Epistemological and Philosophical Ideologies

Epistemological ideologies encompass systematic doctrines concerning the origins, nature, and limits of human knowledge, shaping how individuals and societies validate beliefs and claims to truth. These frameworks prioritize either innate reason, empirical , or as pathways to , often intersecting with broader philosophical commitments about and justification. Unlike political ideologies, they focus on foundational cognitive processes, yet they exert ideological influence by dictating acceptable evidence in , , and . Rationalism asserts that reason, independent of sensory input, yields certain knowledge through innate ideas and deductive logic. (1596–1650), in his 1641 , employed methodical doubt to establish the indubitable "" ("I think, therefore I am"), positing clear and distinct ideas as criteria for truth. Rationalists like (1632–1677) and (1646–1716) extended this to geometric proofs of metaphysics, arguing sensory data can deceive while pure intellect accesses universals. This position underpins mathematical and logical rigor but faces critique for underemphasizing empirical falsification. Empiricism, conversely, maintains that all knowledge derives from sensory experience, rejecting innate concepts in favor of inductive generalization from observations. (1632–1704) articulated this in his 1690 , describing the mind as a "" (blank slate) filled by sensations and reflections. (1685–1753) and (1711–1776) radicalized empiricism: Berkeley toward ("esse est percipi"), and Hume toward , contending in his 1748 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that reflects custom rather than necessity, undermining inductive certainty. Empirical approaches dominate modern , evidenced by falsifiable hypotheses yielding technologies like semiconductors since the , yet they grapple with the problem of induction's logical limits. Skepticism systematically doubts the attainability of justified true , advocating or outright suspension of assent. Ancient , founded by of (c. 360–270 BCE) and elaborated by (c. 160–210 CE) in Outlines of Pyrrhonism, promoted (withholding judgment) to achieve ataraxia (tranquility) amid equipollent arguments. Modern variants, including Hume's mitigated , inform scientific method's tentative conclusions, as in Karl Popper's 1934 , which prioritizes refutation over verification. While fostering critical inquiry—evident in debunking pseudosciences like through controlled trials—extreme risks paralysis, as no escapes without foundational assumptions. Philosophical ideologies extend epistemological debates into metaphysics and ontology, forming comprehensive worldviews that prescribe reality's structure. posits that only physical matter and its interactions constitute existence, excluding immaterial souls or essences; Democritus (c. 460–370 BCE) anticipated this with , revived by (1588–1679) in (1651) to ground ethics in mechanistic desires. Empirical , such as fMRI studies since the 1990s correlating brain states with , bolsters reductive materialism, though it encounters the hard problem of . Idealism counters that reality fundamentally inheres in mind or ideas, with perceptions as primary; Berkeley's immaterialism denied unperceived matter, while (1724–1804) synthesized in his 1781 by distinguishing noumena (things-in-themselves) from phenomena shaped by a priori categories. Hegelian (1770–1831) viewed history as spirit's dialectical unfolding, influencing 19th-century thought but critiqued for . 20th-century developments include logical positivism, which philosophers like (1891–1970) advanced in the –, demanding empirical verifiability for meaningful statements and dismissing metaphysics as nonsense. This ideology fueled analytic philosophy's precision but collapsed under its own criterion, as the verification principle is neither analytic nor empirically testable. Pragmatism, originated by (1839–1914) in 1878 essays, evaluates beliefs by practical consequences, influencing American and policy experimentation. Postmodernism, emerging post-1960s with Jean-François Lyotard's 1979 , rejects grand narratives and universal truth, framing knowledge as context-bound discourse intertwined with power, as in Michel Foucault's analyses of institutions. Prevalent in departments—where surveys show over 80% faculty identify as left-leaning, per 2018 HERI data—this view relativizes facts, complicating objective inquiry despite counterevidence from physics' invariant laws like E=mc² since 1905. Critics, including analytic philosophers, argue it fosters epistemic , prioritizing narrative over evidence-based causal mechanisms.

Religious and Cultural Ideologies

Religious ideologies constitute comprehensive belief systems predicated on claims of , agency, and sacred doctrines that dictate ethical norms, social hierarchies, and principles. Unlike secular ideologies, which typically derive authority from rational inquiry or material conditions, religious ideologies assert ultimacy through transcendent truths, often encoded in canonical texts such as the , , or , and enforced via rituals and clerical institutions. This framework positions not merely as personal but as a totalizing capable of mobilizing , as seen in political theologies that integrate with state power. Empirical models demonstrate that such ideologies enhance intra-group by aligning individual beliefs with communal rituals, thereby reducing free-riding and bolstering reciprocity among adherents. Historical and contemporary examples illustrate their societal imprint. In the United States, Protestant Christian ideology underpinned the of the 1950s and 1960s, with leaders like invoking biblical imperatives for justice to challenge , contributing to legislative reforms like the of 1964. Similarly, exemplifies a religious ideology that seeks holistic application of , aiming to subordinate political authority to Islamic , as pursued by groups like the since the 1920s. Studies confirm religion's dual role in fostering social cohesion—through shared moral codes that promote family stability and prosocial behaviors—while occasionally exacerbating out-group conflicts, with data from diverse societies showing higher charitable giving and community trust in religious populations. Transmission of these ideologies persists strongly within conservative religious families, where doctrinal rigidity correlates with intergenerational adherence rates exceeding those in liberal or secular households. Cultural ideologies, by extension, emerge from entrenched traditions, symbols, and normative practices that sustain group identity and justify social arrangements, frequently overlapping with religious foundations but emphasizing immanent rather than divine origins. They function as paradoxical elements within culture, embedding values like or that resist alteration until ideological maintenance costs—such as or external pressures—prove unsustainable. Cultural theory delineates core worldviews, including (prioritizing personal autonomy) and hierarchism (favoring structured authority), which map onto political ideologies and predict behaviors like or policy preferences across societies. For instance, Confucian cultural ideology in and Korea has historically reinforced familial and meritocratic , influencing modern state policies on and despite secular overlays. permeates these cultural forms, providing meta-frames that naturalize beliefs as inherent to societal functioning, as in Eastern traditions where rites embed communal into daily life. In practice, religious and cultural ideologies intersect to shape institutional resilience and . Data from cross-national surveys reveal that societies with dominant religious ideologies exhibit greater social cohesion metrics, such as lower rates and higher volunteerism, attributable to enforced norms rather than mere affiliation. However, when cultural ideologies clash with modernization—evident in resistance to secular reforms in theocratic states—they can rigidify, prioritizing identity preservation over empirical adaptability, as observed in persistent honor cultures tied to Abrahamic or tribal traditions. This interplay underscores ideology's role in causal chains of societal stability, where religious elements supply motivational depth absent in purely cultural variants.

Ideology in Society and Institutions

Role in State Power and Governance

Ideologies provide normative justifications for state authority, framing governance as aligned with purported universal principles rather than raw coercion. According to 's analysis in (1846), ruling class ideas dominate as ideologies, masking exploitation by presenting particular interests as general societal goods, thereby sustaining class-based state power. This legitimating function extends to modern contexts, where ideologies embed power in cultural and institutional , as theorized by , enabling rule through manufactured consent rather than solely force. In authoritarian systems, ideology actively bolsters regime durability by increasing survival odds 1.30 times per unit of ideological emphasis and elevating repression by 5%, operating via , opponent antagonism, and crisis-driven legitimacy shifts. For example, in after the 2016 coup attempt, the AKP government's intensified religious-nationalist rhetoric, including events like the 2020 reconversion, raised support among religious conservatives by 6-8 percentage points. Similarly, Soviet Marxist-Leninism from 1917 centralized economic and political control, enforcing purity through the (1936-1938), which purged roughly one-third of the Communist Party's 3 million members via executions and gulags to eliminate ideological deviation. Nazi Germany's ultranationalist and racial ideology, formalized in the 1920 party platform and entrenched after 1933, rationalized totalitarian , eugenics policies, and territorial aggression under . Democratic governance contrasts by allowing ideological pluralism, where liberal doctrines—rooted in figures like —limit state power via , , and electoral accountability to prevent absolutism. Yet, even here, dominant ideologies can rigidify policy, prioritizing doctrinal consistency over empirical adaptation; the Soviet Union's 1991 dissolution illustrates how ideological central planning supplanted market evidence, yielding stagnation and collapse after decades of output shortfalls. Empirical analyses confirm that authoritarian ideological monopolies correlate with suppressed innovation and higher instability risks when performance falters, underscoring ideology's dual potential to stabilize or undermine governance based on its flexibility and alignment with reality.

Sociological and Semiotic Dimensions

Sociological analyses of ideology emphasize its role in structuring social relations, legitimizing power hierarchies, and fostering or disrupting group cohesion. In conflict-oriented perspectives, ideologies function as tools for dominant groups to perpetuate inequality; conceptualized ideology as a that inverts , portraying exploitation as natural to sustain capitalist relations, a view echoed in later sociological traditions examining class-based distortions of . supports ideology's influence on , with studies indicating that shared ideological commitments enhance in-group while exacerbating out-group divisions; for example, a found that ideological congruence in values predicts stronger community ties and in diverse settings, though such cohesion often correlates with exclusionary attitudes toward ideological dissenters. Conversely, functionalist approaches, drawing from Durkheimian ideas of collective representations, posit ideologies as integrative mechanisms that stabilize societies by aligning individual actions with normative expectations, evidenced by cross-national data showing ideological homogeneity in correlating with lower and higher civic participation rates as of 2023. Critiques of these views highlight methodological biases in academic , where empirical validations often favor interpretations aligning with researchers' presuppositions, such as overemphasizing ideology's divisive effects while underreporting its adaptive functions in resource-scarce environments. Quantitative surveys from 2019 onward reveal that ideological polarization, rather than ideology per se, drives social fragmentation, with conservative ideologies demonstrating greater resilience in maintaining cohesion under external threats compared to progressive ones, per from European contexts. This suggests causal pathways where ideologies mediate between material conditions and social outcomes, not merely as epiphenomena but as active shapers of institutional trust and mobility patterns. Semiotic dimensions frame ideology as a of signs and discourses that construct perceived realities, drawing from structuralist to decode how meanings are encoded to sustain beliefs. In semiotic theory, ideologies operate through signifiers—arbitrary or motivated symbols—that link denotative (literal) and connotative (ideological) levels, naturalizing power asymmetries; for instance, ' analysis of myths illustrates how everyday signs, like consumer icons, embed bourgeois values as universal truths, a process empirically observable in media framing studies where symbolic repetitions reinforce ideological . Key concepts include the paradigmatic (associative chains of meaning) and syntagmatic (sequential arrangements) axes, whereby ideological narratives assemble signs to evoke emotional alignments, as seen in political where flags or slogans condense complex doctrines into visceral identifiers. This semiotic lens reveals ideology's propagation via cultural artifacts, with empirical content analyses confirming that symbolic density in —measured by redundancy—amplifies and adherence, particularly in mass movements; a 2018 study of quantified how recurrent motifs (e.g., symbols) correlate with efficacy across ideologies. However, semiotics underscores contingency: meanings are not fixed but negotiated, challenging deterministic views by evidencing how subversive reinterpretations of dominant can erode ideological monopolies, as documented in historical shifts like the semiotic of national emblems during . Such processes highlight ideology's dual role in , binding societies through shared while enabling contestation when systems fracture under empirical scrutiny.

Influence on Mass Movements and Social Cohesion

Ideologies often function as mobilizing forces in mass movements by offering coherent frameworks that interpret grievances, assign blame, and prescribe transformative actions, thereby channeling disparate individual dissatisfactions into coordinated collective efforts. In the of 1917, Leninist adaptations of Marxist ideology framed the tsarist regime and as exploiters, rallying proletarian and peasant masses through promises of classless equality and land redistribution, which culminated in the Bolshevik seizure of power on October 25 (Julian calendar). Similarly, national socialist ideology in during the 1930s, emphasizing racial purity and , propelled the Nazi Party's ascent from 2.6% of the vote in 1928 to 37.3% in 1932, enabling Adolf Hitler's appointment as chancellor and subsequent consolidation of power through mass rallies and organizations that fostered fervent loyalty among millions. These cases illustrate how ideologies amplify participation by simplifying complex socio-economic realities into binary moral conflicts, often overriding rational cost-benefit assessments in favor of utopian visions. While ideologies can forge temporary solidarity within movements—evident in the French Revolution's ideological spectrum, where Jacobin republicanism unified diverse factions against monarchy from 1789 onward—their rigid doctrines frequently sow internal fractures once power is attained. Post-revolutionary purges, such as Stalin's Great Terror from 1936 to 1938, which executed over 680,000 perceived ideological deviants, demonstrate how doctrinal purity tests erode the very coalitions ideologies initially built. Empirical analyses confirm that revolutionary ideologies shape long-term outcomes by embedding institutional biases; for example, egalitarian ideologies in social revolutions correlate with more redistributive policies but also higher risks of authoritarian backsliding due to centralized control mechanisms. On social cohesion, shared ideologies enhance in-group bonds by promoting mutual identification and normative alignment, yet escalating ideological polarization undermines broader societal trust and integration. Studies define social cohesion as encompassing positive relations, belonging, and shared orientation toward the , with ideological consensus bolstering these via reinforced social networks. However, affective polarization—intense animosity between ideological camps—correlates with reduced interpersonal trust and increased segregation; in the United States, surveys from 2012 to 2020 show partisan ideological divides widening, with 80% of Republicans and Democrats viewing the opposing party as a to national vitality, eroding cross-group . This dynamic manifests causally: polarized ideologies amplify zero-sum perceptions, diminishing and elevating intolerance, as quasi-experimental data indicate that exposure to opposing views via can mitigate but often entrenches it in homogeneous echo chambers. In diverse societies, unchecked ideological fragmentation thus fragments cohesion, prioritizing subgroup loyalty over collective resilience, with economic and cultural stressors exacerbating these rifts through policy gridlock and institutional distrust.

Criticisms, Debates, and Real-World Impacts

Critiques of Ideological Distortion and Rigidity

Ideological refers to the tendency of committed adherents to selectively interpret or suppress empirical that conflicts with doctrinal priors, often through mechanisms like or . Psychological research indicates that strong ideological identification correlates with heightened cognitive rigidity, where individuals prioritize group-favored narratives over disconfirming evidence, as evidenced in factor analyses of ideological across left-right spectra. This distortion undermines causal accuracy, fostering overconfidence in untested assumptions about social or economic dynamics. For instance, studies on demonstrate that ideological priors bias probabilistic judgments, reducing reliance on reflective even when accuracy incentives are present. Rigidity in ideology manifests as resistance to falsification or adaptation, a critique rooted in epistemological frameworks emphasizing testable hypotheses. Philosopher contended that ideologies resembling —such as those positing inevitable social trajectories without empirical refutability—evade scrutiny, promoting dogmatism over iterative correction. Empirical extensions of this view in behavioral science link cognitive inflexibility, including low tolerance for ambiguity, to ideological entrenchment, where adherents dismiss counter-evidence as anomalous rather than paradigm-challenging. Meta-analyses challenge assumptions of asymmetry, finding that motivational and dogmatic traits underpin rigidity across ideological poles, contradicting narratives of unilateral bias. Historical applications highlight consequences of such rigidity, as in collectivist regimes where doctrinal adherence to central planning ignored dispersed knowledge of local conditions, per critiques of rationalist overreach. In the , rigid enforcement of collectivization policies from 1929 onward distorted agricultural reporting to align with ideological targets, contributing to the 1932–1933 famine that killed an estimated 3.9 to 7.5 million, with official data suppression exemplifying evidentiary denial. Similarly, Nazi ideological commitments to racial rejected genetic evidence, enforcing eugenic policies that sterilized 400,000 individuals by 1945 under distorted interpretations of . These cases illustrate how rigidity amplifies causal errors, prioritizing utopian visions over feedback loops from real-world outcomes. Critics further note institutional distortions, where ideological in academia and media—often skewed toward progressive priors—stifles , as quantified in surveys showing overrepresentation of left-leaning views among faculty, correlating with lower tolerance for conservative . This meta-bias, while not exclusive, systematically filters priorities, evident in replication crises where ideological preferences influence hypothesis selection over null results. Proponents of causal realism advocate incremental, evidence-bound adjustments over rigid blueprints, arguing that distortion arises from conflating with predictive models, a exposed in failed top-down interventions across ideologies.

Evaluations of Ideological Achievements and Failures

Communist regimes implemented in the , spanning the from 1917, from 1949, and others in , , and , resulted in approximately 80 to 100 million deaths attributable to state-induced famines, purges, labor camps, and executions, as compiled from historical records and declassified archives. Specific instances include the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, which killed 3 to 5 million in alone through deliberate grain seizures and export policies, and 's from 1958–1962, linked to 20 to 45 million excess deaths from starvation and related violence. While these systems achieved rapid initial industrialization—such as the USSR's transformation from 80% agrarian workforce in 1913 to under 30% by 1940, enabling victory in —their centralized planning led to chronic inefficiencies, innovation shortages, and eventual collapse, as evidenced by the 's 1991 dissolution amid per capita GDP stagnation at roughly one-third of Western levels by the 1980s. Empirical analyses indicate hampers long-run growth by distorting productivity incentives and , with post-communist transitions in yielding average annual GDP growth of 4–6% from 1990–2010 compared to pre-transition declines. Fascist regimes, exemplified by under Mussolini from 1922 to 1943 and from 1933 to 1945, delivered limited infrastructural gains—such as Italy's draining of for 2,000 square kilometers of farmland and construction of 400,000 housing units by 1939—but these were overshadowed by economic policies that fostered shortages, suppressed wages ( fell 20–25% from 1929–1938), and culminated in military overextension and defeat. Germany's pre-war recovery involved rearmament-driven reduction from 30% in 1932 to near zero by 1938, yet this masked unsustainable debt (national debt rose 300% by 1939) and reliance on plunder, leading to total wartime destruction and 5–8% of its lost. Both ideologies prioritized state control and , resulting in short-lived tenures (averaging under 20 years) and systemic failures in sustaining without , as regimes collapsed under the weight of ideological rigidity and resource misallocation. In contrast, liberal ideologies emphasizing individual rights, , and market mechanisms—implemented in post-World War II Western democracies like the , , and —correlated with unprecedented economic expansion and human development. From to 2000, these systems averaged annual GDP growth of 2–4%, lifting global from over 50% of the in to under 10% by 2015, driven by trade liberalization and (e.g., U.S. patents tripled from 1945–1990). Economically free nations today exhibit GDP eight times higher than socialist counterparts, with higher (e.g., 78–82 years vs. 70–75) and human development indices, per cross-national datasets controlling for initial conditions. These outcomes stem from decentralized fostering , though critics from left-leaning academia often attribute successes to non-ideological factors like resource endowments, underplaying causal links to property rights and competition; nonetheless, regression studies affirm positive effects of on income levels, magnifying impacts by 1.1–1.6 times prior estimates. Hybrid social democracies, such as Nordic models, succeeded by layering welfare on capitalist bases rather than supplanting markets, achieving top-quartile global prosperity without the totalitarian pitfalls.
IdeologyExample RegimesKey Achievement MetricKey Failure Metric
USSR (1917–1991), (1949–present)Industrial output surged (USSR production from 4M tons in 1928 to 18M in 1938)80–100M deaths; GDP lagged West by 2–3x by
(1922–1943), (1933–1945)Unemployment halved ( 1932–1938) defeat; declined 20–25%; regime durations <20 years
Liberal CapitalismUS, West (post-1945): global rate <10% by 2015; GDP pc growth 2–4%/yrN/A (empirical edges over alternatives)
These evaluations highlight that ideologies prioritizing empirical adaptability and individual agency outperform those enforcing rigid collectivism, as measured by longevity, prosperity, and minimal coercion, though source debates persist—e.g., leftist critiques minimizing communist tolls via definitional narrowing, contradicted by primary archival evidence.

Contemporary Applications and Polarization (Post-2000)

Since the early , ideologies have reemerged as central forces in political discourse, challenging the post-Cold War assumption of liberal democratic convergence articulated by in 1992. This resurgence manifested in populist movements that framed globalist elites against national interests, evident in the 2016 U.S. where Donald Trump's campaign emphasized and restrictions, securing 304 electoral votes despite losing the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points. Similarly, the United Kingdom's 2016 referendum, with 51.9% voting to leave the , reflected ideological divides over sovereignty and supranational governance, driven by concerns over migration and . These applications highlight ideologies' role in mobilizing voters around identity and economic grievances, often bypassing traditional party structures. Ideological polarization intensified globally, with empirical measures showing widening gaps in policy views and affective animosity. In the United States, data from 1994 to 2017 indicate that the share of Americans holding consistently liberal or conservative views rose from 10% to 21% for liberals and from 5% to 12% for conservatives, while the ideological distance between partisans grew to levels unseen in over five decades. Affective polarization—dislike of the opposing party—surged, with Republicans viewing Democrats more negatively than in the , exacerbated by events like the and 2020 social unrest. Cross-national studies confirm the U.S. experienced the sharpest rise in affective polarization among 12 countries since 1980, outpacing nations like the and , where divides centered on and . In , right-wing populist parties gained seats in 2017 French and 2018 Italian elections, averaging 20-25% vote shares by framing policies as threats to cultural homogeneity. This polarization stems from structural factors including in deindustrialized regions and amplification of chambers, rather than uniform ideological rigidity. Gallup polls from 2000 to 2024 show U.S. parties at peak ideological divergence, with 37% identifying as conservative and 34% as liberal/moderate, yet misperceptions inflate perceived divides—partisans overestimate opponents' by up to 20 percentage points. Applications in debates, such as U.S. responses to the 2008 recession favoring stimulus over or European migration policies post-2015 , reveal causal links: regions with higher import exposure from saw 2-5% shifts toward populist voting. While mainstream academic analyses often attribute rises to authoritarian tendencies, evidence suggests bidirectional causation, with elite-driven identity framing on both sides entrenching divides; for instance, studies note Democrats shifting left on social issues faster than Republicans on economics since 2000. Such dynamics have reduced legislative compromise, as seen in U.S. where bill passage rates fell from 80% in the 1970s to under 20% by 2020.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ideology/
  2. https://www.etymonline.com/word/ideology
  3. https://www.econlib.org/library/Tracy/DestuttdeTracyBio.html
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9274788/
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/ideology/AA414CDFEA4B0C7BC3FC7BB5E320EEA2
  6. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/theories-of-ideology-origins-development-and-prospects/DA0CD9DAA62DFEB8552C461150501C5B
  7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2707082
  8. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ideology-society
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2709242
  10. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1525/9780520336483-004/html?lang=en
  11. https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/politicalideologies2e/chapter/1-1-ideology-as-a-justification-for-error-and-oppression/
  12. https://people.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/manheim.pdf
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40370778
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/political-ideology
  15. https://www.crvp.org/publications/Series-IVA/IVA-33.pdf
  16. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ideologies%252C-Worldviews%252C-and-Personalities-Brown/92185410adddb41cae3b1d16301496311c6c97df
  17. https://sdyearwood.medium.com/the-difference-between-ideology-and-theology-bc8cf2a2b10f
  18. https://academic.oup.com/book/10534/chapter/158445881
  19. https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-33-number-3-4/ideology-unreason
  20. http://davidmhart.com/liberty/FrenchClassicalLiberals/Tracy/index.html
  21. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004252318/B9789004252318_003.xml
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/insidious-ambiguity-of-ideology/39E5A3FBCB2ED3931BBEFA8D4D4B372C
  23. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm
  24. https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-557
  25. https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0323/ch68.xhtml
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/on-the-concept-of-ideology-in-political-science/ED5C23D5D578631A2DB5FEBC934F2AD8
  27. https://www.loc.gov/collections/hannah-arendt-papers/articles-and-essays/totalitarianism-the-inversion-of-politics/
  28. https://alioshabielenberg.com/hannah-arendt-on-ideology-and-terror/
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237522267_Identifying_The_Unprecedented_Hannah_Arendt_Totalitarianism_And_The_Critique_Of_Sociology
  30. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/transformations-of-the-concept-of-ideology-in-the-twentieth-century/7B4C27FC6D6D1238A62EF315EFE73364
  31. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_End_of_Ideology.html?id=N3yRfamyZFcC
  32. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/daniel-bell-and-the-end-of-ideology/
  33. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-Louis-Claude-Comte-Destutt-de-Tracy
  34. https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/profiles/tracy.htm
  35. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
  36. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gramsci/
  37. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/tr-gramsci.htm
  38. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
  39. https://iep.utm.edu/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/
  40. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm
  41. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=Findings
  42. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/measuring-postmaterialism/29BAA69C8DE85FD245D978BF820398F9
  43. https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/Do_Changing_Values_Explain_the_New_Politics.pdf
  44. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/AJPublications.jsp?CndPUTYPE=1%2C5&PUID=
  45. http://hypergeertz.jku.at/GeertzTexts/Ideology_Cultural.htm
  46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1772695
  47. https://jackbalkin.yale.edu/cultural-software-theory-ideology-0
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154620300085
  49. https://isps.yale.edu/research/publications/isps12-006
  50. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-923
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804321001397
  52. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/context/poliscifacpub/article/1069/viewcontent/Hibbing_BBS_2014_Differences_in_negativity__Cambridge_UP.pdf
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/negativity-biases-and-political-ideology-a-comparative-test-across-17-countries/F80A700B09BE107D15C51A3301C495E7
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9342595/
  55. https://sites.bu.edu/marshfellows/files/2021/05/0963721414540168.pdf
  56. https://moralfoundations.org/
  57. https://fbaum.unc.edu/teaching/articles/JPSP-2009-Moral-Foundations.pdf
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353815831_Personality_and_ideology_A_meta-analysis_of_the_reliable_but_non-causal_association_between_Openness_and_conservatism
  59. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/35427/chapter-abstract/303189378?redirectedFrom=fulltext
  60. https://academic.oup.com/book/11680/chapter/160627848
  61. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-025-00289-4
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7935109/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4038932/
  64. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2013/12/09/study-on-twins-suggests-our-political-beliefs-may-be-hard-wired/
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154620300553
  66. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-political-psychology/evolutionary-basis-of-political-ideology/292583ACC4BF03E8253F3E6397ED7360
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32231279/
  68. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1189771/full
  69. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2274399
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11308703/
  71. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/genes-ideology-and-sophistication/91C7C343BBA8801732F62E7D55B16676
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513807000207
  73. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=poliscifacpub
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188692400237X
  75. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6867614/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656619300455
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124072367000024
  79. https://moralfoundations.org/publications/
  80. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/judgment-and-decision-making/article/ideology-motivated-reasoning-and-cognitive-reflection/F8A6A74C9022363D672B0FD14DD8B89F
  81. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34379/chapter/291573356
  82. https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/
  83. https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/defining-the-principles-conservatism
  84. https://www.liberalcurrents.com/liberalism-article-paul-crider/
  85. https://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles07/Starr-Liberalism-Ch1.pdf
  86. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/
  87. https://www.gwleidyddiaeth.cymru/socialism-and-communism/key-elements-of-socialism/
  88. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
  89. https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism
  90. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-2039
  91. https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf
  92. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34324/chapter/291337436
  93. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
  94. https://iep.utm.edu/epistemo/
  95. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
  96. https://iep.utm.edu/locke-ep/
  97. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
  98. https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/articles/chapter/Ideological_religion_in_world_politics/29793884/1/files/56831414.pdf
  99. https://rppe.princeton.edu/document/5
  100. https://pressbooks.howardcc.edu/soci101/chapter/17-3-sociological-perspectives-on-religion/
  101. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-024-00623-3
  102. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3463&context=lawreview
  103. https://carijournals.org/journals/IJHSS/article/view/2085
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8204683/
  105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262861539_Ideology_and_culture
  106. https://scispace.com/pdf/ideology-and-cultural-change-a-theoretical-approach-2u16zwft5m.pdf
  107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20447183
  108. https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/16021/files/2018/10/Amoah-Final-Paper.pdf
  109. https://www.methodist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/mr2014_tevez-rosales.pdf
  110. https://research.vu.nl/files/40174100/Religion_and_Social_Cohesion.pdf
  111. https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2025/yavuz_mehmet.pdf
  112. https://www.history.com/articles/great-purge
  113. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform
  114. https://www.britannica.com/event/Nazism
  115. https://www.cato.org/commentary/marxist-dreams-soviet-realities
  116. https://www.thoughtco.com/ideology-definition-3026356
  117. https://www.idos-research.de/uploads/media/DP_6.2020.pdf
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154619301056
  119. http://www.zbi.ee/~kalevi/148_11.pdf
  120. https://www.uvm.edu/~tstreete/Courses/Soc43/pages/semiotics_a_part1.html
  121. https://poetcommons.whittier.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=scholars
  122. https://www.generation-online.org/c/fcformalism.htm
  123. https://politicalscience.byu.edu/0000018a-8f5d-daee-a7fa-bf7f377e0001/nelson-ideologies-and-revolutions-pdf
  124. https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2019/09/18/the-age-of-ideology/
  125. https://pitjournal.unc.edu/2023/01/15/revolutionary-ideology-in-the-outcomes-of-social-revolutions/
  126. https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/how-ideology-transformed-the-early-modern-individual/
  127. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ideology-and-revolution/revolution-and-the-explanatory-power-of-the-concept-of-ideology/C4C2934A275349FC826B59181597F5B3/core-reader
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268025000655
  129. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
  130. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8392/3/3/75
  131. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220027241247033
  132. https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/why-polarization-is-a-problem/
  133. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272725000076
  134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10106894/
  135. https://www.shariajournal.com/index.php/IJIJEL/article/download/994/587
  136. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17456916211044140
  137. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/pspp0000446
  138. https://www.cato.org/commentary/100-years-communism-death-deprivation
  139. https://ia801308.us.archive.org/28/items/BlackBookOfCommunism/TheBlackBookOfCommunism_text.pdf
  140. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596725000289
  141. https://www.swansea.ac.uk/history/history-study-guides/what-was-the-impact-of-fascist-rule-upon-italy-from-1922-to-1945/
  142. https://institutodelibertadeconomica.org/en/publications/gdp-per-capita-is-eight-times-higher-in-liberal-countries-than-in-socialist-countries/
  143. https://ourworldindata.org/historical-poverty-reductions-more-than-a-story-about-free-market-capitalism
  144. https://jacobin.com/2025/01/black-book-communism-courtois-history
  145. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/political-ideas-in-the-21st-century/
  146. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/
  147. https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/436598-why-is-populism-on-the-rise
  148. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
  149. https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/society/2024/latest-research-what-causes-political-polarization
  150. https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1673&context=honors_theses
  151. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-historically-polarized-ideologically.aspx
  152. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says?lang=en
  153. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-025-02251-0
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.