much of this time, the ‘study of ideology’ and the ‘study of ideologies’ operated with considerable mutual autonomy and internal diffuseness. But by the turn of the 1980s, and accelerating prodigiously since the 1990s, a major wave of new appreciations of ideology and ideologies have emerged that seek to unite the study of both in a systematic, holistic way. They do so from a wide range of disciplinary angles: social and political theory, intellectual history, philosophical hermeneutics, sociolinguistics, communication studies, social psychology, and political science. Their shared aim is to elevate ‘ideology’ from an instrumental factor in analysing other social phenomena and a tool in other subfields’ arsenals into a dedicated ‘subject’ and subdiscipline in its own right. Early markers of the emergence of ‘ideology studies’ and its multiple theoretical approaches were laid down by a spate of books that explicitly tackled the concept’s definition and social function and offered the first syncretic overviews of the history and ‘state of play’ of ideology studies. These ranged from conceptual histories of ideology theory by Hans Barth (1977) and Jorge Larraín (1979) to evaluations of its latest developments by David Manning (1980), Howard Williams (1988), and David McLellan (1995), along with a mixture of both by Terry Eagleton (1991); from the critique of ‘thinking in ideology terms’ by Kenneth Minogue (1985) to the defence of ideology analysis as a tool of critique by Raymond Geuss (1981); from refinements of existing traditions by Göran Therborn (1980) and John B. Thompson (1984) to wholly novel accounts by John Plamenatz (1970), Martin Seliger (1976), and Raymond Boudon (1989). At the same time, academic journals were founded that made explicit space for ideological analysis, including Rethinking Marxism (1988–), Constellations (1994–), and Historical Materialism (1997–) in the Marxist tradition, Philosophy and Social Criticism (1973–) and Theory, Culture & Society (1982–) in a more ecumenical vein, and the Journal of Political Ideologies (1996–) as the first dedicated ideology studies journal, alongside the formation of university centres dedicated partly or fully to the study of ideologies, at Essex (1982–), Boston (1988–2010), Cambridge (1994–), Oxford (2002–11), Queen Mary (2007–), Nottingham (2013–), St Andrews (2013–), and Helsinki (2016–).
This development has been accompanied by an increasing percolation of ‘ideology’ terminology into the conduct and self-conception of popular discourse. Individual and collective exponents of social thinking describe themselves and others more and more using ideological labels alongside their occupational credentials. Formally impartial academic or civil-society bodies are increasingly described as ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ activists or advisers; cable and online news outlets and talk radio present as ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive/radical’, sometimes featuring partisan ‘paid contributors’ and framing issues as ‘both-sides’ debates; and voters’ ideological self-identification in attitudes surveys is becoming more label-explicit and polarised. Meanwhile, in vernacular language, we increasingly deploy ideological labels as terms of insult – neoliberalism, racism, sexism, Eurocentrism – or distinction – antifascism, multiculturalism, constitutionalism, patriotism. This trend both reflects and supports the current long-term rise in ideological polarisation, which originated in the 1970s to 1980s but has distinctly accelerated since the 1990s. The proliferation of ideological traditions has widened the range of salient issues on which we can take a stance: forms and levels of taxation, public healthcare, abortion, military intervention, gay marriage, and so on. The views we hold about these issues are grouped into binaries or stretched out along several spectrums; where these binaries/spectrums extensively align rather than cross-cut, and our views on one issue correlate strongly with certain views on the others, we become clustered into a small number of camps with few overlaps. In recent decades, ideological polarisation has manifested as intensifying ‘us-versus-them’ divisions, marked by mutual distrust between different camps, questioning one another’s moral legitimacy, and viewing one another as existential threats (to themselves and their way of life or to society as a whole). Society, in short, has become more ideologically self-conscious and more self-consciously ideological – more aware that there are multiple ways to ‘recount’ or ‘tell’ ideas, and more prepared to take a clear position on which ‘account’ or ‘telling’ to commit to.
§3 Plan of the book
For at least two centuries, ideology has been vitally important to shaping society in many complex ways. Yet over the last three or four decades, ideology has achieved hitherto unmatched prominence in social research and social life: it has recaptured scholarly attention, and it has risen to the forefront of popular consciousness. In doing so, it has brought the central questions about the concept back into focus, prompting new developments in the study of ideology on both sides of the pejorative/non-pejorative divide. This book is intended as a waymarker along the path of consolidation of ideology studies: an opportunity to take stock of how ideological (and ‘ideologological’) understandings have evolved since the 1970s to 1990s, which centres the discussion on ideology rather than using it to preface elucidations of (political) ideologies. It draws on historical and contemporary approaches to ideology analysis, emphasising areas of overlap and disjunction and illustrating how to profitably combine them to illuminate ideology’s personal and social impact. A book of this size cannot hope to provide an exhaustive account of every aspect of ideology and its study. But it can act as a point of orientation for those searching for a way into ideology’s complex societal role.
The remainder of this book is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 traces how the theory of ideology has evolved over the last two centuries. It begins by analysing the problems of ideology theory historiography and argues that ideology theory’s evolutionary trajectory has been marked by a mixture of shifts and accumulations in concerns and approaches. The chapter traces the connection between ideology and illusion, science, class, and capitalism during the ‘classical’ period of ideology analysis (1800–90), followed by new concerns about the role of intellectuals and mass opinion, party politics, and ideological diversity (1890–1945). It overviews the subsequent shift to associating ideology with extremism and totalitarianism, along with the rise of alternative objects of analysis such as culture and discourse (1945–80), and ends by examining new focuses on identity and ‘ordinary’ thinking and expression that have accompanied the rise of ideology studies (1980–now).
The next three chapters form the book’s theoretical core, offering a syncretic, compatibilist statement of what ideology is and how it works that integrates and builds on the trajectory of ideology theory presented in chapter 2. Chapter 3 defines the concept of ideology, summarised as a specific combination and arrangement of ideas. These ideas are abstract or generalised representations of a set of perspectives, dispositions, norms, practices, structures, and systems: tools to help us ‘make sense’ of fundamentally chaotic and confusing (social) reality. How an ideology combines and arranges this set of elements constitutes its ‘morphology’, which can vary in thickness and robustness depending on the overall number, relative distribution, individual specificity, and mutual coherence of these elements. Of course, not every group of ideas is automatically an ideology, and the chapter closes with some criteria to distinguish what ideology is and what it is not: specifically, ideology’s claim to provide a comprehensive, complete, and correct ‘picture’ of reality.
Chapter 4 explores the relationship between ideology and ideologies. It starts by outlining the historical trends that have led to ideological differentiation, then outlines the social preconditions that typically must be met for ideological traditions to emerge: the existence of hierarchical social differences, factionalism, and a specific context on which ideologies can draw. It surveys the global history of ideologies, especially the last two centuries of intensive consolidation and evolution, and offers a morphology of different ideologies according to the perspectives, dispositions, norms, practices, structures, and systems they embrace. Finally, it addresses the question
