The Genesis of Political Ideology by Andrew Oforma Eze

CHAPTER ONE

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF IDEOLOGY

The word “ideology” has remained one of the political concepts that have been distorted, falsified, misinterpreted, controversial, loved and hated, and misquoted in the world political spectrum in general and in the field of social sciences in particular. Since 1796 when the term “ideology” was first coined by a French philosopher Destutt Tracy, it has posed great challenges to social analysts to substantiate its actual, reliable and universally acclaimed meaning. According to Heywood (2003) “the first problem confronting any discussion of the nature of ideology is the fact that there is no settled or agreed definition of the term, only a collection of rival definitions”.   David McLellan (1995) described ideology as “the most elusive concept in the whole of the social sciences” (cited in Andrew Heywood, 2003).

This is because of its multifaceted nature; hence many writers, activists, ideologues cum ideologists, political analysts and commentators have used it in different ways to suit their contextual analyses. Some have even substituted it with another awkward compound concepts and phrases like political-worldview, political belief, belief system, systems of thought, conceptions of the world, political philosophy, etc, (Gerring, 1997:961). Gerring (1997:160) called this awkward formation of terms in place of ideology a “terminological reshuffling.” While some have decided to avoid the controversial concept completely.

 

Despite these challenges associated with the findings or arriving at an agreeable or universally acceptable definition of the word “ideology”, different social scholars have been able to conceptualize this most misquoted word.

Hence, in this section we shall examine and evaluate some of definitions of ideology from different social scholars both in the classical and contemporary time. Although the definitions have some strength and weakness, our attention at this juncture should not be on their weaknesses but on their strengths and divergent perspectives:

·         Ball and Dagger (cited in Calvin Hayes, 2003) define ideology as “a fairly coherent and compressive set of ideas that explain and evaluate social conditions, help people understand their place in society and provide a program for social and political actions.”

·         McCLostry (cited in John Gerring 1997: 958), defines ideology as “systems of belief that are elaborate, integrated and coherent, that justify the exercise of power, explain and judge historical events identify political right and wrong, get forth the interconnection (Causal and moral) between politics and other spheres of activity.”

·         Ideology “… describes or interpret the world as it is – by making assertions or assumption about human nature, historical events, present realities and future possibilities- and to envision the world as it should be, specifying acceptable means of attaining social, economic and political ideas” (John T. Jost, C.M Federice, and Jaime L. Napier, 2009).

·         According to Loewenstein (Cited in John Gerring 1997:958) ideology is “a consistent integrated pattern of thoughts and beliefs explaining man’s attitudes towards life and his existence in society and advocating a conduct and action patterns responsible to and commensurate with such thought and beliefs.”

·         Hamilton (Cited in John Gerring, 1997:959) views ideology as “a system of collectively held attitudes advocating a particular pattern of social relationships and arrangements, and/or aimed at justifying a particular pattern of conduct, which its proponents seek to promote, realize, pursue or maintain.”

·         Nnoli (2003:178), views ideology as “a systematized and interconnected set of ideas about the socio-economic and political organization of society as a whole.” He further contends that “it contains ideals, ends and purposes that the society should pursue. On the basis of an interpretation of the past, it explains the present and offers a vision of the future. It suggests the aims and limits of political power.”

·         The last but not the least, Tedin (quoted in John, T. post, 2006:653) defined political ideology as an interrelated set of moral and political attitudes that possess a cognitive, affective and motivational components.” He also contends that political ideology helps to explain why people do what they do: it organizes their values and belief and leads to political behaviour. 

Hence, we can see that the above selected definitions of ideology actually unveiled the meaning and character of ideology. The first-six definitions explain the meaning of ideology whereas; the last one explains the meaning of political ideology which is our ultimate aim in this research work. The only difference is the attachment of adjective “political” in the latter which has to do with the “state, government, public and the body of politics.” We shall be using them interchangeably.

These definitions hold two things in common: that ideology is a “set of ideas and also a system of beliefs.” Ideology been a science of idea and system of belief can be in any form or type. There are: social, political, economic, cultural and religious ideologies. For examples, Islamism, Catholicism, Hinduism, paganism, evolutionism, traditionalism, fundamentalism, feminism, globalism etc, are all examples of ideology. As we have rightly stated, our focus is on “political ideology”

Hence, in the course of this literature we shall define political ideology as a systematic, coherent, and action oriented set of political ideas and beliefs that has an explanatory, evaluative and pragmatic power which guides political behaviour of society or group of people that share/held the view. Political ideology determines the actions or inactions of political actors in the realm of political affairs. It also seeks to organize, preserve, modify or to change the existing political system either through evolutionary and revolutionary means.

Political ideology is systematic because it combines theory and practice (actions) together. In concise terms, political ideology is the coherent and intellectual map of political behaviour that guides individuals. According to Mcillins (cited in Chris Livessey 2006:1), political ideology involves “a program of collective action for the maintenance, alteration or transformation of society.” Some of examples of political ideologies which are also economical because one cannot separate economic questions from political questions are: Socialism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Globalism, Fascism, Populism, Libertarianism, Communism, Nazism etc.

Ideology in general has been described as a system of “-ism”. This is because of the attachment suffix of ‘’-ism’’ at the end of every ideological term. Concisely speaking, all ideological terms or all ideologies end with “ism” but not all words that end with ‘’ism’’ is an ideology.

                      Origin of Ideology

One may logically ask thus: where did this world’s most controversial and misinterpreted word (ideology) originate? How did it originate? And who coined/originated the term?

The word “ideology” made its first appearance in France in the eighteenth century as an “ide’ologie” (literally idea-ology) in French word. It emerged during French revolution. And it was coined by a French philosopher “Antoine Louis Claude Destutt, Comte de Tracy” in 1796 as a name for what he called his “science of ideas”. Destutt de Tracy claimed to have adopted it from the epistemological philosophy of John Locke and Etienne Bonnot  e Condillac in his first draft work on ideology entitled Ele’ments d’ Ide’ologie (Element of Ideology). He defined ideology as “science of ideas”.

Antonine Louis Claude Destutt, Comte de Tracy (1754-1836)

According to online autobiography of Destutt de Tracy (http://     ), he was born in Paris in March 1754 into the family of a prominent soldier Claude Destutt and died in Paris in March 1836. He was educated up to the university level. He joined the army and when the French revolution broke out he took an active part in the Provincial Assembly of Bourbonnais. He was a Commander of the cavalry in the army of the north until when the anarchy and extremism loomed in France which became unbearable to him. Tracy relocated at the Auteuil located near the Bois de Boulogne where he devoted all his time to the scientific studies. In 1796, he was appointed as a member of the Institute National (IN) and was placed a member of the section of the Analysis of Sensations and Ideas (SASI) in the class of moral and political science. He coined the term “ideology” shortly after his appointment in the Institute National in 1796 to refer to his study of political sensations and the ideas about those sensations which rose in human beings as they interacted with their physical environment (David M. Hart, 2002). According to Tracy, the science of ideas was a science with a mission which aims at serving men and guiding their intellect. He was optimistic that ideology would transform France into a rational scientific state. During “the Reign of Terror” (1793-1794), in France, there was an upheaval which was in the form political war between the ruling “the Jacobin and the Gironding” faction in the state which was marked by mass executions of the enemies of the French revolution. Tracy was arrested and imprisoned for nearly a year before he was released. During his imprisonment he devoted his focus to the epistemological work of John Locke and Etienne Bonnot de Condillac.

Tracy’s ideology was liberalism (classical capitalism) which anchored on economic Laissez-faire, political liberty and social freedom of individuals and defense of private property. He also advocated for the need to unite the power of the state. Tracy and his fellow ideologues’ teachings of liberalism attracted the attention of many people to the extent that it became the official doctrine of the French Republic. Due to his liberalistic tendency, Tracy lost favour with Emperor Bonaparte. According to Maurice Cranston (2003) “Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte at first supported Destutt de Tracy and his friends, but he soon turned against them when they started gaining popularity among the people; and in December 1812 he even went so far as to attribute blame for France’s military defeats to the influence of the ideologues, of whom he spoke with scorn.” Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte later termed “ideology” as abusive term.  This was a genesis of controversial origin of ideology which is still relevant in the world contemporary politics. Napoleon who was the first person to use ideology in pejorative sense made some writers and analysts to follow his pejorative suit.  In the same vein Karl Marx also used the term “ideology” in pejorative sense. Marx described Tracy- as “a fish blood bourgeois doctrinaire” (David, M. Hart, 2002).

Furthermore, ideology despite its early origin was not popular until 1846 when Karl Marx used the term in his work entitled The German Ideology published in 1846. Marx as we have rightly enunciated viewed ideology in class stratification which made him had pejorative and pessimistic sense on ideology as the idea of ruling class which they use to justify and perpetuate themselves in power. Marx aptly (1846) argues thus:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling idea, i.e. the class which is the ruling materials force of society, is at the same time the ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it.

 Accordingly, Marx believed that ideology was all about delusion, distortion, mystification and falsification of ideas to suit the ruling class. Due to his pessimistic notion of ideology, his co-ally and lifetime friend Frederick Engels followed the same path. Engels described and quoted ideology as “false consciousness”. In the words of Andrew Heywood he argues that. “Marx's notion of ideology is that “… ideology is about delusion and mystification; it perpetrates a false or mistaken view of the world what Engels later referred to as ‘false consciousness.”

However, we should note that Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels and other classical and contemporary scholars had or still have negative notions of ideology were situational, superficial and myopic in their analyses. Many of them did not understand the meaning and nature of ideology as Tracy enunciated them. They were those that were disfavoured by the existing ideological systems which determined economic system then in the case of Marx, Engels, and Napoleon. Instead of them to attack the particular ruling ideology that was practiced in Europe then (i.e. classical capitalism or liberalism), they ignorantly turned against ideology as a whole.

For instance, Napoleon turned against ideology when he started losing influence or becoming irrelevant in France politics due to the doctrine of ideology of liberalism as it was advocated by Tracy and his fellow ideologues. And instead of Napoleon to attack liberalism, he attacked ideology as a concept not knowing that he himself was an ideologue who was ideologizing anti- liberalism. In the same vein, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels used the term pejoratively as they did due to the existing political epoch in the Europe and also because of the teaching of Young Hegelians then. Marx and Engels attack ideology in order to register their dissatisfaction about injustice and man’s inhumanity to man associated with capitalism which was the ruling ideology in the most European nations then. Due to the negative impact of capitalism on Europe, the lower class then was subjected to exploitation. This made Marx to hate anything called ideology. 

Marx even went further to say that proletariats need no ideology after their successful overthrow of the oppressive capitalist bourgeois class since ideology is all about delusion. Heywood (2003) aptly states that “the proletariat, in Marx's view the ‘grave digger’ of capitalism, is destined not to establish another form of class society, but rather to abolish class inequality altogether by bringing about the collective ownership of wealth. The interests of the proletariat thus coincide with those of society as a whole. The proletariat, in short, does not need ideology because it is the only class that needs no illusions.”

However, even some of the classical and contemporary Marxists did not concur with Marx on this issue.  Contrary to Marx notion on ideology, Vladimir Lenin who was the first practical Marxist argues that “proletariats have ideology.”  This was captured vividly in the work of Andrew Heywood (2003) Political Ideologies: An Introduction 3^rd edition.  According to Andrew Heywood “Lenin thus described the ideas of the proletariat as ‘socialist ideology’ or ‘Marxist ideology’, phrases that would have been absurd for Marx.”

Ignorantly, instead of Marx and Engels to attack capitalism they resolve to attack ideology as a whole.  Unknowingly to them that when they were attacking ideology as a concept they were also creating or advocating for another ideology “socialism” which made them ideologues cum ideologists. We know that Marx particularly said what he said about ideology then because of the frustration he suffered under classical capitalism in Europe then. Marx himself was an ideologue cum ideologist. Marxism or scientific socialism which was initiated, nurtured and institutionalized by Marx and Engels is an ideology.

Apart from Napoleon, Marx and Engels, other classical and contemporary scholars who have seen ideology as a false consciousness instead of one particular ideology did it or is doing it out of ignorance or frustration. This apparent ideological ignorance and bias were also made known public when some group of gullible, disgruntled, and biased political scientists and sociologist declared the end-of-ideology immediately after the Second World War and Cold War.

Finally, we can summarize by saying that ideology be it political, economical, religious and socio-cultural is immortal, dynamic and not one-sided as some may think. Karl Marx, one-sidedly theorized that only bourgeois have ideology. According to Vladimir Lenin even proletariats have an ideology.  Every group or organization must have an ideology for them to actualize their goals. Ideology is universal.

 Hence, we can aptly say that, the eighteenth century marked the date of birth of ideology as a term not an idea. The nineteenth century served as the world ideological impact. The twentieth century (mid) was the crisis of ideology while the twenty-first century is the age of Ideological Revival Movement. (The research has not been concluded).