I should note first off that Prof Freeden's definition of ideology is different than my own. The core of his definition is that ideology is a set of political ideas, beliefs, and opinions that are communicable and influential. Whereas my own definition is that an ideology is a belief system, often dogmatic. (Distinguished from a religion only in that there is no mystical element.) I would agree with the sociologist who said that ideology is a "systematic misrepresentation of reality." So in reading this book I had to constantly make the mental conversion to the author's definition. (The author believes the view of ideology as being dogmatic is obsolete.)



The author makes a good case for his own definition. By that definition, ideology is a necessary part of politics. "They offer decision-making frameworks without which political action cannot occur." He analyzes ideology from different angles: language, macro ideology vs micro ideology, the separateness of ideology from political philosophy, the emotional appeal of ideology.... This is all interesting stuff. The book is not a quick read, not if you want to get as much as you can out of it, but it's definitely not a dry read either.



Another mental conversion for American readers: Freeden refers constantly to liberalism and conservatism, both of which he views as ideologies. But British liberalism and conservatism are different than the American versions. British liberalism stems from John Stuart Mill and libertarianism, with elements of humanism and pluralism added. In the US, liberals owe more to Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal" than to J S Mill, with liberalism being more about trying to increase social/economic/political justice/fairness in the world -- and disagreeing on how to accomplish that.



US conservatism, on the other hand, is an alliance of those who want to reduce government power as a way of increasing freedom, plus those who are willing to give up freedom if it increases security against enemies internal and external, plus those who believe that the power of government should be expanded to ensure the public's adherence to traditional Christian religious/social values, plus those who feel it's their right to make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences, and hang any values. If this mishmosh of conflicting goals is an ideology, then the word has no meaning. In Freeden's defense, this is unlikely what he had in mind.



In keeping the definition of ideology as open as possible, I think Freeden has weakened it. Maybe we just need more than one word to cover more of the variations in meaning.



The one area that Freeden has limited his definition is in wanting to keep ideology strictly in the political realm. He makes a reasonable case for this, but then again, that leaves no word to describe the post-1980 American fascination with the "invisible hand" of the free market. For instance: given that the free market can solve all problems, but the free market has no way to deal with global warming, then, ergo, global warming must not be a problem. I would label dogmatic economic beliefs like this an ideology, but Freeden probably wouldn't, even with his much looser definition of ideology.



The book is intellectually stimulating, i.e., it made me think, but it didn't make me want to read any further into the topic. This is not to say that there aren't some good insights here. E.g., Freeden notes that ideologies -- using his definition -- can work their emotional appeals with pictures better than words. Words can be changed by the listener/reader when he passes on the message, but few will alter a picture -- so the original message remains intact. Good point.



3 1/2 stars.

Скачать книгу бесплатно (pdf, 1.02 Mb)

---

Читать «Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)»