|
An ideology
is a form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as
prominent as theoretical ones; it is a system of ideas that aspires both to
explain the world and to change it.
This article describes the nature,
history, and significance of ideologies in terms of the philosophical,
political, and international contexts in which they have arisen. For
discussions of particular categories of ideology, see the articles SOCIALISM
, COMMUNISM , ANARCHISM
, FASCISM , NATIONALISM
, LIBERALISM , and CONSERVATISM
.
The word first made its appearance in
French as idéologie at the
time of the French Revolution, when it was introduced by a philosopher, A.-L.-C.
Destutt de Tracy, as a short name for what he called his "science
of ideas," which he claimed to have adapted from the epistemology of the
philosophers John Locke and Étienne
Bonnot de Condillac, for whom all human knowledge was knowledge of
ideas. The fact is, however, that he owed rather more to the English
philosopher Francis Bacon, whom he revered no
less than did the earlier French philosophers of the Enlightenment. It was
Bacon who had proclaimed that the destiny of science was not only to enlarge
man's knowledge but also to "improve the life of men on earth," and
it was this same union of the programmatic with the intellectual that
distinguished Destutt de Tracy's idéologie from those theories, systems, or philosophies that
were essentially explanatory. The science of ideas was a science with a
mission; it aimed at serving men, even saving them, by ridding their minds of
prejudice and preparing them for the sovereignty of reason.
Destutt de Tracy and his fellow idéologues
devised a system of national education that they believed would transform
France into a rational and scientific society. Their teaching combined a
fervent belief in individual liberty with an elaborate program of state
planning, and for a short time under the Directory (1795-99) it became the
official doctrine of the French Republic. Napoleon at first supported Destutt
de Tracy and his friends, but he soon turned against them, and in December
1812 he even went so far as to attribute blame for France's military defeats
to the influence of the idéologues,
of whom he spoke with scorn.
Thus ideology
has been from its inception a word with a marked emotive content, though
Destutt de Tracy presumably had intended it to be a dry, technical term. Such
was his own passionate attachment to the science of ideas, and such was the
high moral worth and purpose he assigned to it, that the word idéologie
was bound to possess for him a strongly laudatory character. And equally, when
Napoleon linked the name of idéologie
with what he had come to regard as the most detestable elements in
Revolutionary thought, he invested the same word with all of his feelings of
disapprobation and mistrust. Ideology was, from this time on, to play this
double role of a term both laudatory and abusive not only in French but also
in German, English, Italian, and all the other languages of the world into
which it was either translated or transliterated.
Some historians of philosophy have
called the 19th century the age of ideology, not because the word itself was
then so widely used, but because so much of the thought of the time can be
distinguished from that prevailing in the previous centuries by features that
would now be called ideological. Even so, there is a limit to the extent to
which one can speak today of an agreed use of the word. The subject of
ideology is a controversial one, and it is arguable that at least some part of
this controversy derives from disagreement as to the definition of the word ideology.
One can, however, discern both a strict and a loose way of using it. In the
loose sense of the word, ideology may mean any kind of action-oriented theory
or any attempt to approach politics in the light of a system of ideas.
Ideology in the stricter sense stays fairly close to Destutt de Tracy's
original conception and may be identified by five characteristics: (1) it
contains an explanatory theory of a more or less comprehensive kind about
human experience and the external world; (2) it sets out a program, in
generalized and abstract terms, of social and political organization; (3) it
conceives the realization of this program as entailing a struggle; (4) it
seeks not merely to persuade but to recruit loyal adherents, demanding what is
sometimes called commitment; (5) it addresses a wide public but may tend to
confer some special role of leadership on intellectuals. In this article the
noun ideology is used only in its
strict sense; the adjective ideological is used to refer to ideology as broadly defined.
On the basis of the five features
above, then, one can recognize as ideologies systems as diverse as Destutt de
Tracy's own science of ideas, the Positivism of the French philosopher Auguste
Comte, Communism and several other types of Socialism, Fascism, Nazism, and
certain kinds of nationalism. That all these "-isms" belong to the
19th or 20th century may suggest that ideologies are no older than the word
itself--that they belong essentially to a period in which secular belief has
increasingly replaced traditional religious faith.
Ideologies, in fact, are sometimes
spoken of as if they belonged to the same logical category as religions.
Both are assuredly in a certain sense "total" systems, concerned at
the same time with questions of truth and questions of conduct; but the
differences between ideologies and religions are perhaps more important than
the similarities. A religious theory of reality is constructed in terms of a
divine order and is seldom, like that of the ideologist, centred on this world
alone. A religion may present a vision of a just society, but it cannot easily
have a practical political program. The emphasis of religion is on faith and
worship; its appeal is to inwardness and its aim the redemption or
purification of the human spirit. An ideology speaks to the group, the nation,
or the class. Some religions acknowledge their debt to revelation, whereas
ideology always believes, however mistakenly, that it lives by reason alone.
Both, it may be said, demand commitment, but it may be doubted whether
commitment has ever been a marked feature of those religions into which a
believer is inducted in infancy.
Even so, it is in certain religious
movements that the first ideological elements in the modern world can be seen.
The city of Florence, which in so many fields witnessed the birth of
modernity, produced perhaps the first "ideological" Christian. The
attempt of Girolamo Savonarola to construct a
puritan utopia was marked by several of the qualities by which one recognizes
a modern ideology: Savonarola treated the vision of a Christian community as a
model that men should actually seek to realize in the here and now. His method
was to dominate the state through an appeal to the populace, and then to use
the powers of the state to control both the economy and the private lives of
the citizens. The enterprise was given a militant spirit; it was presented by
Savonarola as being at one and the same time an outward struggle against papal
corruption, the commercial ethos, and Renaissance Humanism, and an inward
struggle against worldly ambitions and carnal desires.
Savonarola had numerous followers in
his attempt to give Christianity an ideological dimension: he inspired
Calvin's Geneva and the Puritan communities of the New World. Indeed, in both
the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, when Christianity was invested
with a new militancy and a new intolerance, when a new emphasis was placed on
creeds and conversion, religion itself moved that much nearer to ideology.
The Italian political
philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli
was one of Savonarola's sharpest critics, but he was also, like him, a
precursor of modern ideologists. Historians who speak of him only as an
immoralist overlook the extent to which Machiavelli was a man with an ideal--a
republican ideal. Rousseau recognized this when he spoke of The
Prince as a "handbook for republicans." Machiavelli's dream was
to see revived in modern Italy a republic as glorious as that of ancient Rome,
and he suggested that it could be achieved only by means of a revolution that
had the strength of will to liquidate its enemies. Machiavelli was the first
to link ideology with terror, but he was too much of a political scientist to
enact the role of the ideologue.
Seventeenth-century England occupies
an important place in the history of ideology. Although there were then no
fully fledged ideologies in the strict sense of the term, political theory,
like politics itself, began to acquire certain ideological characteristics.
The swift movement of revolutionary forces throughout the 17th century created
a demand for theories to explain and justify the radical action that was often
taken. Locke's Two
Treatises of Government is an outstanding example of literature
written to justify the rights of man against absolutism. This growth of
abstract theory in the 17th century, this increasing tendency to construct
systems and discuss politics in terms of principles, marks the emergence of
the ideological style. In political conversation generally it was accompanied
by a growing use of concepts such as right and liberty--ideals in terms of
which actual policies were judged.
Although the word ideology in the sense derived from Destutt de Tracy's understanding
has passed into modern usage, it is important to notice the particular sense
that ideology is given in Hegelian
and Marxist philosophy, where it is used in a pejorative way. Ideology
there becomes a word for what these philosophers also call "false
consciousness." G.W.F. Hegel argued that people were instruments of
history; they enacted roles that were assigned to them by forces they did not
understand; the meaning of history was hidden from them. Only the philosopher
could expect to understand things as they were. This Hegelian enterprise of
interpreting reality and reconciling the world to itself was condemned by
certain critics as an attempt to provide an ideology of the status quo, in
that if individuals were indeed mere ciphers whose actions were determined by
external forces, then there was little point in trying to change or improve
political and other circumstances. This is a criticism Karl
Marx took up, and it is the argument he developed in The
German Ideology and other earlier writings. Ideology in this sense is a
set of beliefs with which people deceive themselves; it is theory that
expresses what they are led to think, as opposed to that which is true; it is
false consciousness.
Marx, however, was not consistent in
his use of the word ideology, for he
did not always use the term pejoratively, and some of his references to it
clearly imply the possibility of an ideology being true. Twentieth-century
Marxists, who have frequently discarded the pejorative sense of ideology
altogether, have been content to speak of Marxism as being itself an ideology.
In certain Communist countries "ideological institutes" have been
established, and party philosophers are commonly spoken of as party
ideologists. Marxism is an excellent example, a paradigm, of an ideology.
The use of the word ideology in the pejorative sense of false consciousness is found not
only in the writings of Marx himself but in those of other exponents of what
has come to be known as the sociology of knowledge, including the German
sociologists Max Weber and Karl
Mannheim, and numerous lesser figures. Few such writers are wholly
consistent in their use of the term, but what is characteristic of their
approach is their method of regarding idea systems as the outcome or
expression of certain interests. In calling such idea systems ideologies, they
are treating them as things whose true nature is concealed; they consider the
task of sociological research to be the unveiling of what Mannheim called the
"life conditions which produce ideologies."
From this perspective, the economic
science of Adam Smith, for example, is not to
be understood as an independent intellectual construction or to be judged in
terms of its truth, consistency, or clarity; rather, it is to be seen as the
expression of bourgeois interests, as part of the ideology of capitalism.
The sociology of knowledge in its more
recent formulations has sought support in Freudian
psychology (notably in borrowing from Freud the concepts of the unconscious
and of rationalization), in order to suggest that ideologies are the
unconscious rationalizations of class interests. This refinement has enabled
sociologists of knowledge to rid their theory of the disagreeable and
unscientific element of bald accusation; they no longer have to brand Adam
Smith as a deliberate champion of the bourgeois ethos but can see him now as
simply the unconscious spokesman of capitalism. At the same time, these
sociologists of knowledge have argued that Freudian psychology is itself no
less a form of ideology than is Adam Smith's economics, for Freud's method of
psychoanalysis is essentially a technique for adjusting rebellious minds to
the demands and constraints of bourgeois society.
Critics of the sociology of knowledge
have argued that if all philosophy is ideology, then the sociology of
knowledge must itself be an ideology like any other idea system and equally
devoid of independent validity; that if all seeming truth is veiled
rationalization of interest, then the sociology of knowledge cannot be true.
It has been suggested that although Weber and Mannheim inspired most of the
work that has been done by sociologists of knowledge their own writings may
perhaps be exempted from this criticism, if only on the ground that neither of
them put forward a consistent or unambiguous theory of ideology. Both used the
word ideology in different ways at
different times. Weber was in part concerned to reverse Marx's theory that all
idea systems are products of economic structures, by demonstrating conversely
that some economic structures are the product of idea systems (that
Protestantism, for example, generated capitalism and not capitalism
Protestantism). Mannheim, on the other hand, tried to restore in a more
elaborate form Marx's suggestion that ideologies are the product of the social
structure. But Mannheim's analysis may have been obscured by his proposal that
the word ideology should be reserved
for idea systems that are more or less conservative, and the word utopia for idea systems of a more revolutionary or millenarian
nature. Mannheim did not, however, remain faithful to this stipulative
definition, even in his book entitled Ideology
and Utopia.
On the other hand, Mannheim was well
aware of the implication of the doctrine that all idea systems have a class
basis and a class bias. As a way out of the dilemma he envisaged the
possibility of a classless class of intellectuals, a "socially unattached
intelligentsia," as he put it, capable of thinking independently by
virtue of its independence from any class interest or affiliation. Such a
detached group might hope to acquire knowledge that was not ideology. This vision of a small elite of superior minds rising
above the myths of ordinary society seemed to some readers to put Mannheim
closer to Plato than to Marx and to cast new doubts on the claim of the
sociology of knowledge to be a science.
If some theorists emphasize the
kinship between ideology and various forms of religious enthusiasm, others
stress the connection between ideology and what they call rationalism, or the
attempt to understand politics in terms of abstract ideas rather than of lived
experience. Like Napoleon, who held that ideology is par excellence the work
of intellectuals, some theorists are suspicious of those who think they know
about politics because they have read many books; they believe that politics
can be learned only by an apprenticeship to politics itself.
Such people are not unsympathetic to
political theories, such as Locke's, but they argue that their value resides
in the facts that are derived from experience. Michael Oakeshott in England
has described Locke's theory of political liberty as an "abridgment"
of the Englishman's traditional understanding of liberty, and has suggested
that once such a conception is uprooted from the tradition that has given it
meaning it becomes a rationalistic doctrine or metaphysical abstraction, like
those liberties contained in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which were
so much talked about after the French Revolution but rarely actually enjoyed,
in France or elsewhere.
Whereas Oakeshott has seen ideology as
a form of rationalism, Edward Shils, a U.S.
political scientist, has seen it more as a product of, among other things,
romanticism with an extremist character. His argument is that romanticism has
fed into and swelled the seas of ideological politics by its cult of the ideal
and by its scorn for the actual, especially its scorn for what is mediated by
calculation and compromise. Since civil politics demands both compromise and
contrivance and calls for a prudent self-restraint and responsible caution, he
suggests that civil politics is bound to be repugnant to romanticism. Hence
Shils concludes that the romantic spirit is naturally driven toward
ideological politics.
The "total" character of
ideology, its extremism and violence, have
been analyzed by other critics, among whom the French philosopher-writer Albert
Camus and the Austrian-born British philosopher Sir
Karl Popper merit particular attention. Beginning as an Existentialist
who subscribed to the view that "the universe is absurd," Camus
passed to a personal affirmation of justice and human decency as compelling
values to be realized in conduct. An Algerian by birth, Camus also appealed to
what he believed to be the "Mediterranean" tradition of moderation
and human warmth and joy in living as opposed to the "northern"
Germanic tradition of fanatical, puritan devotion to metaphysical
abstractions. In his book The Rebel (L'Homme
révolté), he argued that the true rebel is not the man who
conforms to the orthodoxy of some revolutionary ideology, but a man who could
say "no" to injustice. He suggested that the true rebel would prefer
the politics of reform, such as that of modern trade-union socialism, to the
totalitarian politics of Marxism or similar movements. The systematic violence
of ideology--the crimes de logique that were committed in its name--appeared to Camus
to be wholly unjustifiable. Hating cruelty, he believed that the rise of
ideology in the modern world had added enormously to human suffering. Though
he was willing to admit that the ultimate aim of most ideologies was to
diminish human suffering, he argued that good ends did not authorize the use
of evil means.
A somewhat similar plea for what he
called "piecemeal social engineering" was put forward by Popper, who
argued that ideology rests on a logical mistake: namely the notion that
history can be transformed into science. In The
Logic of Scientific Discovery (Logik
der Forschung), Popper suggested that the true method of science was not
one of observation, hypothesis, and confirmation but one of conjecture and
experiment, in which the concept of falsification played a crucial role. By
this concept he meant that in science there is a continuing process of trial
and error; conjectures are put to the test of experiment, and those that are
not falsified are provisionally accepted; thus there is no definitive
knowledge but only provisional knowledge that is constantly being corrected.
Popper saw in the enterprise of ideology an attempt to find certainty in
history and to produce predictions on the model of what were supposed to be
scientific predictions. Ideologists, he argued, because they have a false
notion of what science is, can produce only prophecies, which are quite
distinct from scientific predictions and which have no scientific validity
whatever. Though Popper was well disposed toward the idea of a
"scientific" approach to politics and ethics, he suggested that a
full awareness of the importance of trial and error in science would prompt
one to look for similar forms of "negative judgment" elsewhere.
By no means are all ideologists
explicit champions of violence, but it is characteristic of ideology both to
exalt action and to regard action in terms of a military analogy. Some
observers have pointed out that one has only to consider the prose style of
the founders of most ideologies to be struck by the military and warlike
language that they habitually use, including words like struggle,
resist, march, victory, and overcome;
the literature of ideology is replete with martial expressions. In such a
view, commitment to an ideology becomes a form of enlistment so that to become
the adherent of an ideology is to become a combatant or partisan.
In the years that followed World War
II, a number of ideological writers went beyond the mere use of military
language and made frank avowals of their desire for violence--not that it was
a new thing to praise violence. The French political philosopher Georges
Sorel, for example, had done so before World War I in his book Reflections
on Violence. Sorel was usually regarded as being more a Fascist
than a Socialist. He also used the word violence
in his own special way; by violence Sorel meant passion, not the throwing of
bombs and the burning of buildings.
Violence found eloquent champions in
several black militant writers of the 1960s, notably the Martinican theorist
Frantz Fanon. Moreover, several of the French philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre's dramatic writings turn on the theme that "dirty
hands" are necessary in politics and that a man with so-called bourgeois
inhibitions about bloodshed cannot usefully serve a revolutionary cause.
Sartre's attachment to the ideal of revolution tended to increase as he grew
older, and in some of his later writings he suggested that violence might even
be a good thing in itself.
In considering Sartre's views on the
subject of ideology it must be noted that Sartre sometimes used the word ideology
in a sense peculiarly his own. In an early section of his Search
for a Method (Critique de la raison
dialectique), Sartre drew a distinction between philosophies and
ideologies in which he reserved the term philosophy
for those major systems of thought, such as the Rationalism of Descartes or
the Idealism of Hegel, which dominate men's minds at a certain moment in
history. He defined an ideology as a minor system of ideas, living on the
margin of the genuine philosophy and exploiting the domain of the greater
system. What Sartre proposed in this work was a revitalization and
modernization of the "major philosophy" of Marxism through the
integration of elements drawn from the "ideology," or minor system,
of Existentialism. What emerged from the book was a theory in which the
Existentialist elements are more conspicuous than the Marxist.
A distinction is often drawn between
the ideological and the pragmatic approach to
politics, the latter being understood as the approach that treats particular
issues and problems purely on their merits and does not attempt to apply
doctrinal, preconceived remedies. Theorists have debated whether or not
politics has become less ideological and whether a pragmatic approach can be
shown to be better than an ideological one.
On the first question, there seemed to
be good reason for thinking that after the death of Stalin and the repudiation
of Stalinism by the Communist Party, the Soviet Union, at least, was becoming
more interested in the "pragmatic" concerns of national security and
the balance of power and less interested in the ideological aim of fostering
universal Communism. This in turn seemed to many to have resulted--in both the
United States and the Soviet Union--in a shift toward a pragmatic policy of
coexistence and a peaceful division of spheres of influence. There were
indications in many countries that the old antagonisms between capitalist and
socialist ideologies were giving way to a search for techniques for making a
mixed economy work more effectively for the good of all.
But while many observers believed that
there was much evidence of a decline of ideology in the latter 1950s, others
believed that there were equally manifest signs in the following decade of a
revival of ideology, if not within the major political parties, then at least
among the public generally. Throughout the world various left-wing movements
emerged to challenge the whole ethos on which pragmatic politics was based.
Not all these ideologies were coherent, and none possessed the elaborate
intellectual structure of the 19th-century ideologies; but together they
served to demonstrate that the end of ideology was not yet at hand.
As suggested earlier, certain
controversies about ideology have to some extent been rooted in the ambiguity
of the word itself, and this is perhaps especially relevant to the
confrontation between ideology and pragmatism, since the word pragmatism
raises problems no less intractable than those involved in connection with the
word ideology. In the senses
outlined at the beginning of this article, ideology is manifestly not the only
alternative to pragmatism in politics, and to reject ideology would not
necessarily be to adopt pragmatism. Ordinary language does not yet yield as
many words as political science needs to clarify the question, and it becomes
necessary to introduce such expressions as belief system, or to name the
relevant distinctions, to further the analysis.
Almost any approach to politics
constitutes a belief system of one kind or another. Some such belief systems
are more structured, more ordered, and generally systematic than others.
Though an ideology is a type of belief system, not all belief systems are
ideologies. One man's belief system may consist of a congeries of ill-assorted
prejudices and inarticulate assumptions. Another's may be the result of deep
reflection and careful study. It is sometimes felt to be convenient to speak
of a belief system of this latter type as a philosophy or, better, to
distinguish it from philosophy in the technical or academic sense, as a Weltanschauung (literally, a "view of the world").
The confrontation between ideology and
pragmatism may be more instructive if it is translated into a distinction
between the ideological and the pragmatic, taking these two adjectives as
extremes on a sliding scale. From this perspective, it becomes possible to
speak of differences of degree, to speak of an approach to politics as being
more or less ideological, more or less pragmatic. At the same time it becomes
possible to speak of a belief system such as liberalism as lending itself to a
variety of forms, tending at the one extreme toward the ideological, and at
the other toward the pragmatic.
It has been said that ideology has
transformed international relationships in the 20th century--in appearance at
least. Earlier centuries experienced dynastic wars, national, civil, and
imperial wars, and diplomacy designed to further national security or national
expansion or to promote mutual advantages and general peace. Such factors,
indeed, appeared to govern international relations until recent times.
International relations today are seemingly dominated more often than not by
the exigencies of "-isms": wars are fought, alliances are made, and
treaties are signed because of ideological considerations. The balance of
power in the contemporary world is a balance weighted by ideological
commitment. "The Communist bloc" confronts "the Free
peoples," and in the "Third World" emergent nations cultivate a
nationalist, anticolonialist ideology in their search for identity and their
efforts to achieve modernity.
But this is not to assert that
ideological wars, or ideological diplomacy, are entirely new. What has become
the most conspicuous element in contemporary international relations--so
conspicuous that other elements are often entirely ignored--was present, to a
lesser degree, in earlier international relations. It is necessary here to
distinguish between the actual events of history and the interpretations that
are put on history, for some events lend themselves more readily than others
to an ideological interpretation. The ideological perspective has become
increasingly significant as the general public has come to play a role in
considering questions of war and peace. When questions of defense and
diplomacy were settled by kings and their ministers and wars were fought by
professional soldiers and sailors, the public was not expected to have any
opinion about international relations, and in such a situation there was
little place for ideology.
In the course of World
War I, however, a new element appeared to have been introduced. The war
was seen by those who experienced it as being in its early stages a national
war of the traditional kind, and as such it was not at first expected to
assume any profoundly disturbing form. Each combatant people viewed itself as
fighting for king and country in a just war. But by 1916 the Allies were being
urged to think of their endeavour as a war "to make the world safe for
democracy," and the Germans, on their side, were correspondingly
encouraged to visualize the war as a struggle of "culture" against
"barbarism." On both sides, the casualties were far more terrible
than anyone had foreseen, and the need to sustain the will to war by an appeal
to ideology was plainly felt by all the nations involved. Whether such
"war aims" were really the main objectives of the governments
concerned is another question; what is important is that, as the need was
increasingly felt for a justification of war, the justification took an
ideological form. Whether or not World War I changed its real nature between
1914 and 1918, the prevailing conception of it underwent significant
alteration. This became more marked after the Russian Revolution of 1917, when
the Bolsheviks submitted to harsh German peace terms for reasons thatwere not
only practical but ideological--namely, the preservation and promotion of
Communism. Pres. Woodrow Wilson took the United States into the war on the
Allied side with an alternative ideological vision--that of ensuring permanent
peace through the League of Nations and of establishing democratic governments
in all the conquered countries.
The rise of Communism clearly marked a
corresponding increase in the role of ideology in international relations.
Fascism helped to speed the process. The Spanish Civil War of the 1930s was an
almost clear-cut confrontation between the ideologies of left and right (not
entirely clear-cut because of the ambiguous relationship between Communism and
anarchism).
The precise extent of ideological
commitment in World War II is a matter of some
controversy. At one level, the 1939 war is seen as a continuation of the war
of 1914. Two of the leading protagonists--Great Britain and the United
States--agreed more in their anti-ideological stance and their hostility to
Nazism than in promoting an alternative ideology. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, suspicious of British and French imperialism
and eager to cultivate a progressive ideological outlook, was critical of
Prime Minister Winston Churchill's politics, hostile toward Charles de
Gaulle's, but surprisingly tolerant of Joseph Stalin's. The revival of
Wilson's idealistic war aims in the Atlantic Charter
provided a basis for a kind of general ideological union of the Allies. But
such formulations proved to be of small significance compared to the profound
ideological commitment of the Soviet Union to Communism, and that of the
United States to an international position more ideologically anti-Communist
than pro anything.
What came to be called the Cold
War in the 1950s must be understood, to a large extent, as an
ideological confrontation, and, whereas Communism
is manifestly an ideology, the "non-Communism," or even the
"anti-Communism," of the West is negatively ideological. To oppose
one ideology is not necessarily to subscribe to another, although there is a
strong body of opinion in the West that feels that the free world needs a
coherent ideology if it is to resist successfully an opposing ideology.
The connection between international wars
and ideology can be better expressed in terms of a difference of degree rather
than of kind: some wars are more ideological than others, although there is no
clear boundary between an ideological and nonideological war. An analogy with
the religious wars of the past is evident, and there is indeed some historical
continuity between the two types of war. The Christian Crusades against the
Turks and the wars between Catholics and Protestants in early modern Europe
have much in common with the ideological conflicts of the contemporary period.
Religious wars are often communal wars, as witness those between Hindus and
Muslims in India; but an "ideological" element of a kind can be
discovered in many religious wars, even those narrated in the Old Testament,
in which the people of Israel are described as fighting for the cause of
righteousness--fighting, in other words, for a universal abstraction as
distinct from a local and practical aim. In the past this
"ideological" element has in the main been subsidiary; what is
characteristic of the modern period is that the ideological element has become
increasingly dominant, first in the religious wars (and the related diplomacy)
that followed the Reformation and then in the political wars and diplomacy of
recent times. (M.C.)
|
이데올로기 (idéologie). 이론과 실천의 양 측면에서 중요한 의미를 갖는 사회·정치
철학의 한 형태. 세계를 설명하고 변화시키는 것을 뒷받침하는
관념체계이다.
이데올로기의 기원과 특징
이데올로기(idéologie)라는 말은 프랑스 혁명기에
철학자 A. L. C. 데스튀트
드 트라시가 자신의 '관념의 과학'의 약칭으로
도입하면서 처음 등장했다. 그는 관념의 과학이 모든
인간지식을 관념에 관한 지식으로 본 철학자 존 로크와
에티엔 보노 드 콩디야크의 인식론을 각색한 것이라고
설명했으나, 사실은 영국의 철학자 프랜시스 베이컨에게 더
많은 빚을 지고 있다. 베이컨은 과학의 운명은 인간 지식의
확대뿐만 아니라 '지구 위의 인간의 삶을 개선하는 일'이라고
선언했다. 베이컨처럼 지식과 실용을 결합하는 것이야말로
설명을 본질로 하는 이론·철학과 데스튀트 드 트라시의
이데올로기를 구별짓는 특징이다. 관념의 과학은
인간정신에서 편견을 몰아내고 이성을 복권함으로써 인간에
봉사하고 구원하는 것을 목표로 삼았다. 프랑스를 합리적·과학적
사회로 변혁하리라 믿고 국민교육체계를 고안한 데스튀트
드 트라시와 동료 이데올로그(idéologue)들의 가르침은
1795~99년 프랑스 총재정부의 공인학설이 되었다. 그런데
처음에는 그들을 지지했던 나폴레옹이 곧 등을 돌렸고 1812년
12월 프랑스군의 패배를 이데올로그들의 탓으로 돌리기까지
했다. 이리하여 이데올로기는 시작부터 뚜렷한 감정적
함축을 지닌 용어가 되어 버렸다. 이데올로기는 데스튀트 드
트라시가 관념의 과학에 정열적으로 애정을 쏟고 숭고한
도덕적 가치를 부여함으로써 좋은 의미를 가졌다가 그후
나폴레옹이 혁명사상의 혐오스런 요소들을 이 낱말과
결합함으로써 온갖 비난과 불신의 느낌으로 채워졌다.
이때부터 이데올로기는 프랑스어뿐만 아니라 전세계 언어로
번역될 때 칭찬과 욕설의 이중성을 띠게 되었다.
이데올로기라는 말은 협의와 광의로 구별할 수 있는데
이데올로기를 둘러싼 논쟁이 적어도 어떤 부분은 용어의
정의가 일치하지 않는 데서 비롯되기 때문이다. 광의의
이데올로기는 체계적인 관념의 인도를 받는 모든 종류의
행동지향적 이론이나 관념 체계에 비추어 정치에 접근하는
모든 시도를 뜻한다. 협의의 이데올로기는 다음의 5가지
특징으로 나타낼 수 있으며, 데스튀트 드 트라시의 원래
견해에 매우 가깝다. ① 이데올로기는 인간경험과
외부세계에 관한 포괄적인 설명이론을 포함한다. ②
이데올로기는 일반적·추상적 용어로 사회·정치를 조직하는
프로그램을 제시한다. ③ 이데올로기는 이 프로그램의
실현에는 투쟁이 뒤따를 것이라고 본다. ④ 이데올로기는
때때로 서약을 요구하면서 충실한 지지자를 모으려 한다. ⑤
이데올로기는 광범한 대중을 향하며 지식인에게 특별한
지도역할을 부여하는 경향을 띤다.
철학적 맥락
이데올로기와 종교
이데올로기는 종종 종교와
동일한 범주에 속한다고 이야기된다. 2가지 모두 총체적
체계이며 진리 및 행위 문제와 관련이 있다. 그러나 그보다
중요한 것은 이데올로기와 종교의 차이이다. 종교이론은
신적 질서에 따라 세워지며 이데올로기처럼 현실세계에만
관심을 집중하지 않는다. 종교는 정의로운 사회의 이상향을
제시할 수 있지만 정치적 실천 프로그램을 가지기 어려우며,
믿음·예배를 강조하고 영성(靈性)에 호소하며 인간정신의
구원·정화를 목적으로 한다. 이데올로기는 집단·민족·계급을
향해 말하며, 계시에 의지하는 종교에 반해 판단을 그르치는
일이 있더라도 이성에만 의지한다고 믿는다. 근대 세계
최초의 이데올로기적 요소는 몇몇 종교운동에서 찾아볼 수
있다. 지롤라모 사보나롤라는
최초의 '이데올로기적'인 그리스도교도였으며,
프로테스탄트적 유토피아를 건설하려 했다. 그는
그리스도교 공동체의 이상향을 지금 우리가 실현해야 할
모델로 여겼고, 실현방법으로서 하층민에 호소해 국가를
지배하고 경제와 시민의 사생활을 감독하기 위해
국가권력을 이용하자고 주장했다. 그는 그리스도교에
이데올로기적 차원을 부여한 시도 때문에 수많은 추종자를
얻었으며, 칼뱅의 제네바 및 신대륙의 청교도 공동체에
영감을 주었다.
초기 정치철학에서 이데올로기
이탈리아의 정치철학자 니콜로 마키아벨리는
사보나롤라와 함께 근대 이데올로그의 선구자였다.
마키아벨리의 꿈은 근대 이탈리아에서 고대 로마와 같은
찬란한 공화제가 부활하는 것을 보는 것이었는데, 이는
혁명을 통해서만 달성될 수 있다고 주장했다. 또
마키아벨리는 최초로 이데올로기를 테러와 결합했으나
이데올로그 역할을 하기에는 지나치게 정치학자의 성격이
강했다. 17세기 영국은 이데올로기 역사에서 중요한 위치를
차지한다. 당시 영국에서 혁명세력의 신속한 움직임은
급진적 행동을 설명하고 정당화할 수 있는 이론을
요구했으며, 따라서 정치이론은 정치 자체와 마찬가지로
이데올로기의 성격을 띠게 되었다. 존 로크의 〈통치론 2편
Two Treatises of Government〉(1690)은 절대주의에 대항하는
인간권리를 정당화하기 위해 쓴 대표적 문헌이다. 17세기에
추상적 이론이 성장하고 이론체계의 확립과 정치를 원리에
따라 논의하는 경향이 증가한 것은 이데올로기적 양식의
출현을 두드러지게 보여준다.
헤겔과
마르크스
이데올로기가 헤겔과 마르크스의 철학에서 부여받은
특수한 의미를 주목하는 것은 중요한 일이다. 여기서
이데올로기란 '허위의식'을 나타내는 비난조의 의미를
지닌다. 헤겔에 따르면 인민은 역사의 도구로서 자신도 알지
못하는 외적인 힘이 자신에게 부여한 역할을 수행하며,
그리하여 역사의 의미는 인민의 배후에 숨어 있다. 현실을
이렇게 해석해서 현실과 타협하려는 헤겔의 시도는
현상유지 이데올로기를 제공하는 것이다. 왜냐하면 만일
개인이 외적 힘에 의해 자신의 행동을 결정하는 보잘것없는
존재라면 상황을 바꾸거나 개선하려는 노력은 거의 의미가
없기 때문이다. 바로 이것이 헤겔에 대한 카를 마르크스의
비판이며, 〈독일 이데올로기 Die Deutsche Ideologie〉와 그밖의
초기저작에서 전개한 주장이다. 이런 의미의 이데올로기는
자기 자신을 속이는 일련의 믿음을 뜻한다. 마르크스에
따르면 진리와 반대되는 것을 생각하도록 이끄는 이론이
이데올로기이자 허위의식이다. 그러나 마르크스는 이
용어를 일관되게 비난조로만 사용한 것이 아니라 참된
이데올로기의 가능성을 내포하는 것으로도 사용했다. 종종
이데올로기의 경멸적 의미를 무시했던 20세기
마르크스주의자는 마르크스주의 자체가 이데올로기로
일컬어지는 데 만족했다. 몇몇 공산주의 나라에서 당
철학자는 보통 당 이데올로그라 불린다. 마르크스주의는
이데올로기의 훌륭한 전형이다.
지식사회학
독일의 사회학자 막스 베버와
카를 만하임을 필두로 하는 지식사회학자의 저작 속에서도
이데올로기는 허위의식이라는 비난적 의미로 사용된다.
이들의 접근방법의 특징은 이데올로기를 특정 이해관계의
결과나 표현으로 여기고 이런 이데올로기를 진짜 성격을
감춘 어떤 것으로 다룬다는 점이다. 그래서
지식사회학자들은 만하임이 말한 '이데올로기를 산출하는
생활조건'의 베일을 벗기는 일을 사회학의 임무라고
생각한다. 이런 관점에서 보면 예컨대 애덤 스미스의
경제학은 독립된 지식 구성물로 인정할 수 없으며 그 자체의
진리 및 일관성에 따라 평가할 수 없고, 오히려 자본주의
이데올로기로써 부르주아의 이해관계를 표현한 것으로
보아야 한다.
최근의 지식사회학은 이데올로기가 계급이익의 무의식적
합리화임을 주장하기 위해 프로이트 심리학을 지지해왔다.
이때문에 지식사회학자들은 지식사회학 이론에서
비과학적이라고 노골적으로 비난받는 요소를 제거할 수
있었다. 왜냐하면 프로이트 심리학을 도입하면
지식사회학자들은 애덤 스미스를 부르주아 특질을 가진
고의적 투사로 더이상 낙인찍지 않고 그저 자본주의의
무의식적 대변인으로 볼 수 있기 때문이다. 이와 동시에
지식사회학자들은 프로이트 심리학이 애덤 스미스의 경제학
못지 않게 이데올로기의 한 형태임을 주장해왔다.
본질적으로 프로이트의 정신분석방법은 반항적 성격의
소유자를 부르주아 사회의 요구와 속박에 적응시키는
기술이기 때문이다. 지식사회학에 대한 비판자들은 모든
철학이 이데올로기라면 지식사회학도 이데올로기임에
틀림없다고 주장한다. 한편 비록 베버와 만하임이
지식사회학자들의 견해에 강한 암시를 주기는 했지만, 두
사람 중 누구도 일관된 이데올로기론을 내놓지 않았기
때문에 그들은 위의 비판에서 벗어날 수도 있다. 베버와
만하임은 이데올로기라는 낱말을 서로 다르게 사용했다.
베버는 경제구조가 이념체계의 산물이라는 점(예를 들면
프로테스탄트주의가 자본주의를 낳았지 그 반대가 아니라는
것)을 논증함으로써 이념체계가 경제구조의 산물이라는
마르크스의 이론을 뒤집는 데 관심을 가졌다. 반면 만하임은
이데올로기가 사회구조의 산물이라는 마르크스의 제안을
좀더 정교한 형태로 되살리려고 노력했다. 그러나
이데올로기라는 낱말은 다소 보수적인 관념체계에서,
유토피아라는 낱말은 좀더 혁명적인 또는 천년왕국적
성격을 가진 관념체계에서 사용해야 한다는 제안 때문에
만하임의 이러한 노력은 빛을 잃은 것 같다. 그는
〈이데올로기와 유토피아 Ideologie und Utopie〉에서조차 이러한
약정적 정의에 충실하지 못했다. 한편 모든 관념체계가 계급
기반과 계급 편견을 가진다는 원리가 함축하고 있는
딜레마에서 빠져나오는 길로서 만하임이 설정한 계급 아닌
계급인 지식인, 즉 '사회적 중립을 지키는 인텔리겐치아'의
가능성은 계급 이해나 제휴에서 벗어날 수 있다면 생각해볼
만한 문제이다. 그러나 뛰어난 정신을 지닌 소수 엘리트를
이상으로 제시한 것은 만하임이 마르크스보다 플라톤에 더
가깝다는 인상을 주고 지식사회학이 과학이라는 주장에
새로운 의문을 던진 것으로 보인다.
정치적 맥락
이데올로기·합리주의·낭만주의
어떤 이론가들은 이데올로기와 종교적 열광 사이의
유사성을 강조하는 반면 다른 이론가들은 이데올로기와
합리주의의 연관, 산 경험보다 추상적 이념에 따라 정치를
이해하려는 시도와 이데올로기의 연관을 강조한다. 또 책을
통해 정치에 관해 안다고 생각하는 사람을 믿지 못하고
도제살이함으로써만 정치를 배울 수 있다고 믿는 이론가도
있다. 왜냐하면 정치이론의 가치는 경험에서 나온다고
여기기 때문이다. 이데올로기를 합리주의의 한 형태로 본
영국의 마이클 오크쇼트는 로크의 정치적 자유 이론을
영국인의 자유에 대한 전통적인 이해의 하나의 '요약'이라
보고, 이같은 개념을 그 전통과 연관짓지 않으면 프랑스
인권선언 속의 여러 자유개념처럼 합리주의적 원리나
형이상학적 추상이 된다고 했다. 반면에 이데올로기를
극단적 낭만주의의 산물로 본 미국의 정치학자 에드워드
실스는 낭만주의가 이상을 예찬하고 현실적인 것, 특히
타산과 타협을 경멸함으로써 이데올로기적 정치라는 파도에
휩쓸리게 된다고 보았다. 시민정치는 타협·책략·자제·신중함을
요구하므로 낭만주의와는 다르며, 따라서 낭만주의 정신은
자연스럽게 이데올로기적 정치로 질주한다고 결론지었다.
국제관계의 맥락
세계전쟁에서의 이데올로기
이데올로기는 20세기 국제관계를 뒤바꾸어놓은 것으로
평가된다. 이데올로기적 고려 때문에 전쟁이 일어나고
동맹을 맺고 조약을 체결하는 일이 많았다. 공산주의 진영은
자유주의 진영과 대결하고, 제3세계의 신생국가들은
민족주의·반식민주의 이데올로기를 배양하여 정체성을
확립하고 근대화를 이룩하려 했다. 그러나 이데올로기 전쟁,
이데올로기 외교가 완전히 새로운 현상은 아니다. 초기의
국제관계에서는 약했던 이데올로기적 요소가 현대에 와서
가장 두드러진 요소가 되었다는 점만 새로울 뿐이다. 특히
세계대전에서 이데올로기가 한층 돋보인 것은 예전과는
달리 일반대중이 전쟁과 평화의 문제를 직접 고려하는
역할을 수행함에 따라 이데올로기적 전망이 점차 중요하게
되었기 때문이다. 가령 1916년 연합국이 전쟁을 '민주주의를
위해 세계를 보호하는' 투쟁으로 생각하자고 촉구한 데 반해
독일은 야만에 대한 '문화' 투쟁으로 여기도록 부추겼다.
이같은 전쟁의도가 해당정부의 주요목표였는지는 별개의
문제이며, 중요한 것은 전쟁을 정당화할 필요성이 커짐에
따라 이 정당화가 이데올로기적 형태를 취했다는 점이다.
냉전 이데올로기
1950년대의 냉전은 대규모의 이데올로기적 대결로
이해해야 한다. 공산주의는 분명 이데올로기이지만, 서구의
비공산주의나 반공산주의도 소극적으로는 이데올로기이다.
그러나 하나의 이데올로기에 대한 반대가 반드시 다른
이데올로기에 속함을 의미하지는 않는다. 국제전쟁과
이데올로기의 연관성은 종류 차이보다는 오히려 정도
차이로 더 잘 나타낼 수 있다. 이데올로기적 전쟁과
비이데올로기적 전쟁 사이에 분명한 경계는 없으며 어떤
전쟁이 다른 전쟁보다 더 이데올로기적일 뿐이다. 과거의
종교전쟁을 떠올려보면 명백하다. 투르크에 대한
그리스도교 십자군 원정, 가톨릭과 프로테스탄트 사이의
종교적 갈등은 오늘날의 이데올로기적 갈등과 매우 큰
공통성을 갖는다. 그러나 과거의 이데올로기적 요소는
부차적이었던 반면 현대의 특징은 종교전쟁과 정치전쟁,
외교에서 이데올로기의 요소가 지배적인 것이 되었다는
점이다.
M. Cranston 글
|
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY. A useful introduction is
M. SELIGER, Ideology and Politics
(1976), which works from a broad definition of the concept of ideology. JOHN
PLAMENATZ, Ideology (1970), is a
clear and uncomplicated study by a distinguished Oxford philosopher. JEAN
BAECHLER, Qu'est-ce que l'idéologie?
(1976), is characteristically French in its approach and affords an
equally lucid introduction to both the sociological and the historical aspects
of the problem. Other books written at a fairly popular level include PATRICK
CORBETT, Ideologies (1966); ROY C.
MACRIDIS, Contemporary Political
Ideologies: Movements and Regimes, 5th ed. (1992); and LEON P. BARADAT, Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact, 5th ed. (1993).
Few of the works of the original
French idéologues are
available in modern editions and even fewer in English translations. However,
RICHARD H. COX (ed.), Ideology,
Politics, and Political Theory (1969), contains short translated excerpts
from Destutt de Tracy and his contemporaries as well as from more recent
works. A.L.C. DESTUTT DE TRACY, A
Treatise on Political Economy, trans. from French, rev. by THOMAS
JEFFERSON (1817, reprinted 1973), is his major work in the field; and the
expository study by FRANÇOIS JOSEPH PICAVET, Les
Idéologues (1891, reprinted 1975), remains a classic. The life of
Destutt de Tracy and his role in the origins of ideology are traced in EMMET
KENNEDY, A Philosophe in the Age of
Revolution: Destutt de Tracy and the Origins of "Ideology" (1978).
GEORGE LICHTHEIM, The Concept of Ideology (1967), contains a short but well-informed
and sympathetic analysis of ideology as it figures in Hegelian and Marxist
thought. LOUIS ALTHUSSER, Politics and
History: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Hegel, and Marx, trans. from French (1972,
reissued as both Politics and History:
Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Marx and Montesquieu,
Rousseau, Marx: Politics and History, 1982), traces the relationship
between Hegelian and Marxist thought. G.W.F. HEGEL, Lectures on the Philosophy of History (1857, reissued 1956;
originally published in German, 3rd ed., 1848), shows relevant elements in his
philosophy. Valuable commentaries are provided by ALEXANDRE KOJÈVE, Introduction
to the Reading of Hegel (1969, reissued 1980; originally published in
French, 1947); CHARLES TAYLOR, Hegel
(1975); and JEAN HYPPOLITE, Studies on
Marx and Hegel (1969, reissued 1973; originally published in French,
1955). For Marxist philosophy, KARL MARX and FRIEDRICH ENGELS, The
German Ideology, rev. ed., 2 vol. in 1 (1976; originally published in
German, 1932), is the fundamental text. Recent treatments of ideology in the
Marxist tradition include ALVIN W. GOULDNER, The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology (1976, reissued 1982);
JORGE LARRAIN, The Concept of Ideology
(1979, reprinted 1992), and Marxism and
Ideology (1983, reprinted 1991); COLIN SUMNER, Reading Ideologies: An Investigation into the Marxist Theory of Ideology
and Law (1979); and JOE McCARNEY, The Real World of Ideology (1980). More advanced students will find
useful WALTER CARLSNAES, The Concept of
Ideology and Political Analysis (1981).
Writers who have attempted to
formulate a neo-Marxist theory of ideology, drawing in part on Hegelian
philosophy, include HERBERT MARCUSE, One
Dimensional Man (1964, reissued
1991); JÜRGEN HABERMAS, Toward a
Rational Society (1971); and KARL MANNHEIM, Ideology
and Utopia, new ed. (1991; originally published in German, 1929). Also
worthy of attention are LOUIS ALTHUSSER, Essays
on Ideology (1984); and RAYMOND BOUDON, The
Analysis of Ideology (1989; originally published in French, 1986).
Interpretations of ideology that are
directly opposed to Marxist theory include JAMES R. FLYNN, Humanism and Ideology (1973); LEWIS S. FEUER, Ideology and the Ideologists (1975); MARTIN SELIGER, The
Marxist Conception of Ideology (1977); and D.J. MANNING (ed.), The
Form of Ideology (1980). JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Critique
of Dialectical Reason (1976; originally published in French, 1960),
constructs a theory of ideology as a "marginal system of ideas" that
is consciously designed as an alternative to Marxist theory.
Historical studies that take a
relatively extensive view of the impact of ideology as a revolutionary force
in the modern world are JAMES H. BILLINGTON, Fire
in the Minds of Men (1980); MELVIN J. LASKY, Utopia and Revolution (1976); and JEANNE HERSCH, Idéologies
et réalité (1956). HANS KOHN, Political
Ideologies of the Twentieth Century, 3rd ed. rev. (1966); ISAAC KRAMNICK
and FREDERICK M. WATKINS, The Age of
Ideology: Political Thought, 1750 to the Present, 2nd ed. (1979); and
TRYGVE R. THOLFSEN, Ideology and
Revolution in Modern Europe: An Essay on the Role of Ideas in History (1984),
treat ideology as the dominant characteristic of modern political thinking.
More polemical commentaries on the development of ideology include ALBERT
CAMUS, The Rebel (1953, reissued
1991; originally published in French, 1951); JEAN FRANÇOIS REVEL, Pourquoi
des philosophes? (1957, reissued 1976); and KARL POPPER, The
Poverty of Historicism (1957, reissued 1986). A systematic critique of the
whole notion of ideological politics may be found in MICHAEL OAKESHOTT, On
Human Conduct (1975, reissued 1991), On
History and Other Essays (1983), and Rationalism
in Politics, new and expanded ed. (1991).
RAYMOND ARON, The Opium of the Intellectuals (1957, reprinted 1985; originally
published in French, 1955), points to a decline in ideological politics in the
West; as does DANIEL BELL, The End of
Ideology, rev. ed. (1962, reissued 1988). Less confident views are
advanced in DAVID E. APTER (ed.), Ideology
and Discontent (1964); and SIDNEY HOOK, Pragmatism
and the Tragic Sense of Life (1975). An excellent compilation of the
contrasting positions in the "End of Ideology" debate is CHAIM I.
WAXMAN (ed.), The End of Ideology Debate
(1968). FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, The End of
History and the Last Man (1992), asserts that all ideological alternatives
to liberal democracy have been discredited.
Sociological aspects of ideology are
explored in DONALD G. MacRAE, Ideology
and Society (1961); NORMAN BIRNBAUM, The
Sociological Study of Ideology (1940-1960) (1962); ERIC CARLTON, Ideology
and Social Order (1977); FRANÇOIS BOURRICAUD, Le
Bricolage idéologique (1980); and GRAHAM C. KINLOCH, Ideology and Contemporary Sociological Theory (1981).
The relationship between ideology and
political domination is examined in QUINTIN HOARE and GEOFFREY NOWELL SMITH
(eds. and trans.), Selections from the
Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1971, reissued 1987). ARNE NAESS, Democracy,
Ideology, and Objectivity (1956), written from the perspective of
political philosophy, was the first of a series of works that investigate the
relationship between ideology and liberty. Others worthy of mention are Z.A.
JORDAN, Philosophy and Ideology (1963); JUDITH N. SHKLAR (ed.), Political
Theory and Ideology (1966); DANTE GERMINO, Beyond
Ideology (1967, reprinted 1976); and MAURICE CRANSTON and PETER MAIR
(eds.), Ideology and Politics
(1980). KENNETH MINOGUE, Alien Powers:
The Pure Theory of Ideology (1985), uses both a philosophical and a
historical approach to provide a far-reaching survey of the subject. Among
books that stay close to the main tradition of American political science, the
following are notable: ROBERT E. LANE, Political
Ideology (1962); WILLIAM E. CONNOLLY, Political
Science & Ideology (1967); and ROBERT A. DAHL, After the Revolution?, rev. ed. (1990). ANDREW GYORGY and GEORGE D.
BLACKWOOD, Ideologies in World Affairs
(1967), analyzes the emergence of ideology as a decisive factor in
international relations. Students interested in such modern ideologies as
environmentalism and animal rights should consult IAN ADAMS, Political
Ideology Today (1993). (M.C./Ed.)
|
|
