The origins and classification of ideologies: a multidisciplinary approach
https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.01.14
Abstract
Particular cases of disputes between actors on political issues can be traced to the differences in the ideologies they follow. In this regard, analyzing political discourse, it would be useful to attribute individual positions expressed by actors to their ideologies. However, in practice this proves to be difficult due to the shortcomings of the classifications of political ideologies used in modern science. These classifica- tions have developed historically, and therefore their applicability is limited to those historical periods and geographical boundaries for which they are relevant. Although the approaches to ideology existing in modern political science (e.g. the approach of M. Frieden), give useful results, they do not properly answer the question of what explains the difference between the ideologies of various groups with claims to power. By answering this question, we get a criterion for a scientific typology of political ideologies. As such a criterion, this article proposes the difference in values that various groups use to justify their claims to power. Values serve as the basis for the construction of political ideologies, and the difference in values of various groups determines the difference in their ideologies. In the article, the qualitative theory of values developed by anthropologists (L. Dumont, J. Robbins) is used. For every private ideology, it is proposed to determine the core value upon which it is constructed. Ideologies that share the same core value are proposed to be grouped into types. The article identifies five possible core political values (kinship, knowledge, power, property, labor) and five corresponding types of ideologies.
About the Author
I. V. Kazakov
HSE University; Pskov State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
Pskov
References
1. Alexander J. The major ideologies of liberalism, socialism and conservatism. Political studies. 2014, Vol. 63, N 5, P. 980–994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–
2. 12136
3. Boxell L., Gentzkow M., Shapiro J.M. Cross-country trends in affective polarization. The review of economics and statistics. 2022, P. 1–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01160
4. Dumont L. Homo hierarchicus: the caste system and its implications. Chicago: university press, 1980, 488 p.
5. Eisenstadt S.N. Primitive political systems: a preliminary comparative analysis. American anthropologist. 1959, Vol. 61, P. 200–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1959.61.2.02a00020B
6. Fagerholm A. Ideology: a proposal for a conceptual typology. Social science information. 2016, Vol. 55, N 2, P. 137–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018416629229
7. Freeden M. Ideologies and political theory: a conceptual approach. Oxford: Clarendon press; New York: Oxford university press, 1996, 592 p.
8. Freeden M. The morphological analysis of ideology. In: Freeden M., Stears M. (eds). Oxford handbook of political ideologies. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2013, P. 115–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.0034
9. Garrett R.K., Weeks B.E., Neo R.L. Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: how online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. Journal of computer mediated communication. 2016, Vol. 21, N 5, P. 331–348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12164
10. Gibbins K., Walker I. Multiple interpretations of the Rokeach value survey. Journal of social psychology. 1993, Vol. 133, N 6, P. 797–805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9713941
11. Haerpfer C., Inglehart R., Moreno A., Welzel C., Kizilova K., Diez-Medrano J., Lagos M., Norris P., Ponarin E., Puranen B. (eds). World Values survey: round seven – country-pooled datafile. Madrid, Spain; Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute; WVSA Secretariat, 2020. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.14281/18241.1
12. Heywood A. Political ideologies: an introduction. London: Macmillan press, 1998, 364 p. Hobsbawm E.J., Marx K. Pre-capitalist economic formations. New York: International Publishers, 1964, 153 p.
13. Huang R., Gui Y., Sun X. Beyond the left-right spectrum: a typological analysis of ideologues in China’s Weibo Space. Journal of contemporary china. 2019, Vol. 28, P. 831–847. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2019.1580423
14. Knapp A., Wright V. The government and politics of France. New York: Routledge, 2001, 480 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203402603
15. Linz J.J. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism: my recollections on the development of comparative politics. In: Söllner A., Walkenhaus R., Wieland K. (eds). Totalitarismus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997, P. 141–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050073798.141
16. Mccarty N. Chapter nine. The policy effects of political polarization. In: Pierson P., Skocpol T. (eds). The Transformation of American politics: activist government and the rise of conservatism. Princeton: Princeton university press, 2011, P. 223–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400837502-013
17. Needham R. Right and left: Essays on dual symbolic classification. Chicago, London: University of Chicago press, 1973, 449 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0041977x00052800
18. Robbins J. Between reproduction and freedom: morality, value, and radical cultural change. Ethnos. 2007, Vol. 72, N 3, P. 293–314.
19. Robertson A.F. Primitive Society. In: International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, Pergamon. 2001, P. 12046–12050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00944-X
20. Rogowski J.C., Sutherland J.L. How ideology fuels affective polarization. Political behavior. 2016, Vol. 38, N 2, P. 485–508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7
21. Rokeach M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press, 1973, 438 p.
22. Sartwell C. The left-right political spectrum is bogus. The Atlantic. 20.06.2014. Mode of access: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-left-rightpolitical-spectrum-is-bogus/373139/ (accessed: 12.02.2022)
23. Schumpeter J.A. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London, New York: Routledge, 2003, 460 p.
24. Schwartz Sh.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology. 1992, Vol. 25, P. 1–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6
25. Tucker J.A., Guess A., Barbera P., Vaccari C., Siegel A., Siegel A., Sanovich S., Stukal D., Nyhan B. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature. SSRN. March 19, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139
26. van Dijk T.A. Ideology: a multidisciplinary approach. London: SAGE Publications, 1998, 390 p. DOI: 10.4135/9781446217856
27. Vähämaa M., West M.D. «They say one thing and mean another» how differences in in-group understandings of key goals shape political knowledge. Nordicom review. 2015, Vol. 36, N 1, P. 19–34. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nor-2015-0003
28. Vincent A. Modern political ideologies. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, 310 p.
29. Weber M., Gerth H.H., Mills C.W. From Max Weber: essays in sociology. New York: Oxford university press, 1946, 490 p.
Review
Views:
227
Email this article 
Post a Comment 