write an essay about your ideology in life brainly

THE PHILOSOPHER

Published since 1923.

• Jason Blakely

"Ideology": An essay by Jason Blakely (Keywords: Politics; History; Culture; Scientism; Hermeneutics; Neoliberalism; Karl Marx; Clifford Geertz)

From The Philosopher, vol. 110, no. 4 (" The New Basics: Philosophy ").

If you enjoy reading this, please consider becoming a patron or making a small donation .

We are unfunded and your support is greatly appreciated.

Defining “ideology” is easy so long as one does not think about it very hard. After all, everyone knows what the word “ideology” means. It is a slander. It is what happens on cable television or inside anonymous Internet chat rooms. Ideology afflicts the crazy family member who finds the slightest pretext to launch into diatribes at holiday dinners – or the acquaintance who compulsively forwards political messages to large numbers of recipients.

Also widely known is that when describing one’s own politics, it is best to avoid the word “ideology” in favour of terms like “belief system,” “theory,” or just plain “commonsense.” Thus, we arrive at one of the central ironies of our age: namely, the nearly universal tendency to perceive one’s own politics as plainly rational and factual, while those of a rival as no less obviously illogical, delusional, and deranged.

If you are on the Left, the term “ideology” is often a shorthand for ideas reinforcing hierarchical domination and bamboozling exploited peoples into cooperation with the powers that be (especially capitalism). Escaping ideology requires adopting the cause of egalitarian freedom and championing people on the margins. If you are on the Right, “ideology” is an unrealistic, even darkly utopian effort to ignore the hard facts of human nature and impose “woke” beliefs that abolish traditional morality. Exiting ideology is only possible through disciplined deference to inherited societal and religious authorities.

Like a snake swallowing its own tail, ideology has become the idea that consumes itself

For this reason, the philosopher Paul Ricoeur noted many years ago that, “Ideology is the thought of my adversary, the thought of the other ; he  does not know it, but I , I know it.” Similarly, the anthropologist Clifford Geertz brilliantly declared that the concept of ideology had “itself become thoroughly ideologized.” Like a snake swallowing its own tail, ideology has become the idea that consumes itself. And what many ordinary people propose as the proper definition of “ideology” is yet another blossom growing in their ideological garden.

Although the situation is undoubtedly tangled, I nonetheless believe both laypeople and intellectuals need to reinvest themselves in recovering a philosophically defensible conception of ideology. Such a definition would escape the error of remaining trapped inside a single ideological tradition while also not losing a critical edge or simply naively repeating whatever an ideology happens to say about itself.

Unfortunately, treating ideology as a serious area of study remains relatively rare in the highest levels of both contemporary political science and social theory. When ideology does appear in mainstream political science, it is often broken down into atomistic beliefs or identity markers correlated with other social and demographic factors. For example, holding conservative views might be statistically correlated with being rural or suburban or espousing Evangelical Protestantism. Conversely, voting for socially liberal candidates might be observed to track data like being an unmarried woman, a person of colour, or a credentialed professional. In this way, statistical techniques like regression analyses replace the encounter with ideological meanings on their own terms.

Although rarely stated aloud, mainstream political science (particularly in the United States) frequently betrays the prejudice that from a “scientific” perspective, ideology is not the most salient level of analysis. Instead of interpreting the meanings and narratives offered by ideology on their own terms, researchers posit a more ahistorical motivational structure. For example, the actions of voters or politicians might be stipulated as taking the form of a strategic game of interest-maximizing or some other behavioural pattern. Hence ideology’s strange absence from vast swaths of the empirical political science literature, which instead focuses its attention on allegedly more objective descriptions captured by formal variables, behavioural inputs, game theory constructs, and ahistorical institutions.

There exists in this way a split between the perspective of the social scientist and that of ordinary people for whom ideology is the blood and guts of everyday political life. For millions of ordinary people, ideology furnishes not only a vision of a rightly ordered society but also an entire linguistic matrix that renders politics intelligible. Basic facts of identity and political reality are not scientifically independent from ideology but absorbed within its narratives.

Basic facts of identity and political reality are not scientifically independent from ideology but absorbed within its narratives

One of the few philosophical schools to consistently buck the trend of side-lining ideology is Marxism. I could not possibly hope to recapitulate all the arguments and insights into ideology made by the Marxist tradition. But, whether rightly or wrongly, one idea emerging from Marxism has proven fateful for reinforcing the scientistic dismissal and reduction of ideology. Famously, Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote that ideology was a function of ruling-class interests. As they put it in The German Ideology , “the ruling class … rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus, their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.” Later, Karl Mannheim would criticize the Marxist thesis that Communism offered an exit from ideology. But he retained the view that ideology coordinated the “ruling group’s … thinking” which remains “interest-bound” in its goal to determine “the existing order of things.”

This line of thought (from Marx to Mannheim) sets the typical pattern for the scientistic treatment of ideology that influences much sociology and social theory. Namely, it assumes a disengaged stance in which ideology appears to be simply a necessary illusion or myth for generating social structure. Unlike Marxism, mainstream social science cannot say much that is critical, let alone constructive, about ideology. At the same time, ideology is not allowed to speak in its own voice – as making ethical and truth claims. Ideology thus remains as in Marxism a form of false consciousness, albeit one that all people necessarily experience. Mainstream social science therefore jettisons the strongest features of Marxism’s analysis of ideology (its critical powers) while retaining its weakest (the reduction to false consciousness).

In this way, scientific consciousness has largely reduced ideology to the function of legitimating the exercise of power. A political order might be organized by communism, fascism, liberalism, or any number of other ideologies. Social science cannot weigh in on their truth or make critical determinations about each ideology. At most it might set down a few facts. But the claims of ideology are subjective and not accessible to social scientific arbitration.

Of course, this contradicts the actual first-person, phenomenological experience of being committed to an ideology. The adherents of an ideology almost always think of their beliefs as true (even the most  true and significant thing about politics) while also offering an inspiring vision for society. We lack a subtler language that allows us to hear the full challenge of ideology for modern persons. For, as I will suggest, each ideology does in fact voice a kind of challenge, a bid on a true interpretation of politics and a conception of what is good. We need a notion of ideology that retains critical abilities without negating its voice.

How, then, do we begin to take the voice of ideology seriously without succumbing to a sterile relativism or uncritical echoing? I see hermeneutic philosophy – centred on the art of interpreting meanings – as able to provide a resolution to this problem. What follows draws on a more thorough treatment of this question from my forthcoming book, Lost in Ideology .

A hermeneutic theory of ideology begins from the assumption that humans are creative, self-interpreting animals and their politics no less expressive of meanings than a literary or historical text. Ideology, therefore, is first and foremost a species of meaning-making in need of careful interpretation by both theorists and everyday citizens.

Geertz, in his 1964 essay “Ideology as a Cultural System,” famously proposed defining ideologies as cultural maps orienting social and political life. As he put it, ideologies are “maps of problematic social reality and matrices for the creation of collective conscience.” On this view, ideologies are not reducible to false-consciousness or simply the function of other supposedly “harder” social factors. Instead, all modern people – including social scientists and theorists – are inside of ideology and must continually make use of it to guide belief and action. Indeed, ideology works on a horizon that contains all people within it by furnishing many of the social categories, institutions, behavioural patterns, and demographic factors later described by social scientists.

But as important as I believe Geertz’s contribution to be, I nonetheless think his concept needs to be both critically revised and expanded. This is because the metaphor of ideologies as cultural maps misses certain salient features of ideology if left in its current form. These include not only ideology’s strongly historical dimensions but also its world-making powers. Ideologies are never simply straightforwardly factual or empirical. They are world-making maps that mix descriptive claims with an attempt to mobilize followers. They are like social scripts by which different social theatres are carried out. The political world congeals and takes form within such maps.

First, consider the ways in which literal maps tend to be static snapshots of a state of affairs. When thinking of ideologies as map-like, there is a risk of slipping into treating them as frozen and ahistorical. But we cannot lose site of the fact that ideological maps have a temporal dimension and are constantly mutating, modifying, and being redrawn on the fly. In this sense, ideologies are more like a film strip spinning a continually changing set of iterations of an image. Eventually, by the end of the strip, the image may be significantly changed or completely different from what began the series.

A second danger with the metaphor of maps is that readers might mistakenly think of ideologies as mostly disembodied ideas on a page that describe some exterior reality. But ideologies are not like this at all. Instead, they are embodied in practices, rituals, art, institutions, laws, regimes, forms of selfhood, and more. Ideologies are, in fact, enormous lived-out narratives that incorporate the lives of numberless people and often entire societies. This embodiment also breaks down strict dichotomies between ideological descriptions of the world and the world itself. Ideologies are never simply attempts at description, but also at enactment and performance. They contain what I refer to as “ethically magnetic” features that inspire new kinds of identity and commitment from adherents. If ideologies are maps, they are maps that seek to build reality.

When someone is lost in ideology, their politics appears natural, even scientific, and not historical and cultural

This is only one place I believe that the hermeneutic approach to ideology retains a critical edge. While emphasizing the need to always begin by grasping an ideological map on its own terms, the hermeneutic definition of ideology also implies that any map that presents itself as simply natural or brutely given is in at least this one respect deluded. This delusion is what I call “lost in ideology”– when the member of a particular ideological tradition presents their map as if it were already the entire geography of the world. As in the famous short story by Jorge Luis Borges, ideological maps can swell so big as to cover over the underlying Earth. When someone is lost in ideology, their politics appears natural, even scientific, and not historical and cultural.

Perhaps an example of becoming lost in ideology will help clarify the concept. Arguably such an error is evident in the scientism of laissez-faire neoliberalism, which I have analyzed at length in the opening chapters of my book, We Built Reality . Such a scientistic version of neoliberal ideology presents capitalism as akin to a Newtonian mechanics inscribed in nature. For instance, neoliberal economists like Milton Friedman and James Buchanan argued in various ways that a science of economics established a single rational and prosperous way to organize society. “Capitalism,” as Friedman declared in Capitalism and Freedom , “is a necessary condition for political freedom.”

As part of this line of argument, neoliberal economists argued that government action and regulation could be scientifically proven to be inefficient. Buchanan claimed in his 1977 paper “Why Does Government Grow?” that the incentive structure of public institutions made them inevitably bloated. The basic argument relied on a conception of government administrators as a form of homo economicus  (self-interested and egoistic), pursuing “self-seeking” goals and extracting a “political income” that unleashed “government’s voracious appetite.”

From a hermeneutic perspective, the claim to a “science” of economics that establishes a particular regime as unavoidable is clearly a cultural map or program that is hiding its own ideological nature. Government administrators need not orient according to market-choice but can instead adopt another set of meanings entirely (say those of civic self-sacrifice and public service). This can be hard to see because sometimes both the social observer and those being observed are operating inside the same cultural map. When this happens, the ideological contingency of political “behaviour” can become invisible, and political scientists and economists mistake a particular culture script as simply the brute verifiable reality of how people act. The result is a situation in which the ideological map has gobbled up the world – becoming so extensive as to appear to be the simple empirical facts of life.

Of course, neoliberalism might attempt to jettison its pseudo-scientific commitments and evade the hermeneutic line of critique I just sketched. Perhaps there are even forms of neoliberalism that are not scientistic in this manner. But the basic philosophical point is that a cultural conception of ideology – one that takes the meaning-making features of politics seriously – also entails a criticism of any effort to naturalize politics. Such a naturalizing error would be possible, moreover, not merely in the case of neoliberalism but also in variants of liberalism, nationalism, socialism, conservatism, progressivism, and any other ideology that developed concepts or theories that contradicted the cultural reality of ideology. In this way, hermeneutics is critical across ideological maps without being committed or contained by any one of them.

Much more needs to be said about the hermeneutic conception of ideology. But perhaps this is enough to clarify how hermeneutics takes the first-person experience of ideology seriously, while not simply accepting ideology’s own voice uncritically. A cultural approach to ideology is not subject to Marx and Engel’s quip that while the simple “shopkeeper is very well able to distinguish between what somebody professes to be and what he really is,” philosophers naively take “every epoch at its word.” Hermeneutics instead respects the word of every epoch without becoming intellectually subservient to it.

Jason Blakely is Associate Professor of Political Science at Pepperdine University. Blakely has written extensively on political philosophy, hermeneutics, and the social sciences. His 2020 book, We Built Reality , received accolades from luminaries like Charles Taylor and David Bentley Hart. His new book, Lost in Ideology: Interpreting Modern Political Life , is published by Agenda.

Twitter: @jasonwblakely

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider becoming a patron or making a small donation .

• The New Basics

Recent Posts

"Possibility": An Essay by William M. Paris (Keywords: Critical Philosophy; Freedom; Intersubjectivity; Utopia)

"Global": An essay by Yoko Arisaka (Keywords: History of Philosophy; The Canon; Language; Eurocentrism)

"Authorship(s)": An Essay by Moritz Gansen, Hannah Wallenfels, and Lilja Walliser (Keywords: The Philosophical Canon; Authority; Academia; Neutrality; Collectivity)

Comentarios

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.4: Political Ideologies

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 162199

• Nathan Smith et al.

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify key ideologies or theories in political philosophy, such as conservatism, liberalism, egalitarianism, socialism, and anarchism.
• Discuss distributive justice within political ideologies.
• Demonstrate how alienation continues to be a problem for workers in modern industrial societies.

When Bernie Sanders, the American senator from Vermont, ran for president of the United States in 2016 as a democratic socialist, he set off an intense debate in the country. What exactly was democratic socialism? This was a debate about political ideologies, or people’s beliefs about how a society should be run. Ideology can shape policies and laws, as the individuals holding office and positions of authority and the people who elect them are often influenced by ideological beliefs. This section looks at some key ideologies that have influenced how people think about their rights and the responsibilities of government.

Distributive Justice

One of the important differences among the ideologies examined below is how they approach the question of distributive justice. Distributive justice can be seen as a moral framework made up of principles that seek to ensure the greatest amount of fairness with respect to distributions of wealth, goods, and services (Olsaretti 2018). However, there is much debate surrounding what amounts to fairness. Is a just society one that provides for its members, allocating resources based on need, or is it one that allows for the greatest amount of personal freedom, even if that means that some members are radically better off than others? Furthermore, given that individuals begin at varying positions of social and economic status, should a society focus on meeting the needs of its disadvantaged members even if that results in an unequal distribution of goods, or should there be as little governmental interference as possible?

It is tempting to see distributive justice as a theoretical moral concern. However, views on what constitute basic needs, what resources should be considered public versus private, and whether or not there should be restrictions on the free market have real, practical ramifications when considered by governing bodies. Given this, it is important to keep in mind the role that principles of distributive justice play in the ideologies discussed below.

Conservatism

Conservativism is a political theory that favors institutions and practices that have demonstrated their value over time and provided sufficient evidence that they are worth preserving and promoting. Conservatism sees the role of government as serving society rather than controlling it and advocates gradual change in the social order, if and when necessary.

Edmund Burke and the French Revolution

Modern conservatism begins with the 18th-century Irish political theorist Edmund Burke (1729–1797), who opposed the French Revolution and whose Reflections on the French Revolution (1790) served as an inspiration for the development of a conservative political philosophy (Viereck et al. 2021). Shocked by the violence of the French Revolution, Burke advocated against radical revolution that destroyed functioning institutions that, though flawed, served a purpose. However, Burke supported the American Revolution because the colonists had already established political institutions, such as courts and administrations, and were taking the next gradual step: asking Britain to let them run these institutions on their own.

Figure 11.7 The Irish political thinker Edmund Burke is credited with developing the theories that form the basis of modern conservatism. (credit: “Edmund Burke” by Duyckinick, Evert A. Portrait Gallery of Eminent Men and Women in Europe and America. New York: Johnson, Wilson & Company, 1873. p. 159/Wikimedia, Public Domain)

Fundamental Principles

Conservatives such as Burke are not opposed to reform, but they are wary of challenges to existing systems that have generally held up well. They believe that any sudden change is likely to lead to instability and greater insecurity. Moreover, conservatives are not against redistribution of resources, especially when it serves to alleviate severe poverty. However, they believe that such actions are best carried out at a local level (as opposed to a state or national level) by those who understand the needs of the individual community. Finally, conservatives are staunch supporters of property rights and oppose any system of reform that challenges them. Property rights serve as a check on governmental power and are seen as an essential part of a stable society (Moseley n.d.). As such, conservatism aligns with some principles of liberalism.

Conservatism maintains that human nature is fundamentally flawed and that we are driven more by selfish desires than by empathy and concern for others. Therefore, it is the job of social institutions such as church and school to teach self-discipline, and it is the job of the government to protect the established, fundamental values of society. Along with this rather Hobbesian view of humankind and belief in the preservation of historical traditions, conservatives believe that weaknesses in institutions and morals will become apparent over time and that they will either be forced to evolve, be discarded, or be gradually reformed (Moseley n.d.).

Liberalism in political philosophy does not have the same meaning as the word liberal in popular American discourse. For Americans, liberal means someone who believes in representative democracy and is politically left of center. For example, liberals generally favor regulating the activities of corporations and providing social welfare programs for the working and middle classes. Liberalism as a political philosophy, however, has quite a different emphasis.

Fundamental Principle of Liberty

British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) expresses the fundamental principles of liberalism in his work On Liberty (1859), arguing for limited government on the grounds of utility. His interest is in “Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (Mill [1869] 2018). In this regard, he defends “one very simple principle,” which is the minimizing of government interference in people’s lives:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. . . . The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. (Mill [1869] 2018)

In Mill’s view, real freedom is when people are able to pursue their own individual idea of “the good” in a manner they see fit. Mill’s claim is at the heart of most variants of liberalism.

Positive and Negative Liberty

We are at liberty when we are neither constrained to act nor obligated to refrain from acting in a certain way. At least since Isaiah Berlin’s (1905–1997) “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958), this sort of liberty has been called negative liberty . Berlin, a British political theorist, suggests that negative liberty is “the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others” (Berlin 1969, 122). Negative liberty in the political realm often refers to the absence of government control over the lives of individuals, or in what we are reasonably able to do without interference. Conversely, Berlin thinks of positive liberty as “the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master” (131). We want our life decisions to depend on ourselves and not on external forces. “I wish to be the instrument of my own, not of other men’s, acts of will,” says Berlin (131). The ability to participate in democratic institutions, for example, is a form of positive liberty.

The Welfare State and Social Justice

Some theorists hold that negative liberty has limits when it comes to how much liberty, in practice, a person has at their disposal. The theory of justice that sees individuals as having claims on resources and care from others is often called welfare liberalism . Such theorists are not in favor of limited government and believe that the well-being of citizens must be a vital component of our agreement to obey a government. American philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002) famously makes this argument in his seminal book A Theory of Justice (1971), in which he attempts to articulate an account of fairness that satisfies our intuition that human freedom and social welfare are both important.

Rawls begins with the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage. Given the fact of today’s pluralistic societies, people reasonably disagree about many important issues, which means we must find a way to live peaceably together with our differences and collectively determine our political institutions. In addition, Rawls believes that there are deep inequalities embedded in any basic social structure, which result from the fact that we are all born into different positions and have different expectations of life, largely determined by the political, economic, and social circumstances that attend those positions. Therefore, Rawls says, we must find a way to distance ourselves from our own particular concepts of such ideas as justice, the good, and religion and begin with relatively uncontroversial facts about human psychology and economics. We should then imagine ourselves in an “original position” behind the “ veil of ignorance ”; that is, we should imagine we do not know any facts about our personal circumstances, such as our economic status, our access to education and health services, or whether we have any talents or abilities that would be beneficial to us (Rawls 1999, 11). We also remain ignorant of any social factors such as our gender, race, class, and so forth. Because Rawls assumes that no one wants to live in a society in which they are disadvantaged, operating from this position offers the greatest chance of arranging a society in a way that is as fair and equitable as possible. For instance, we would not support a system that forbade all left-handed individuals from voting because we ourselves might fall into that group.

Rawls argues that two major principles should govern society. First, the “liberty principle” states that each person has an equal right to the same basic, adequate liberties. Basic liberties are liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom to hold property, and freedom of assembly. Second, the “difference principle” states that any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: (1) they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of “fair equality of opportunity,” and (2) they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. Note that Rawls is not advocating for an equal distribution of goods or advantages; rather, he says that any distribution of goods or power that is not equal can further disadvantage already disadvantaged individuals. His goal is to create a society that seeks to address inherent structural inequalities as well as possible (Rawls 1999, 13).

Egalitarianism

Rawls’s theory of justice has much in common with egalitarian theories. The term egalitarianism refers to a broad family of views that gives primary place to equality. The root egal (from the French) means “equal.” Egalitarian theories assert that all individuals should enjoy equal status and moral worth and that any legitimate system of government should reflect this value. More specifically, egalitarian theories do not argue that all individuals should be treated exactly the same; rather, they insist that individuals are all deserving of rights, including civil, social, and political rights.

Some theorists argue that equality of opportunity for welfare, meaning equality of opportunity to obtain resources, is the most important type of equality. In addition to resources, equality of opportunity includes a consideration of how individuals have acquired certain advantages. For example, nepotism (giving opportunities based on familial connections) and biases based on personal traits such as gender or race interfere with an individual’s ability to compete for resources. Any society that seeks a truly level playing field needs to contend with these issues.

One way to examine equality is to look at what individuals are able to do. The Indian economist Amartya Sen popularized a framework now known as the capability approach , which emphasizes the importance of providing resources to match individual need. This approach creates opportunities for each person to pursue what they need to live a flourishing life. An example of the capability approach is basic income, in which a city, state, or country might combat poverty by awarding everyone below a certain income level $1,000 per month.

The capability approach advocates “treating each person as an end” and “focus[ing] on choice and freedom rather than achievements” (Robeyns and Byskov 2021). According to American philosopher Martha Nussbaum (b. 1947), the capability approach would improve both justice outcomes and quality of life. She argues that a certain number of resources are necessary to enjoy a basic set of positive capabilities that all humans possess. Thus, each individual should be provided with those resources so that their life is not “so impoverished that it is not worthy of the dignity of a human being” (Nussbaum 2000, 72). What is beneficial about the capability approach is that it recognizes and respects the diverse needs of individuals based on different experiences and circumstances.

Listen to philosopher Martha Nussbaum discuss how the capabilities approach aids in creating a positive quality of life.

Martha Nussbaum

Click to view content

Rather than look to the individual, the often confused triad of socialism, Marxism, and communism examines inequality from an economic perspective. While socialism and communism both seek to address inequalities in goods and resources, socialism says that goods and resources should be owned and managed by the public and allocated based on the needs of the community rather than controlled solely by the state. A socialist system allows for the ownership of private property while relegating most control over basic resources to the government. Sometimes, as with democratic socialism, this is done through the democratic process, with the result that public resources, such as national parks, libraries, and welfare services, are controlled by a government of elected representatives.

Concepts of Socialism

Critique of Capital

While what are commonly called “Marxist ideals” did not originate solely with Karl Marx, he is responsible for coauthoring perhaps the most famous treatise criticizing capitalism, The Communist Manifesto (1848), and laying out a vision of a yet-unrealized true communist society. As such, it is important to examine his ideas in more detail.

Marx is critical of the private accumulation of capital , which he defines as money and commodities. Stockpiling of capital allows for private accumulation of power. Marx holds that the value of an object is determined by the socially necessary amount of labor used in the production of that object. In a capitalist system, labor is also a commodity, and the worker exchanges their work for a subsistence wage. In Marx’s view, workers’ labor in fact creates surplus value, for which they are not paid and which is claimed by the capitalist. Thus, the worker does not receive full value for their labor.

Marx identifies several kinds of alienation that result from the commodification of labor. To illustrate this, imagine some factory workers who have recently moved to a large city. Prior to the move, they lived in a small village, where they worked as furniture makers. They were responsible for each stage of the production, from imagining the design to obtaining the materials and creating the product. They sold the product and kept the profits of their labor. Now, however, they work on an assembly line, where they are responsible for producing a small part of an overall product. They are alienated both from the product and from their own productive nature because they have no hand in the product’s design and are involved in only a small part of its construction. They begin to see their labor, and by extension themselves, as a commodity to be sold.

The result of selling their labor is that they begin to see others as commodities as well. They begin to identify people not by who they are but by what they have accumulated and their worth as a product. In this way, they become alienated from themselves and from others, seeing them always as potential competition. For Marx, this leads to a sense of despair that is filled with material goods, thus solidifying the worker in their dependence on the capitalist system.

While the idea of negative liberty decries unnecessary government intervention in people’s lives, anarchism literally means “no ruler” or “no government.” The absence of a political authority conjures an image of the state of nature imagined by Thomas Hobbes—that is, a state of chaos. Anarchists, however, believe that disorder comes from government. According to this view, rational individuals mostly desire to live peaceful lives, free of government intervention, and this desire naturally leads them to create societies and institutions built on the principles of self-governance.

Motivations for Anarchism

One defense of anarchism is that governments do things that would be impermissible for private individuals. French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) observes that governments monitor citizens’ activities and attempt to control their behavior through force. The more technology governments have, the greater their attempts to control people. Proudhon ([1849] 2012) observes that such treatment is against human dignity.

Proudhonian anarchists are aware of the argument that people may have consented to give up some of their power to the government (as people do in a representative democracy, for example), which means that they must accept the treatment they receive. Yet Proudhon would deny that there is any example in history of a just government. Lysander Spooner (1808–1887), the 19th-century anarchist, says that all governments have come into existence through force and maintain their existence through force (Spooner 1870). Thus, some defend anarchism on the grounds that governments violate human rights.

Limits of Anarchism

Criticisms of anarchy are often twofold. The first is that without an organized police force, society would be unable to control outbreaks of violence. A related concern is that without a judicial system to arbitrate disputes and mete out justice, any resolution would be arbitrary. Anarchists, on the other hand, claim that most incidents of violence are the result of socioeconomic imbalances that would be resolved if the government were dismantled. Social anarchism, for instance, points to community involvement and mutual exchange of goods and services as a solution (Fiala 2021).

Yet some people associate anarchism with political violence, and in fact, some anarchists see violence as an unavoidable result of clashes with a violent and oppressive government. One of the most famous anarchists, Emma Goldman (1869–1940), wrote in her essay “The Psychology of Political Violence,” “Such acts are the violent recoil from violence, whether aggressive or repressive; they are the last desperate struggle of outraged and exasperated human nature for breathing space and life” (1917). However, many anarchists favor nonviolent tactics and civil disobedience, such as protests and the creation of autonomous zones, as opposed to political violence (Fiala 2018).

Anarchism and Feminism

Within anarchism, anarcha-feminism seeks to fight against gendered concepts that create inequity. Traditional gender roles only serve to cement unequal power distribution and further the class divide. Particularly, traditional concepts of women’s role in the domestic sphere mirror the depersonalization of the worker, with the woman seen as an extension of the home and domestic labor, rather than an independent autonomous person. It is worth noting that anarcha-feminism is in direct opposition to Proudhon, who believed that family was an essential aspect of society and that the traditional role of women within the family was necessary for its success (Proudhon 1875).

The author and poet bell hooks believes that the concerns driving anarchism can provide a motivation for current social action. She notes that the gaps between the rich and the poor are widening in the United States and that because of the “feminization of poverty” (by which she means the inequality in living standards due to gender pay disparity), a grassroots radical feminist movement is needed “that can build on the strength of the past, including the positive gains generated by reforms, while offering meaningful interrogation of existing feminist theory that was simply wrongminded while offering us new strategies” (hooks 2000, 43). She sees such a “visionary movement” (43) as grounded in the real-life conditions experienced by working-class and impoverished women.

Feminists historically have had to fight to make space for themselves within anarchist movements. The Spanish female collective Mujeres Libres formed during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) in reaction to what they saw as a dismissal of women’s issues by the anarchist movement. Members of Mujeres Libres sought to support female activists and improve the lives of working-class women through literacy drives, employment programs, and child care facilities in both neighborhoods and factories (Ackelsberg 1985). These and other initiatives that focused on creating opportunities for women helped develop a sense of social engagement and foster a desire for social change.

Table 11.2 summarizes the political ideologies discussed in this chapter.

Table 11.2 Political Ideologies

Free Political Ideologies Essay Examples & Topics

A political ideology essay can be a struggle to write. It is especially the case if you are not a big fan of politics. So, let’s begin with the basic terms. You will definitely need them to complete such an assignment.

First and foremost, ideology is a set of collectively held ideas and beliefs. They explain a particular pattern of political, social, or economic relationships, agreements, etc.

Political ideology is a collection of ideas and political views on a social movement, class, or group of people. Nowadays, citizens of the USA usually relate themselves to either liberal, progressive, moderate, or conservative ideologies. Each of the political movements is based on a specific set of principles.

In this article, our team has analyzed key political ideologies in the United States. Moreover, we prepared some useful writing tips on how to structure your paper. Below, you will find political ideology essay examples written by fellow students.

Key Political Ideologies in the USA

Need to write a political ideologies essay? Then, you should know the key principles of these two concepts: conservatism and liberalism. In this section, you’ll get an explanation of the essential political ideologies of the USA.

Conservatism is a political ideology that stands for preserving traditional values. Its proponents aim to promote personal responsibility. They also argue for these aspects:

• the limited role of the government,
• free trade,
• individual freedom,
• and a strong national defense.

Liberalism is the second major political ideology in the USA. It highlights the idea of empowering the government with the purpose of achieving equal opportunities for all members of society. In other words, the government’s key aim is to solve community issues and protect human rights.

For a better understanding, we’ve decided to compare conservative and liberal political ideas. You can explore them in your essay about political ideology.

To see the differences, you should consider four key areas:

• Political ideas. In terms of politics, conservators are considered right-wing and anti-federalists. Naturally, liberalists are left-wing and federalists. Moreover, conservatism stands for a free market. In contrast, the proponents of liberalism aim to get free services (e.g., health care services) from the government.
• Economic Ideas. According to the principles of conservatism, taxation and government spending should decrease. People with high incomes should have an incentive to invest. In contrast, liberals claim that taxes can increase if it benefits society.
• Social Ideas. Conservatism has tighter social principles than liberalism. Its proponents fight against gay marriages and abortions. In contrast, liberals consider that each person has a right to marry or have an abortion. Plus, they oppose the death penalty that some conservatives accept. The proponents of conservatism stand for the legalization of guns. Meanwhile, liberals believe that gun usage should be restricted.
• Personal Responsibility Ideas. In conservatism, laws are enacted to reflect the interest of society as a whole. Liberals believe that legislation is intended to protect every person for an equal society. According to conservatives, everyone is responsible for solving their own problems. Liberals, however, rely on the government when it comes to solving some major issues.

How to Write a Political Ideology Essay

In a political ideologies essay, you can elaborate on a huge number of concepts, events, figures, etc. You may be assigned to compare and contrast some political movements or examine a famous manifesto. Here, we have explained how to how to write an ideology essay on situations from the past.

To compose an essay about political ideologies, you should try the following steps:

• Find or formulate a topic .

For your paper, select a topic that would create a space for substantive research. Keep in mind that you’ll have to describe the political ideology you’ve chosen. Thus, find something that is interesting for you and fits the assignment requirements. Our topic generator can help you with that.

• Conduct research.

Conduct preliminary research to have a general understanding of your topic. First, explore different political ideologies that fit your assignment. Get to know related personalities, examine various political parties and communities, etc. Only with a clear vision of the political ideas will you come up with a sufficient thesis statement.

• Develop a thesis.

Writing an effective thesis statement is the most significant part of the entire writing process. It’s the central point of your paper. Make sure it is stated clearly and concisely – you can let our thesis generator formulate one for you. Include your thesis statement at the end of the introduction. Here, the readers will quickly identify it.

• Organize your thoughts and arguments.

After you come up with your thesis statement, start structuring your ideas. Develop several arguments and devote a separate paragraph for each of them. Ensure your points are logical and relevant. Add solid supportive evidence (evidence, examples, etc.). As you’ve dealt with your arguments, write an introduction and conclusion to your paper.

• Pick quotes to use as your examples.

For political ideologies essay, quotes are the best examples! There is a great variety of sources. You can check the Constitution, remarks of famous politicians, doctrines, official documents. Just make sure the source is trustworthy. And don’t forget to cite your quotes appropriately.

• Write and proofread.

Never underestimate the power of proofreading! Ideally, do it twice. For the first time, pay attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For the second time, concentrate on the structure:

• Are your arguments presented logically?
• Does the introduction correspond to the conclusion?
• Are your ideas clear and coherent?

Thanks for reading the article! Below you will find political ideology essay examples. They will help you explore the structure and format of such papers.

218 Best Essay Examples on Political Ideologies

What is politics, affect of mccarthyism on society, features of nationalism: types and stereotypes, benito mussolini’s fascist doctrine, nationalism versus capitalism: compare & contrast.

• Words: 1979

Was Mao Zedong Correct to Argue “Political Power Grows out of the Barrel of a Gun”?

• Words: 2209

“Development as Freedom” by Amartya Sen

• Words: 1646

Sodaro, Michael. Comparative Politics

Lenin’s “what is to be done” pamphlet analysis.

• Words: 3552

Democracy in Modern World

• Words: 2052

Mueller’s “The Banality of ‘Ethnic War’”

• Words: 3388

Elitism vs. Egalitarianism

Realism in international relations and history.

• Words: 1110

Isolationism or Internationalism in Foreign Policy?

Communism and totalitarianism: political ideologies comparison.

• Words: 1576

Descriptive Meaning of Democracy

• Words: 2051

Elitism and Democracy Relations

Autocracy lesson in “the wave” film, human freedom: liberalism vs anarchism.

• Words: 1782

Israeli Apartheid Ideology Towards Palestinians

• Words: 3035

Hegemony and Ideology

• Words: 1714

Conceptualization of Politics

• Words: 1023

Asian Politics of Modern China and Japan

• Words: 4803

Political Regimes in China and the United States

• Words: 1260

Nature of Neoliberalism (Neoclassical Economics) and Its Partner Structure Adjustment Programs

Democracy in japanese constitutional monarchy, exploring democracy: comparison of two articles, manifest destiny and its ideological origins.

• Words: 1104

Exploring the Differences Between Globalism and Nationalism

Reconciling the tension between equality and meritocracy, indirect democracy: representative democracy, power-sharing systems and grant types in the u.s. federal system, types of democracy known to modern society, conservatism in the political currents of the 20th and 21st centuries.

• Words: 1505

The Ideas of Marxism: Marxism, Religion and Emancipatory Politics

Aspects of the zionist movement, “beyond the “add and stir” approach” article by wallace, aspects of classical liberalism, discussion of marxism impact on news, democracy and its crucial features, liberalism and conservatism in the us, the influence of personality and intelligence on political attitudes.

• Words: 2068

The Concept of the Bureaucracy

Aspects of democratic regimes, characteristics of american democracy, multiculturalism: welcome to my country.

• Words: 1212

McCarthyism and Anti-Communist Campaigns

Dimensions of insecurity: mena.

• Words: 1750

Plato’s Views on Democracy

The left-right spectrum overview.

• Words: 1726

Populism Discourse and Social Equality

• Words: 1200

Fascist Elements in Dictatorial Ideas of Mussolini and Hitler

Is there an ethical case for capitalism, political science: james daniel jordan, the islam ideology and politics, islam and politics: qaddafi’s ideology, imperialism and nationalism in middle eastern politics.

• Words: 1425

Political Identity and Governance: Hong Kong

• Words: 1078

Theories of Global Politics. Democracy Effectiveness

• Words: 2012

Comparison of the US Parties

Education in marxism: the communist manifesto, china’s nationalism: main aspects.

• Words: 1377

Analysis and Comparison of Determinism, Compatibilism and Libertarianism, Free Will

• Words: 1670

Democracy in Asia India and the Price of Peaceful Change

• Words: 1347

World History in The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

• Words: 2218

Marxist Theory of History and of Culture in Politics

• Words: 1492

Inter-Jurisdictional Conflict Management

Politics – yesterday, today, and tomorrow, james mayall’s book “world politics: progress and its limits”.

• Words: 1072

Political Subcultures Classification and Comparison

Factors influencing the success of insurgencies.

• Words: 1935

Anti-Capitalism: Social Phenomenon

10th amendment & federalism.

• Words: 1694

Imperialism as a Policy and an Ideology

• Words: 1139

End of Communism in Eastern Europe

• Words: 1188

Response to Statement of Sir Winston Churchill

• Words: 1401

Is the Constitution Supportive of Today’s Democracy?

• Words: 1150

Defining Politics, in the Contexts of the Canadian Society

• Words: 3911

Reasons for the Collapse of Communism

• Words: 1080

Karl Marx Theory and the Russian Revolution

Benjamin’s concept of democracy against bennett’s propositions on news and democracy.

• Words: 1967

Origin and History of the Democratic Party and the Federal Constitution

• Words: 2886

Political Cleavages and French Political Quarrels

Obama and sarkozy: political views and personalities.

• Words: 1416

Why Manifest Destiny Is Another Form of Imperialism

The jewish state: the struggle for israel’s soul.

• Words: 1732

The Labor Unions Effects on U.S. Economic Development

How useful is the concept of ‘hegemony’ for understanding international politics.

• Words: 3022

The Crises of Democracy, Society, and Environment

• Words: 3061

The Republican Party: History, Key Players and Fundamental Beliefs

• Words: 5693

Democracy Is the Best Form of Government for All the World’s Inhabitants

Democrats vs. republicans: who is superior.

• Words: 1836

Constitutionalism & Absolutism

Absolute and constitutional monarchy, why anarchy cannot be transcended.

• Words: 1658

Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages

Authoritarian versus totalitarian state.

• Words: 1626

Capitalism and Industrialization in the “Communist Manifesto” by Marx

How best to ensure us-style global capitalism.

• Words: 4511

Will China Become Democratic in Near Future?

Problematic aspects of the usa foreign policy, modern conservatism political ideology, peculiar properties of neo-conservatism.

• Words: 2929

Populist Politics in Latin America

Boltanski and chapello: new spirit of capitalism analysis.

• Words: 1341

Nationalism: Theories and Classification

• Words: 2447

Communism in the Soviet Union

• Words: 1727

Post-Communist Russian Politics

• Words: 1980

The Role of Education in Democracy

Henry david thoreau vs. richard brautigan, utopian society: national socialism and libertarian democracy.

• Words: 1237

Communism of Karl Marx and the Soviet Union

• Words: 3312

The Nature of Democracy in the Period 1871-1914

• Words: 1209

Democratization of China: History

• Words: 1656

Effects of Fall of Communism in Russia

Different aspects of socialism and communism.

• Words: 2101

The Ideologies of Western Civilization

Imperial state in china and confucianism as an ideology.

• Words: 1561

Liberal Definition of Freedom

Lenin’s ‘the state and revolution’.

• Words: 1062

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?