Ideological Criticism of Marxist Ideology and Meta Ideology

Introduction

This study looks to depict multiple nuances of ideologies through ideological criticism whilst analysing the issues presented when attempting to define it. Then finally subjectively stating the preferred definition of the term with a subsequent justification.

In Academia Ideology is disreputably difficult to conclusively define with a stout assertion. The expression 'Ideology' was conceived during the Reign of Terror of French Revolution and procured a few different implications from that point. The term was begotten by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796.He formulated the term for a 'science of ideas” envisioning it as a potential underpinning thesis for political and philosophical thought. He put together the word with respect to two things. Firstly, sensations individuals experience as they connect with the physical world; and secondly the thoughts that assemble in their minds as a result of these sensations. Since the devising of the term ‘Ideology’ there has seemingly never been a consensus regarding its definition. it has seemingly never been used in the context De Tracy imagined extensively. Conspicuously, prominent figures of his era such as Napoleon Bonaparte used the term in an alternative manner. Poignantly, when Napoleon spoke of ideology, he used it as an insult to intellectuals whom he deemed were concerned with theoretical ideals, classifying them as ‘ideologues’. Napoleon's use of the term in actuality is not a bespoke use of the term to push an agenda or undermine an opposing group or party. The Economic and Political vantage points of Ideology stem from the foundational political ideals of the Left Marxists and the Right Liberalism within the political spectrum who have historically used the term to critique the opposing dogma in a polemic manner. Furthermore, the controversy behind defining ideology is in part attributed to its use across the spectrum that is the social sciences. Ideology can be seen from various socially scientific viewpoints. The sociological viewpoint of ideology denotes an investigation of human and social connections and establishment. Whilst, for instance, the semiotic interpretation of ideology has been defined by prominent semioticians as ‘Cultural beliefs that justify specific social constructions, in addition to substantial inequality.” The disparity between the sociological and semiotic views is representative of the wider discrepancies in academic study when defining ideology.

Marxist Theory of Ideology and Its Adversaries

Karl Marx is thought to be the pioneer of the theoretical framing of ideology within the framework of sociology. Marx is venerated as the figurehead in a fundamental reorientation in the conduct of issues regarding human knowledge and reasoning. If one goes to the very theses of Marx wherein, he either straightforwardly (, implied or) discussed the matters of ideology, it is discernibly apparent that the term is much of the time employed in a rudimentary, polemical way. The polemic nature of his theory of ideology is innate. In “German Ideology”, Marx was an unapologetic critic of Hegelians (the philosophers of G. W. F. Hegel’s theory denoting that 'the rational alone is real”) for instance Bruno Bauer and Feuerbach, whom Marx felt failed to apprehend social realities. Marx branded their idealistic 'false consciousness' as 'ideology.'

“The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.” (The German ideology 1932)

Marx was the antithesis to a Hegelian. Marx believed thought to be determined by the reality and the focal point of reality to mar was ‘material production’. For Marx it is what he described as ‘Material production’ which determines the shape of human societies throughout history. This is regarded as a polemic view as Hegel alleged that the historical growth of human civilisations was determined by the idea’s persons had during various epochs.

Marx again delved into the theory of ideology inside the frameworks of his societal, pecuniary, and partisan theories. For Marx, an “ideology” was the intellectual attitude, perception, or amalgamation of ideas that the presiding class held, wilfully or in an insentient manner. This perception was maintained and constructed their self-interest, and their union of ideas was established as social systems. Marx endeavoured to expose the concealed instruments of control of the upper class, and he termed his commanding exposure the “critique of ideology.”

Marx theorised that ideology arises from society's method of production. Marx observed the economic method of Capitalism, the default economic method of production in western civilisations today. Marx described the source of ideology built upon his idea of 'Base and superstructure' conceptualisation of society. The base denotes the means of production of social order. The ‘superstructure’ is moulded above the base and encompasses that society's ideology, as well as its, constitution partisan system, and theology. It is evident that Marx is of the belief that the Base is the prime determining factor of the ‘Superstructure’:

“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or –Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.” – (Marx 1859 A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

Marx regarded the connection among base and superstructure as dialectical intrinsic nature. Alluding to the fact that each affects the other correspondingly and that an alteration in one dictates an alteration in the other. This credence moulded the foundation for Marx's theory of uprising and revolution. He alleged that once workers developed an awareness of the social order and became conscious of their subjugation at the hands of the Establishment (simply put a monumental amendment to their ideology) that they would then act on that ideology by organizing and demanding a change in the social, economic, and political structures of society.

Ultimately, Marxist definitions of ideology are ostensibly negative and denote:

1. False ideas that aid the legitimisation of a dominant political power
2. Forms of thought motivated by social interest.
3. The necessary medium in which persons undergoes participation in a societal structure (regarding production)

Ideological Criticism of Marxist Ideology

The Marxist thesis of ideology is not without its inadequacies. I am of the firm affirmation that a seamless definition should be neutral and fully encompassing. However, this thesis of ideology is inherently polemic (thus unneutral) as it was produced as a critique of Capitalism with bias in favour of Communism. Secondly, the working-class revolt that Marx forecasted has not occurred. Almost two centuries after the publishing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’, capitalism preserves a fierce hold on world-wide social order and the disparities it cultivates ceaselessly grow. Despite this, Marx’ original thesis of ideology has spurred many more. Karl Mannheim (A sociologist) expanded upon Marx’s theory, which recognised that all ideologies, as well as Marxism, is a product of social life. Mannheim and Sociological: The investigation of human social connections and establishments.

The field of study that is sociology conveys unique credence of ideology. Brining an amalgamation of various subjects of study is sociology's motivation for seeing how human activity and cognisance both shape and are moulded by encompassing social and social structures. Ideology is an essential field of study within Sociology. Sociologists study it since it assumes such a powerful role in moulding how society is arranged and how it operates. Ideology is candidly identified with the social structure, monetary arrangement of production, and political structure. Ideology is thought to both arise from the aforementioned and form them in the sociological perspective. Inside the study of sociology, ideology is extensively understood to allude to the entirety of an individual’s, convictions, reservations, desires and beliefs. It is thought to shape our cogitations, actions, and associations in addition to the way in which society is structured and functions.

The most prominent sociologist to assess ideology in the 20th century is Karl Mannheim in his work titled ‘Ideology and Utopia’. In ‘Ideology and Utopia’ he introduced an entirely new conceptualisation of ideology arguably creating the foundations for modern-day sociological understandings of Ideology. Mannheim argued that the usage of the term ideology ought to be expanded. This led to Mannheim theorising Ideology in a dualistic magnitude; described as ‘particular’ ideology and ‘total’ ideology.

Particular Ideology

This conception of ideology signifies that we are cynical of the notions and depictions put forth by an adversary. They are seen as typically cognisant masks of the truth of conditions, in the event that the genuine acknowledgment of which would not be as per an individual or clusters interests. These falsifications extend right from cognisant deceptions to partially cognisant and accidental concealments; from determined endeavours to deceive others to self-misdirection. They can form and be restricted to certain regions and are held by clusters of people habitually embedded in their culture or tradition. ‘Particular Ideology’ becomes very compelling when it is thought in combination with the all-encompassing ‘Total’ thesis of ideology.

Total Ideology

This thesis queries the totality of an individual’s worldview, arguing that the entirety of a social group's principles is outlined by their respective social situation. This theory conveys that ideology creates their precise understanding of the world, their position in it and their rapport with others and is naturally something that they strive to defend whether they are mindful of doing so or not. Ultimately, these are whole classes of idea and perspectives that structure how individuals see their general surroundings, they envelop all that we see and how we comprehend each of these. ‘Total Ideology’ and ‘Particular ideology’ share the sentiment that what an individual produces, articulates and witnesses is in itself a product of their place in the social order.

Despite the fact, the ‘particular’ thesis of ideology functions largely surrounding the conscious interests, whilst the ‘total’ conception uses a more tangible practical analysis, deprived of any reference to interest or agenda, limiting itself to an unbiased account of the operational variances in minds functioning in diverse societal situations. The previous accepts that interest is the source of a specified falsehood or ruse. The latter presumes merely that there is a correlation amid a specified societal condition and a specified outlook, point of opinion, or ‘Weltanschauungen’. Mannheim Writes: “The notions voiced by the issue are thus regarded as functions of their existence. This means that opinion, statements, propositions, and systems of ideas are not taken at their face value but are interpreted in the light of the circumstances in the life of the one who expresses them.” (Ideology and Utopia p.337). In addition to the curation of such a prominent thesis of ideology Mannheim maintained that 'the sociology of knowledge is closely related to, but increasingly distinguishable from, the theory of ideology' (Utopia and Ideology Mannheim, 1960, p. 238)

He reputes ideology in the sense of deliberate falsification produced by clusters with equal motivations, particularly political parties. The academia surrounding ideologies, for Mannheim, is the unmasking of these falsehoods. The sociology of knowledge is concerned with the numerous ways in which objects present themselves to the subject according to the differences in societal situation. Mannheim assumes a ‘Weltanschauung’ frame for the sociology of knowledge, and substitutes 'ideology' by means of 'perspective'. Perspective is the themes' entire method of thinking about things as controlled by his chronicled and cultural position.

In my individual opinion by dividing the concept of ideology into two, Mannheim’s thesis of ideology allows for precision when identifying and classifying ideology. It is undeniably a unique conceptualisation like no other and is seemingly comprehensive. However, it does have its limitations. Mannheim has a clear negative view of ‘Ideology’. In Mannheim’s theory of ‘particular’ Ideology, it is equated to incorrect sentiment. Subsequently, this model of ideology is restricted to the study of falsity displayed ideologies. Although, the ‘total’ conception of ideology is supposedly the all-encompassing ‘Weltanschauungen’ of various eras and societal consortia the two are packaged together in his thesis therefore, I personally deem it inadequate.

Conclusion: My Own Sentiments

I am inclined to approve of the ‘Meta-Ideology’ account of the definition of ideology. Meta-ideology suggests that ideology is an intelligible system of ideas, dependent upon a few rudimentary assumptions about reality with or without substantial factual basis but are idiosyncratic choices that serve as the foundation for further cerebration. According to this stance, ideologies are purely neutral thus either exact or erroneous, they are only a veridical palpable stratagem for classifying the world. The constructive and destructive effects of ideology vary from the power and zeal of true supporters to “ideological infallibility”. To apply the Meta-Ideology thesis practically: In the modern-day ‘Anglosphere’ nations the dominant ideology supports capitalism. Capitalism is an intelligible system of ideas which is dependent upon rudimentary ideas (e.g. selfishness in man is innate) and is indeed a veridical palpable stratagem for classifying the world.

Despite the compelling theses presented by Marx and Mannheim respectively. They are either lacking neutrality or in the case of Mannheim byzantine. I am supportive of this supposition as it is free from bias and is a product of the study of ideologies itself. Therefore, it is a bespoke theorisation for this field of study. Thus, it is reasonable to deem it the most plausible understanding of the classification of ideology.   

Works Cited

1. Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia. Routledge, 1991.
2. Marx, Karl. 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.' Marxists Internet Archive, 1859, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm.
3. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The German Ideology. International Publishers Co, 1939.
4. Tracy, Antoine Destutt de. A Treatise on Political Economy. Liberty Fund, 2007.