On Ideology

Michael Hunt, in a very influential book on US diplomatic history, defines ideology as “an interrelated set of convictions or assumptions that reduces the complexities of a particular slice of reality to easily comprehensible terms and suggests appropriate ways of dealing with that reality.”[1] In the realm of foreign relations, ideology then refers to the set of assumptions or beliefs that help policy makers explain the international environment understandable and consequently provide a range of options or basis for action. This definition, although it does not entirely contradict the definitions by Marx and Althusser, is rather loose and too specific for the case of the United States. For instance, Hunt fails to elaborate on the relationship between ideology and the subjects or the larger society. He did not provide an extensive explanation of how and why ideology is perpetuated in a given society nor does he identify the range of empirical cultural referents for understanding the ideology of the state. Given these limitations, I utilize key theoretical premises on ideology proposed by two renowned social theorists, Karl Marx and Louis Althusser, to complement the definition advanced by Hunt.

The notion of ideology has evolved through time and remains a subject of debate and epistemological inquiry among various scholars. It emerged in the French Revolution to refer to the study of ideas or consciousness – an exploration of concepts in terms of words.[2] In-depth exposition of the nature of ideology has been developed within the Marxist school. According to Karl Marx, ideology is determined by the ruling class in order to secure and perpetuate their power. Having the monopoly of the means of production, they also dominate the realm of ideas and control the ways individuals and the larger society think, act, and behave. For Marx, the society has been subjected to a false consciousness, that is, the society has been deceived to accept the prevailing social structures and take their oppressions as something natural or even necessary.[3] The working class, in this sense, is subjected to an ideology that only sustains their oppression and the perpetuation of capitalism. The working class has been misled to think that they must endure their plight. As such, Marx believed that a massive social revolution must include the destruction of the institutional and ideological scaffold of capitalism. Simply put, it is crucial to free the working class from false consciousness or the ideology of the capitalists. Marx’s idea, although insightful, is limited as it is heavily grounded in the realm of economics and class consciousness.

Louis Althusser, following the line of structural Marxist thought, further explored the notion of ideology and argued that it cannot be simply determined, shaped, and controlled by specific groups in a society and imposed on the rest. The subjects perpetuate the proliferation of ideology by shaping its meaning, participating in it, and performing according to its terms. His core premise is that ideology interpellates the individuals as subjects.[4] Ideology, viewed from this perspective is important as it constructs the subjects; as such, the subject is a product of ideology.

[1]Miachel Hunt, “Ideology” in Michael Hogan and Thomas Paterson (eds.), Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 222.

[2] Eagleton, Terry. Ideology: An Introduction (London: Verso), p. 193.

[3] Hayward, Susan, Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts, (London: Routledge, 2006), pp. 215-216.

[4] Ibid.