Talk:Ideology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Ideology, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.


Hi everyone! I am writing a paper and was trying to tie two concepts together: Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front", and some form of ideaology. I was thinking maybe Existentialism, but many themes are too contrasting to call the book Existential-influenced. The main themes I was using from the book to link it to an ideaology were: no romanticism in battle, no glory, just meaninglessness, death, fighting to survive, animal instinct, etc. Can anyone help me with this complex question? Please, and Thank you! 137.48.50.43 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Eugene

Contents

[edit] Isms and Schisms

isms and schisms." See the Rastafari page for more info. Anyone else think this is appropriate? And if so, any ideas on where it might fit into the "ideology" page?

[edit] Roderick Hindery

Who is he? Why is he mentioned in the article? Lewispb 18:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ideology as a belief system

I have no much experience in wikipedia editing, so I'd like to strongly suggest a section about 'Ideology as a belief system". It is in most dictionaries secondarily described as a set of doctrines or beliefs. - anonymous

I added links to the fascinating psychological concept of System justification and Marxian concepts: False consciousness, Cultural Hegemony, Dominant Ideology. Whilst it is true that the concept predated Marx it is inextricably linked with such Marxian analyses today. Mattjs 10:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marxism

Hello Roan, I saw your contribution to ideology and wonderered whether it would be fair to add that while the word may have been neutral when used in the eighteenth century, it acquired pejorative connotations with the advent of marxism. -- Alan Peakall 13:23 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

yes, we can work something out. Be sure to note that it was not due to marxism that it acquired a pejorative connotation, but due to the rejection of marxism in the west, and also the rejection of the Nazi / fascist ideology. I have just added a link to the cold war... roan
I was referring more to the idea of critique of ideology in Marx's writings than to the conflict of specific ideologies. Try google on the string |ideology in marx|. Admittedly the current Wikipedia article on marxism is weak in this area too. -- Alan Peakall 12:14 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)
Well, go ahead and add it if you like. I've only just started to read Marx, so I'm not quite an expert about this yet. I'll try the google search, thanks. roan 08:30 Dec 11, 2002 (UTC)

Hello, all. I think that the "Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction" section is very slanted, mostly towards an Althusserian viewpoint. I have a problem representing this as the "Marxist" definition of ideology. Quite a while back, someone edited the section to be less biased, but I believe the slant is still there. Any thoughts? --Dialecticas 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Democracy

Anyone taking Christian democracy? [1] --Kaihsu 17:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Althusser

I really think we need to add something on Louis Althusser's notions of ideology and ideological right now, so I've added the wiki page about his work to the See Also section for now. --Voyager640 2:40, 3 Nov 2003 (PST)

[edit] Structure of Article

Didnt really looked this pg before, but unwittingly I did something in the direction of Voyager's suggestion, adding the section 3: I~ as an instrument of soc repr'n (which has plenty of room for expanding).

But there is a structural problem with the previous material: Section 2 and sub- 2.1 are really at the same level and should come under a same heading at Section level. Something like (this just an exampple):

 2  Many kinds of (Philosophical?) ideologies
   2.1  Epistemological I~
   2.2  Political I~
   ...  (any number of other I~)

Can he or she who did that section (or anyone else akin in thought) find a name for that Section 2 ? Deák 18:38, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of entry

There is a structural problem with material of Section 2: Section 2 itself and sub- 2.1 are really at the same level and should come under a same heading at Section level. Something like (this just an exampple):

 2  Many kinds of (Philosophical?) ideologies
   2.1  Epistemological I~
   2.2  Political I~
   ...  (any number of other I~)

Can he or she who did that section (or anyone else akin in thought; or anyone) find a name for that Section 2 ? -- Deák 22:19, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

[edit] Political ideologies

There is a problem with the way ideologies are described in this article. It uses a model of the political spectrum presented by Moral Politics, but it is a model open to questions as to its accuracy, and several others have been proposed- see Political spectrum. As a matter of fact, that article doesn't even mention this article.

I left a note on this at Political spectrum- we should probably keep discussion on the topic there so as to not have parallel discussions. Essentially, I think we should move the current descriptions of political ideologies on this page to an article about that political spectrum model, while rpelacing the content here with a description of political ideologies that is not dependent on any particular political spectrum model. Juan Ponderas

I agree. I have removed the Moral Politics-based descriptions of ideologies and added the classification from ideologies of parties. The classification advocated by the Moral Politics website could be moved to its own article, but it certainly doesn't belong here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Groupthink

The much smaller scale concept of groupthink also owes something to his [Antonio Gramsci's] work.

could someone provide a source for this? Hanshans23

[edit] lists

It's not very good form to have lists in the main body of an article, especially not when they're so extensive. If anyone gets the chance, that should be made into text and sentences. Lucidish 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Often enough, lists are the main body of the article. In this case, the list serves its purpose well; to quickly show readers all ideologies. Text and sentences would obscure this. Juan Ponderas
That's poor form: "Bulleted lists should not be overused in the main text, but are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom." If this occurs often, it is wrong. Lucidish 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If its poor form, then why does it work so well? Wikipedia guides are generalizations, not categorical imperatives. Juan Ponderas
It doesn't work. There is no information here, no explanation, nothing that would be informative besides a semantic heading and some tags. Lucidish 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition (alternative)

"An ideology is a collection of ideas" looks a poor definition to me. I see an Ideology as "a coherent system of ideas" organized in accordance to the thought of a group of humans. Maybe "an ideology is a system of ideas, often (preferably) organized in a coeherent way" could be a good base. Please verify.--Truman Burbank 15:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that a secondaty meaning of ideology is 'belief system'. It's included in various dictionaries anyway. --161.76.99.106 20:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split List of political ideologies?

It seems to me that the List of political ideologies belongs in a seperate article...it interrupts the flow of the page greatly.Runningonbrains 22:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. This should be an article, not a list. Lucidish 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
agree, ibid. Argyriou 19:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created the list article, but will wait before deleting the list in this article to see if there's any opposition to deleting the list in this article. Argyriou 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This entry stinks!

This is a lopsided and very bad account of the concept. Just terrible and it needs to be rewritten. The bibliography & links are even worse. The link to the Tamil web site does not belong here, while other links do. I'm going to tear into this when I get a chance.

Granted. It isn't a great article. Perhaps reflecting the vaugueness of the concept pre-marx indeed outside of Marxian analysis. If one wanted to be contemporary one would mention Jihadi-ism and Neo-Conservatism as contemporary ideologies and perpetuators of false consciousness or the Noble lie which is what anaylsis of ideology is really all about. Mattjs 10:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how much the article has changed since the two comments here above, but I would just like to add that one potential general problem with Wikipedia is that the author of the initial draft of an article may feel free to be careless, thinking that others will clean up after them. Unfortunately, once an article (or a paragraph, or a sentence) gets off on the wrong foot, it may not be possible to "fix" it--that is, the best solution would just be to start in a different way. But then the very existence of the poor version inhibits people from writing a new version--the "Wiki-ideology" we all buy into here (by the very structure of Wikipedia) is that we should try to improve what is already here. But surely sometimes it is better to just take the article out by the roots and plant a new one in its place. (I wonder what sort of Wiki-structure would accommodate that!) Neoprote 07:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template: Lib

I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor introductory sentence

What does this sentence from the intro mean?

Ideologies tend to be abstract thoughts applied to reality and, thus, make this concept unique to politics.

What does the "this concept" refer to? The concept of ideology? If I wrote "Ideologies make this concept unique to politics" that would at least be bad grammar. Perhaps the sentence is supposed to mean:

Ideologies tend to be abstract thoughts applied to reality and, thus, the concept of ideology is unique to politics.

But that sounds a bit extreme. Political ideologies are the only kind there are? What about religious ideology or scientific ideology? Etc. Neoprote 07:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Ideologies About "Offering Change"?

Ideologies are widely (especially within Marxist and critical theory circles) understood to support or uphold the status quo. It is far from universal that they "offer change in society through a normative thought process (what the world ought to be)."

Someone should revise the intro paragraph with this in mind.

Jimwilce 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)jimwilce

I'm a passer-by. I think the sentence should be looked at with the previous sentence - " a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society." -05 May 2007


[edit] "dominant class" is not defined

the term "dominant class" is not defined ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.8.5.30 (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
-- (I moved this post to the correct location on the page and added a title.-- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) )


[edit] Cites, please

Added the "Unreferenced" tag: "This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed."
Obviously, everything in politics, sociology, and philosophy (such as the topic of "ideology") is very controversial. If we don't have good cites (WP:CITE, WP:Verifiability) for our assertions, then they're basically just the opinions of some Wikipedia editor or other and don't belong in the Wikipedia. Please add good cites for all assertions in this article. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

is etymology of the word something desired here? http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ideology&searchmode=nl CuteHappyBrute (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Foucault

I removed this:

The philosopher Michel Foucault wrote about the concept of apparent ideological neutrality.

IMHO, it is a misunderstanding. I think it would be very interesting to see a reference proving the truth of the assertion. There is nothing about it on the Wikipedia page about Michel Foucault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.217.154 (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)