StudySolver – News and Tips for Studying

The ‘End Of Ideology’ Thesis Is

The ‘end of ideology’ thesis is one that has often been proclaimed, recently by the likes of Daniel Bell, in the 1960s, and Francis Fukuyama at the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s However its roots can be seen in the early historical works of both Hegel and Marx, indicating that this question of the decline of the importance of ideology in the modern political world, is not something new. The term ‘ideology’ has been hotly debated since it was first coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796. There is no ubiquitous definition; rather philosophers have created multiple interpretations of its meaning, and consequently the role it plays in politics. One’s interpretations of the term ‘ideology’ will define the role we associate it as having within the world of politics, and thus how we answer thequestion. Marx’s view was that ideology produced an “inaccurate and distorted representation of…reality” which consequently favoured one class, in his eyes, the bourgeoisie (Goodwin, 2014, pp.21-23). Furthermore, he believed that a classless society would be devoid of ideology as there would be no ‘ruling’ class in need of illusions to oppress society (Sakensa, 2009, p.65). Should we subscribe to Marx’s theory, our value of the role that ideology plays in contemporary politics will be diminished. If, however, we align ourselves with Freeden’s more neutral interpretation of ideologies as arrangements of political thoughts that are expressed in a more coherent, consistent and communicable manner (Freeden, 2003, p.127), then we are likely to have a more positive overview of their importance in the political world.

This essay will argue that ideology is fundamental to contemporary politics; adopting a more open-minded, Freeden-esque approach, seeing ideology as a paradigm of decontested political concepts (Freeden, 2003, p.55 and Heywood, 2012, p.12). A paradigm that arranges thoughts, values and cultural positions influencing and guiding political actions. Ideologies provide a base, or ‘core’, upon which political policies stem from and, by providing a context, ideologies confer meaning and legitimacy upon a particular perception of a political concept, decontesting them (Freeden, 2003: pp.52-53). Ideologies are, therefore important as they provide meaning to concepts, enabling decisions to be made, and, as decision-making is a fundamental feature of politics itself, it is logical to place much gravitas upon the role that ideologies play in the politics of today. It should be noted that the examples provided in this essay are from the Western political hemisphere, so it is important to bear in mind that the conclusions reached in this essay may not apply to countries outside of this area of interest – particularly those in the Asiatic regions.

Despite resounding cries that ideological debate was no more, amongst modern scholars, it is hard not to see the influence of ideology amid contemporary politics. Looking domestically and internationally, we can trace the ideological roots of policies enacted by modern state actors, thus determining the guiding role ideology plays in shaping the field of politics. Looking first, at the United States, we can see the influential and powerful role ideology has assumed in fashioning political standpoints, particular in the administrations of the last two decades. The Neo-conservative views of the Bush Jnr administration, particularly the Middle East, are a classic example of the Republican Party sticking close to its ideological core. The ‘hawkish’ language and actions of US foreign policy experts, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, in pushing for military action in Iraq in the early 2000s show a clear adherence to political concepts close to the heart of conservatism (Gilpin, 2005, p.11). This stance was reiterated by the implementation of the ‘Bush Doctrine’ in 2002, prioritising the use of a “pre-emptive measures” and “Proactive counterproliferation efforts” (United States of America, 2002, pp. 14-15) with regards to the the administration’s Middle Eastern foreign policy and the rather inaptly phrased ‘war on terror’, a political outlook evocative of the previous Republican administration, Bush Snr, demonstrating the strictness in which the party follows ideological lines.

This adherence to ideological values can be seen in the actions of the Obama administration; particularly in the response to the economic crisis of the early 21st century. A clear example of Obama’s coherence to the liberalist foundation his party is established upon, was his ‘rebooting’ of the New Deal, most notably through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with its $787bn stimulus package to create new jobs and invest in fundamental infrastructure projects. The value placed upon the welfare state, and the use of Keynesian-style state intervention, in the shape of the stimulus package, show an espousal of the modern liberal concepts (Heywood, 2012, pp.56-57) upon which the Democratic Party is based. The implementation of the act within Obama’s first 100 days, a period reserved for prioritising an administrations’ most fundamental policies, demonstrates the impetus he put upon not only the plans, but the ideological roots from which it was derived.

Moving across the Atlantic, we see a commitment to ideological values within the governing parties of the United Kingdom, particular with Corybn. His pledge to deliver “21st century socialism” to the UK (Watts, 2016) through social & economic intervention, and policies to curb equality, strike true to the core ideological concepts of social democracy that lie at the heart of the Labour Party. Their promises to deliver a ‘National Care System’; introduce a 20:1 pay gap in businesses and effectuate a Fiscal Credibility Rule (Labour Party, 2017, pp.8, 15, 71), incorporate the fundamental social democratic values of comprehensive social welfare, curbing inequality and economic management, respectively. Corbyn’s adherence to the parties ideological agenda has resulted in his praise as the “humble saviour of the socialist faith” (Deacon, 2015), and furthers the resolute argument that ideology still matters in contemporary politics.

However, the ‘end of ideology’ has been declared on two notable occasions in the last 60 years; first and foremost, by Daniel Bell in the late early 1960s. He regarded ‘ideology’ as a restrictive term, describing ‘closed’ systems in which a monopoly of truth operated, refusing to tolerate opposing ideas and beliefs (Heywood, 2012, p.9), a definition, highly reminiscent of what Marx was espousing in his work. Reserving the term ‘ideology’ for only radical regimes, other systems of thought, such as conservatism and liberalism, were not seen to be ‘ideological’. Thus, in Bell’s eyes, the defeat of the Nazi totalitarian regime, and the negligible threat that Communism posed, marked the end of the battle for political world domination and consequently the demise of ideological debate. Instead, he described a consensus in the Western world on political issues, characterised by a liberal view of the world: a universal “acceptance of a Welfare state; the desirability of decentralised power; a system of mixed economy and of political pluralism” (Bell, 1960, p.373). Politics had entered a non-ideological age where a liberal, pragmatic approach dominated, with agreement between parties and a lack of ideological discourse, where ideologies had lost their power to persuade and thus their importance in the political world. This thesis was reinvented by Francis Fukuyama at the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s; elaborating on the ‘end of ideology’ he stated that, with the two main ideological powerhouses, Nazism and Stalinism, defeated, there was no longer any competition to liberal democracy and it was the only “competitor standing in the ring as an ideology of potentially universal validity” (Fukuyama, 1992, p.42). This emergence of, and seemingly universal adherence to, the ‘one true way’ of political thinking, therefore, demonstrated that ideology had become extinct in contemporary politics.

The growth of political leaders taking a ‘pragmatic’ approach to politics is another factor influencing the argument of the diminishing role of ideology in contemporary politics. Two recent Prime Ministers of the UK are prime examples. The development of ‘New Labour’ in the late 1990s, Tony Blair’s ‘brainchild’, brought about an era within the party with emphasis placed on the value of ideology. In particular, the 1997 Labour Manifesto stressed the importance of the ‘practicality’ of politics in the phrase “what matters is what works” (The Labour Party, 1997). Furthermore the adjustment of Clause IV in the manifesto demonstrated a conscious shift away from the traditional, ideological base that had been at the heart of the party. Thus, we can see that Blair placed little, if any, value upon ideological values and consequently the role they played in the party during his leadership was significantly belittled. His definition of ideology in 2013 as “delusional thoughts based on how we want the world to be” (Glaser, 2014) explains the distance he put between them and the party, and thus the diminished role they played, certainly in his period of leadership. David Cameron took a similar approach when he came to power as the leader of the Conservative party in 2005, stating in an interview that he was “not…ideological” but “practical” (Rawnsley, 2005). Almost ten years on, his party were ‘testing’ the ‘impact’ of domestic policies on families illustrating this new impetus placed upon ‘evidence’ in politics (Glaser, 2014), shifting the basis of political policies and actions away from ideology to rationality. On the continent, Merkel’s ‘technocratic’ brand of politics is a reflection on the trivial role ideology is often deemed to posses in contemporary politics. An accusation from the SPD, a minority party in the Bundestag, that Merkel was “stealing their clothes” (Hogwood, 2017) by formulating policies that could be placed across the political spectrum can be interpreted as a disregard for ideological boundaries, grounded in a lack of respect for ideologies and a belief that they play no meaningful role in contemporary politics.

However, despite a renouncement of ideologies, can Blair’s ‘New Labour’, and the development of the ‘Third Way’, not be classified as ideologies? They adhere to the definition of ideologies as ‘collections of thoughts and values that guide political action’ and therefore, surely, can be classed as such. Although Blair and Cameron are consciously attempting to depart from the influences of ideology, subconsciously they have just repositioned themselves on the political spectrum, away from their respective left and right slant to a more centrist one. Similarly, Merkel’s own brand of ‘technocratic’ politics could, with reason, be classed as an albeit vaguer, broader ideology in itself. Their personal renouncements of ideology do not diminish the objective role it plays in society and politics; instead, their move towards a more empirical brand of politics could be deemed as new ideology in itself, subsequently emphasising the role it plays in the contemporary world.

The resounding cries that ideology is extinct, echoed by the likes of Bell and Fukuyama were not the first, and they certainly will not be the last. Despite the fact that for some, ideology appears to have been forgotten, pushed aside, or to be of no use to many politicians in the creation and implementation of political policies, especially in the likes of Merkel, there is no escaping the fact that ideologies play an important role in contemporary politics, even if it is often in a sub-conscious capacity. As mentioned at the start of this essay, ideologies ‘decontest’ (Freeden, 2003, p.55) political concepts enabling them to be arranged into a certain understandable pattern. This aforementioned ‘paradigm’ of values, thoughts and concepts provides an ‘ideological core’ for political parties from which policies and actions can be grown. Policies are the ‘roots of the ideological seed’ in that all actions and policies can be originally traced back to an ideological core; they have all been influenced in some way by the fundamental ideals and values located within an ideology. Whilst in some cases, it may appear that policies, especially in the way they are implemented, are more pragmatic than ideological, the sub-conscious guiding hand of ideology is still there, influencing decisions. Thus, it is this essay’s conclusion that ideologies are indispensable in contemporary politics.The ‘end of ideology’ thesis is one that has often been proclaimed, recently by the likes of Daniel Bell, in the 1960s, and Francis Fukuyama at the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s However its roots can be seen in the early historical works of both Hegel and Marx, indicating that this question of the decline of the importance of ideology in the modern political world, is not something new. The term ‘ideology’ has been hotly debated since it was first coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796. There is no ubiquitous definition; rather philosophers have created multiple interpretations of its meaning, and consequently the role it plays in politics. One’s interpretations of the term ‘ideology’ will define the role we associate it as having within the world of politics, and thus how we answer thequestion. Marx’s view was that ideology produced an “inaccurate and distorted representation of…reality” which consequently favoured one class, in his eyes, the bourgeoisie (Goodwin, 2014, pp.21-23). Furthermore, he believed that a classless society would be devoid of ideology as there would be no ‘ruling’ class in need of illusions to oppress society (Sakensa, 2009, p.65). Should we subscribe to Marx’s theory, our value of the role that ideology plays in contemporary politics will be diminished. If, however, we align ourselves with Freeden’s more neutral interpretation of ideologies as arrangements of political thoughts that are expressed in a more coherent, consistent and communicable manner (Freeden, 2003, p.127), then we are likely to have a more positive overview of their importance in the political world.

This essay will argue that ideology is fundamental to contemporary politics; adopting a more open-minded, Freeden-esque approach, seeing ideology as a paradigm of decontested political concepts (Freeden, 2003, p.55 and Heywood, 2012, p.12). A paradigm that arranges thoughts, values and cultural positions influencing and guiding political actions. Ideologies provide a base, or ‘core’, upon which political policies stem from and, by providing a context, ideologies confer meaning and legitimacy upon a particular perception of a political concept, decontesting them (Freeden, 2003: pp.52-53). Ideologies are, therefore important as they provide meaning to concepts, enabling decisions to be made, and, as decision-making is a fundamental feature of politics itself, it is logical to place much gravitas upon the role that ideologies play in the politics of today. It should be noted that the examples provided in this essay are from the Western political hemisphere, so it is important to bear in mind that the conclusions reached in this essay may not apply to countries outside of this area of interest – particularly those in the Asiatic regions.

Despite resounding cries that ideological debate was no more, amongst modern scholars, it is hard not to see the influence of ideology amid contemporary politics. Looking domestically and internationally, we can trace the ideological roots of policies enacted by modern state actors, thus determining the guiding role ideology plays in shaping the field of politics. Looking first, at the United States, we can see the influential and powerful role ideology has assumed in fashioning political standpoints, particular in the administrations of the last two decades. The Neo-conservative views of the Bush Jnr administration, particularly the Middle East, are a classic example of the Republican Party sticking close to its ideological core. The ‘hawkish’ language and actions of US foreign policy experts, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, in pushing for military action in Iraq in the early 2000s show a clear adherence to political concepts close to the heart of conservatism (Gilpin, 2005, p.11). This stance was reiterated by the implementation of the ‘Bush Doctrine’ in 2002, prioritising the use of a “pre-emptive measures” and “Proactive counterproliferation efforts” (United States of America, 2002, pp. 14-15) with regards to the the administration’s Middle Eastern foreign policy and the rather inaptly phrased ‘war on terror’, a political outlook evocative of the previous Republican administration, Bush Snr, demonstrating the strictness in which the party follows ideological lines.

This adherence to ideological values can be seen in the actions of the Obama administration; particularly in the response to the economic crisis of the early 21st century. A clear example of Obama’s coherence to the liberalist foundation his party is established upon, was his ‘rebooting’ of the New Deal, most notably through the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with its $787bn stimulus package to create new jobs and invest in fundamental infrastructure projects. The value placed upon the welfare state, and the use of Keynesian-style state intervention, in the shape of the stimulus package, show an espousal of the modern liberal concepts (Heywood, 2012, pp.56-57) upon which the Democratic Party is based. The implementation of the act within Obama’s first 100 days, a period reserved for prioritising an administrations’ most fundamental policies, demonstrates the impetus he put upon not only the plans, but the ideological roots from which it was derived.

Moving across the Atlantic, we see a commitment to ideological values within the governing parties of the United Kingdom, particular with Corybn. His pledge to deliver “21st century socialism” to the UK (Watts, 2016) through social & economic intervention, and policies to curb equality, strike true to the core ideological concepts of social democracy that lie at the heart of the Labour Party. Their promises to deliver a ‘National Care System’; introduce a 20:1 pay gap in businesses and effectuate a Fiscal Credibility Rule (Labour Party, 2017, pp.8, 15, 71), incorporate the fundamental social democratic values of comprehensive social welfare, curbing inequality and economic management, respectively. Corbyn’s adherence to the parties ideological agenda has resulted in his praise as the “humble saviour of the socialist faith” (Deacon, 2015), and furthers the resolute argument that ideology still matters in contemporary politics.

However, the ‘end of ideology’ has been declared on two notable occasions in the last 60 years; first and foremost, by Daniel Bell in the late early 1960s. He regarded ‘ideology’ as a restrictive term, describing ‘closed’ systems in which a monopoly of truth operated, refusing to tolerate opposing ideas and beliefs (Heywood, 2012, p.9), a definition, highly reminiscent of what Marx was espousing in his work. Reserving the term ‘ideology’ for only radical regimes, other systems of thought, such as conservatism and liberalism, were not seen to be ‘ideological’. Thus, in Bell’s eyes, the defeat of the Nazi totalitarian regime, and the negligible threat that Communism posed, marked the end of the battle for political world domination and consequently the demise of ideological debate. Instead, he described a consensus in the Western world on political issues, characterised by a liberal view of the world: a universal “acceptance of a Welfare state; the desirability of decentralised power; a system of mixed economy and of political pluralism” (Bell, 1960, p.373). Politics had entered a non-ideological age where a liberal, pragmatic approach dominated, with agreement between parties and a lack of ideological discourse, where ideologies had lost their power to persuade and thus their importance in the political world. This thesis was reinvented by Francis Fukuyama at the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s; elaborating on the ‘end of ideology’ he stated that, with the two main ideological powerhouses, Nazism and Stalinism, defeated, there was no longer any competition to liberal democracy and it was the only “competitor standing in the ring as an ideology of potentially universal validity” (Fukuyama, 1992, p.42). This emergence of, and seemingly universal adherence to, the ‘one true way’ of political thinking, therefore, demonstrated that ideology had become extinct in contemporary politics.

The growth of political leaders taking a ‘pragmatic’ approach to politics is another factor influencing the argument of the diminishing role of ideology in contemporary politics. Two recent Prime Ministers of the UK are prime examples. The development of ‘New Labour’ in the late 1990s, Tony Blair’s ‘brainchild’, brought about an era within the party with emphasis placed on the value of ideology. In particular, the 1997 Labour Manifesto stressed the importance of the ‘practicality’ of politics in the phrase “what matters is what works” (The Labour Party, 1997). Furthermore the adjustment of Clause IV in the manifesto demonstrated a conscious shift away from the traditional, ideological base that had been at the heart of the party. Thus, we can see that Blair placed little, if any, value upon ideological values and consequently the role they played in the party during his leadership was significantly belittled. His definition of ideology in 2013 as “delusional thoughts based on how we want the world to be” (Glaser, 2014) explains the distance he put between them and the party, and thus the diminished role they played, certainly in his period of leadership. David Cameron took a similar approach when he came to power as the leader of the Conservative party in 2005, stating in an interview that he was “not…ideological” but “practical” (Rawnsley, 2005). Almost ten years on, his party were ‘testing’ the ‘impact’ of domestic policies on families illustrating this new impetus placed upon ‘evidence’ in politics (Glaser, 2014), shifting the basis of political policies and actions away from ideology to rationality. On the continent, Merkel’s ‘technocratic’ brand of politics is a reflection on the trivial role ideology is often deemed to posses in contemporary politics. An accusation from the SPD, a minority party in the Bundestag, that Merkel was “stealing their clothes” (Hogwood, 2017) by formulating policies that could be placed across the political spectrum can be interpreted as a disregard for ideological boundaries, grounded in a lack of respect for ideologies and a belief that they play no meaningful role in contemporary politics.

However, despite a renouncement of ideologies, can Blair’s ‘New Labour’, and the development of the ‘Third Way’, not be classified as ideologies? They adhere to the definition of ideologies as ‘collections of thoughts and values that guide political action’ and therefore, surely, can be classed as such. Although Blair and Cameron are consciously attempting to depart from the influences of ideology, subconsciously they have just repositioned themselves on the political spectrum, away from their respective left and right slant to a more centrist one. Similarly, Merkel’s own brand of ‘technocratic’ politics could, with reason, be classed as an albeit vaguer, broader ideology in itself. Their personal renouncements of ideology do not diminish the objective role it plays in society and politics; instead, their move towards a more empirical brand of politics could be deemed as new ideology in itself, subsequently emphasising the role it plays in the contemporary world.

The resounding cries that ideology is extinct, echoed by the likes of Bell and Fukuyama were not the first, and they certainly will not be the last. Despite the fact that for some, ideology appears to have been forgotten, pushed aside, or to be of no use to many politicians in the creation and implementation of political policies, especially in the likes of Merkel, there is no escaping the fact that ideologies play an important role in contemporary politics, even if it is often in a sub-conscious capacity. As mentioned at the start of this essay, ideologies ‘decontest’ (Freeden, 2003, p.55) political concepts enabling them to be arranged into a certain understandable pattern. This aforementioned ‘paradigm’ of values, thoughts and concepts provides an ‘ideological core’ for political parties from which policies and actions can be grown. Policies are the ‘roots of the ideological seed’ in that all actions and policies can be originally traced back to an ideological core; they have all been influenced in some way by the fundamental ideals and values located within an ideology. Whilst in some cases, it may appear that policies, especially in the way they are implemented, are more pragmatic than ideological, the sub-conscious guiding hand of ideology is still there, influencing decisions. Thus, it is this essay’s conclusion that ideologies are indispensable in contemporary politics.