Sorry seems my copy was not sent in full. Here it is again and as an attachment. m.
Daniel, I can't sleep so I needed to email this long piece to put me into that state, but I do hope it helps you in your understanding of ideology.
According to Mannheim (Ideology and Utopia, 1929), the sociology of knowledge requires us to distinguish between the "particular" and the "total" conceptions of ideology. We employ the "particular" conception when we say that the ideas and positions of a particular group of people we oppose, such as a political party or interest group, are "ideological". This is what happens when critics of the U.S. National Rifle Association (NRA) claim that the NRA's efforts to stop gun control are biased, self-interested, or ideological, for instance. In the same sense, "ideology" remains a weapon to use against one's opponents. The "total conception of ideology" by contrast, refers to the characteristic ways of thinking of an entire class or society or historical period, such as medieval society or the modern age. Because these ways of thought are so broad and encompassing, Mannheim doubted that anyone could ever stand outside them, entirely removed from the web of social and economic interests, and thus be in a position to unmask the ideological sources of all ideas and beliefs. In this way he raised the distrubing possibility that all our thinking about society and social relations is ideological. Mannheim did believe that intellectuals may be able to achieve a synthesis, or combination, of opposing perspectives that comes closer to the whole truth; but even then, he said that it would be the truth of a particular historical time and place, not the truth for all time and all places. So for Mannheim all social thought is ideological which implies that there is no purely scientific or objective understanding of social arrangements. For others as you point out, ideology remains a pejorative term. In their view ideologies are bad because they always simplify and distort matters. Even further yet, some people believe that ideologies are "bad" because they encourage their followers to believe that their particular ideology has a monopoly on the truth. Anyone who disagrees, then, must be an enemy who stands in the way of truth, justice and progress. For these critics of ideology, it as a weapon. In fact, however, an ideology is simply a more-or-less consistent set of ideas, beliefs, and convictions about how the world is and how it ought to be.
As one American puts it, "An ideology?is a fairly coherent and comprehensive set of ideas that explains and evaluates social conditions, helps people understand their place in society, and provides a program for social and political action. An ideology?.performs four functions for people who hold it: it is explanatory. It is evaluative. It is orientative, and it has a program for progress.
I hope this helps, Daniel.
----------
From: Daniel Shaw[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: donderdag 14 januari 1999 21:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Two Senses of the Term "Ideology"
<<File: ATT00000.html>>
I've got a problem I've been working on, and would welcome feedback.
The term "ideology" is used in pejorative and nor-pejorative senses.
Pejoratively, it is akin to false rhetoric, to be contrasted with the
truth (of Marxism, or Democracy, or whatever). Non-pejoratively, it is
broadened to include all cultural productions, not just those directly
concerned with politics and values.
My question is, what do you mean when you use the term, and why?
Anyone willing to propose their working definition of "ideology" in the
process would be welcomed with open arms (figuratively speaking, of
course).
Dan Shaw
"For beauty is the beginning of terror we are still able to bear, and
why we love it so
is because it so serenely disdains to destroy us." Rilke's First Elegy
