Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) [Paperback]

This is an extremely useful introduction to the topic of ideology in a congenial format. Don't be misled by the subtitle, "A Very Short Introduction." The Oxford Press very-short-introduction series summarizes scholarship in salient areas without dumbing the material down. I have used these little books in graduate seminars to supplement more specific readings. They make it possible for readers new to an area to get their bearings fairly quickly and make informed choices about future reading.

As to this particular title, Freeden performs a number of valuable services. One is to dispel the idea that the term "ideology" is a pejorative label for unsavory thinking. This approach, all too common among prominent American sociologists in the 1950s and 1960s, inhibits any mature understanding of the role of ideologies in social, economic, and political contexts. All understandings of reality are mediated understandings, influenced by our socioecnomic circumstances and histories. We do not have the choice of seeing our surroundings "as they really are," whatever that may mean. In a confusing world, Freeden points out, ideology allows human beings to assign meaning to otherwise disconnected experiences. It is ubiquitous and unavoidable.

Freeden also offers a very competent review of the important literature and main theoretical approaches to this subject. In addition to the standard references to Mannheim, Gramsci, and Geertz, he discusses the work of hermaneuticists such as Paul Ricoeur, conceptual historians like Reinhart Koselleck, discourse theorists such as Foucault, and post Marxists such as Laclau and Mouffe. If you are interested in the topic, but don't want to waste your time flailing around, trying to separate the intellectual wheat from the chaff, this book would be a good starting point.

Subject well explained and made easy to understand, but at the same time a complete exposition. Listening to polititians will never be the same after reading this book.

I should note first off that Prof Freeden's definition of ideology is different than my own. The core of his definition is that ideology is a set of political ideas, beliefs, and opinions that are communicable and influential. Whereas my own definition is that an ideology is a belief system, often dogmatic. (Distinguished from a religion only in that there is no mystical element.) I would agree with the sociologist who said that ideology is a "systematic misrepresentation of reality." So in reading this book I had to constantly make the mental conversion to the author's definition. (The author believes the view of ideology as being dogmatic is obsolete.)

The author makes a good case for his own definition. By that definition, ideology is a necessary part of politics. "They offer decision-making frameworks without which political action cannot occur." He analyzes ideology from different angles: language, macro ideology vs micro ideology, the separateness of ideology from political philosophy, the emotional appeal of ideology.... This is all interesting stuff. The book is not a quick read, not if you want to get as much as you can out of it, but it's definitely not a dry read either.

Another mental conversion for American readers: Freeden refers constantly to liberalism and conservatism, both of which he views as ideologies. But British liberalism and conservatism are different than the American versions. British liberalism stems from John Stuart Mill and libertarianism, with elements of humanism and pluralism added. In the US, liberals owe more to Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal" than to J S Mill, with liberalism being more about trying to increase social/economic/political justice/fairness in the world -- and disagreeing on how to accomplish that.

US conservatism, on the other hand, is an alliance of those who want to reduce government power as a way of increasing freedom, plus those who are willing to give up freedom if it increases security against enemies internal and external, plus those who believe that the power of government should be expanded to ensure the public's adherence to traditional Christian religious/social values, plus those who feel it's their right to make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences, and hang any values. If this mishmosh of conflicting goals is an ideology, then the word has no meaning. In Freeden's defense, this is unlikely what he had in mind.

In keeping the definition of ideology as open as possible, I think Freeden has weakened it. Maybe we just need more than one word to cover more of the variations in meaning.

The one area that Freeden has limited his definition is in wanting to keep ideology strictly in the political realm. He makes a reasonable case for this, but then again, that leaves no word to describe the post-1980 American fascination with the "invisible hand" of the free market. For instance: given that the free market can solve all problems, but the free market has no way to deal with global warming, then, ergo, global warming must not be a problem. I would label dogmatic economic beliefs like this an ideology, but Freeden probably wouldn't, even with his much looser definition of ideology.

The book is intellectually stimulating, i.e., it made me think, but it didn't make me want to read any further into the topic. This is not to say that there aren't some good insights here. E.g., Freeden notes that ideologies -- using his definition -- can work their emotional appeals with pictures better than words. Words can be changed by the listener/reader when he passes on the message, but few will alter a picture -- so the original message remains intact. Good point.

3 1/2 stars.