Talk:Ideology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.

Contents 1 Isms and Schisms 2 Roderick Hindery 3 Ideology as a belief system 4 Marxism 5 Christian Democracy 6 Louis Althusser 7 Structure of Article 8 Structure of entry 9 Political ideologies 10 Groupthink 11 lists 12 Definition (alternative) 13 Split List of political ideologies? 14 This entry stinks!

[edit] Isms and Schisms

Just an idea.... given the association of "ideology" with words ending in "ism," this article could use a brief mention of the rastafarian notion of "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 state apparatuses and interpollation. I don't have the time or energy to do it 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)