 |
Ideology Critique after the Death of Man: Explaining the Persistence of a Discredited Practice
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
2
implications and the insights of a particular set of political views, in terms of the conceptual connections it forms.
1
Freeden chooses the semantic or morphological perspective and provides an excellent example of what a purely descriptive, non-critical study of ideology would look like. But Freeden’s book, more than just a study of ideology, serves as a eulogy for any critical or normative political theory, which seeks to make distinctions between reason and interest, rational and distorted communication, emancipatory and repressive discourses.
2
In
contrast, Habermasian, Lacanian, Foucauldian, and post-Marxist approaches to ideology preserve its critical dimension while avoiding the discredited theoretical assumptions of traditional (Marxist) ideology critique. Writing morphologies is safe in that it escapes the difficulties that accompany normative theory, however, as is often the case with the safe choice, it sacrifices something significant. The general definition of ideology critique offered here will focus precisely on that which Freeden puts to one side—the genesis and function of ideas, their origin and their effect—for it is these dimensions of ideology critique that make the practice critical and enable the kind of distinctions listed above.
The naysayer will quickly note that the very act of making normative distinctions is
itself an ideologically-infused activity, subject to all of the same arguments it applies to its subject matter. This point is fair and encapsulates the challenge faced by the would be ideology critic. She must work humbly and strive to understand the social-psychological influences on her own investigations, which, it really goes without saying, must be subject to the very same burdens they place on others. But here we already have an early explanation for the persistence of ideology critique. The standard criticism of ideology critique is itself an example of it. Ideology critique persists even in the very criticism that targets it for extinction.
In fact, it is not a failure of ideology critique at all that explains its obsolescence, but
rather the depth and breadth of its success. Ideology critique has been a victim not of any
1
Michael Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1996).
2
Freeden disputes this claim in “Practising Ideology and Idoelogical Practices,” Political Studies 48
(2000) pp.302-322, and, although his argument breathes fire, it is unconvincing. Freeden attributes the charge to ‘a naïve understanding of description, erroneously assuming it to entail a mere correspondence with or reproduction of facts, rather than their reconstitution and re-assembly in an an act of interpretation and analysis.’ (p. 303) Freeden does not go so far as to claim that a morphological approach is normative or critical, calling it instead ‘creative’ and ‘imaginative.’ (p.303) He reformulates Marx’s well-known injunction to change the world rather than only interpret it: ‘students of ideologies change the world by interpreting it in various ways.’ (p. 304). Even if we concede all of this, it does not amount to a normative or critical theory that would enable the critic to describe discourse as mystifying or distorted. Freeden is treading on unstable ground here, because the more he attempts to incorporate such a normative dimension, the more he loses the theoretical advantages of the morphological approach. He is no doubt right that producing morphologies involves more than simple reproduction. His work itself provides powerful evidence of the interpretative power of a semantic or morphological analysis. This kind analysis unquestionably contributes to our understanding of the constituent elements of particular ideologies and how those elements fit together. Nonetheless, however detailed and nuanced the map produced by a morphological approach, it will not enable distinctions of the kind sought by normative theorists. Freeden himself stops short of laying claim to a normative dimension, even in his very defense against the charge that his morphological approach lacks one. He is more direct in Ideologies and Political Theory, in which he writes, ‘the analysis of ideologies is not geared to directing or recommending political action. Its purpose is to explain, to interpret, to decode and to categorize.’ (p. 6)
|
| | Authors: Neidleman, Jason. |
|
| |
|
|
2
implications and the insights of a particular set of political views, in terms of the
conceptual connections it forms.
1
Freeden chooses the semantic or morphological perspective and provides an excellent
example of what a purely descriptive, non-critical study of ideology would look like. But
Freeden’s book, more than just a study of ideology, serves as a eulogy for any critical or
normative political theory, which seeks to make distinctions between reason and interest,
rational and distorted communication, emancipatory and repressive discourses.
2
In
contrast, Habermasian, Lacanian, Foucauldian, and post-Marxist approaches to ideology
preserve its critical dimension while avoiding the discredited theoretical assumptions of
traditional (Marxist) ideology critique. Writing morphologies is safe in that it escapes the
difficulties that accompany normative theory, however, as is often the case with the safe
choice, it sacrifices something significant. The general definition of ideology critique
offered here will focus precisely on that which Freeden puts to one side—the genesis and
function of ideas, their origin and their effect—for it is these dimensions of ideology
critique that make the practice critical and enable the kind of distinctions listed above.
The naysayer will quickly note that the very act of making normative distinctions is
itself an ideologically-infused activity, subject to all of the same arguments it applies to
its subject matter. This point is fair and encapsulates the challenge faced by the would be
ideology critic. She must work humbly and strive to understand the social-psychological
influences on her own investigations, which, it really goes without saying, must be
subject to the very same burdens they place on others. But here we already have an early
explanation for the persistence of ideology critique. The standard criticism of ideology
critique is itself an example of it. Ideology critique persists even in the very criticism that
targets it for extinction.
In fact, it is not a failure of ideology critique at all that explains its obsolescence, but
rather the depth and breadth of its success. Ideology critique has been a victim not of any
1
Michael Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1996).
2
Freeden disputes this claim in “Practising Ideology and Idoelogical Practices,” Political Studies 48
(2000) pp.302-322, and, although his argument breathes fire, it is unconvincing. Freeden attributes the
charge to ‘a naïve understanding of description, erroneously assuming it to entail a mere correspondence
with or reproduction of facts, rather than their reconstitution and re-assembly in an an act of interpretation
and analysis.’ (p. 303) Freeden does not go so far as to claim that a morphological approach is normative
or critical, calling it instead ‘creative’ and ‘imaginative.’ (p.303) He reformulates Marx’s well-known
injunction to change the world rather than only interpret it: ‘students of ideologies change the world by
interpreting it in various ways.’ (p. 304). Even if we concede all of this, it does not amount to a normative
or critical theory that would enable the critic to describe discourse as mystifying or distorted. Freeden is
treading on unstable ground here, because the more he attempts to incorporate such a normative dimension,
the more he loses the theoretical advantages of the morphological approach. He is no doubt right that
producing morphologies involves more than simple reproduction. His work itself provides powerful
evidence of the interpretative power of a semantic or morphological analysis. This kind analysis
unquestionably contributes to our understanding of the constituent elements of particular ideologies and
how those elements fit together. Nonetheless, however detailed and nuanced the map produced by a
morphological approach, it will not enable distinctions of the kind sought by normative theorists. Freeden
himself stops short of laying claim to a normative dimension, even in his very defense against the charge
that his morphological approach lacks one. He is more direct in Ideologies and Political Theory, in which
he writes, ‘the analysis of ideologies is not geared to directing or recommending political action. Its
purpose is to explain, to interpret, to decode and to categorize.’ (p. 6)
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
