In some ways, 'ideology' gets a bad rap. But generally, ideology is just an organized set of ideas. How they are presented might be an expression of the individuals presenting, or it might be an effect of the ideas themselves. The ideology of dictators will be dictated.

For instance, I was at a workshop on cognitive behavioral therapy, and the presenter said (really!) "I expect 100% agreement with this method." She was serious about the 100% bit. There is nothing about cognitive behavioral therapy that requires this sort of rigid dictatorial approach. The presenter was merely a rigid hitch.

I have found the ideas in basic Marxist writings to be very helpful, and the ideology of Socialist Laborism (from Daniel DeLeon, a 19th-20th century American Marxist) to be helpful in organizing my thinking about capitalism and social change. The ideology of the Democrat and Republican parties has not been helpful in that respect -- it's more of a hindrance.

In a private setting, I can see why ideology is helpful, but in the public space? As you mention with the therapist, the ideology in practice gets drowned out by other factors, factors that can begin to overtake the ideology's presentation and even definition.

It seems a terrible answer, but it really does just depend.

Useful for what?

I don't know what principles you're reflecting on here that have been lost, though, either -- politics has always been clanish or tribal-ish in the United States. Even the revolutionary war was disagreed with by a significant portion of the population.



I am a leftist. Or, an anarcho-communist. Or, a libertarian socialist. Or whatevs -- I understand that the names of ideology can obscure individual beliefs, and that it's a bit silly to think that there is some kind of platonic form of an ideology which our beliefs imitate. These are historical artifacts full of accident and even caprice.

This set of names accurately describe my political beliefs, in an ideal sense. Being able to identify my values and beliefs actually gives more room for compromise and negotiation, at least any that is meaningful, because it delimits what I'm willing to concede on. Or, it gives more clarity to action, when I am unwilling to concede.

But, I would note that I don't think I would use the phrase "identify with" -- in particular, the "with" indicates that these names are somehow a part of my personal identity. My political beliefs are, and they fit such and such a category, but I don't feel particularly attached to the nominations -- if the categories were to become something else, then I don't see my moving just because my clan moved (unless provided with good reason, of course)

Also, I'm not exactly certain what you mean by "ideology" since you're differentiating it from "ideals" in your opening. From what I laid out here you can see that I think of ideals and ideology as, if not identical, certainly not different from one another. Perhaps ideology is composed of ideals, or some such -- I'm not sure of the relationship. But your formulation seems to make them exclusive to one another.

Ideology:
• a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy: the ideology of republicanism.
• the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class, or individual: a critique of bourgeois ideology.

• archaic visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.

late 18th cent. ( sense 2): from French idéologie, from Greek idea ‘form, pattern’ + -logos (denoting discourse or compilation).

Peak Ideology was reached in the late 20th century; use of the both senses of the term is declining. Moreover, ideology's day in the sun has been short -- the first usage (or the second -- Google Ngram didn't differentiate) really picked up about 1950. The archaic usage catches the flavor of one current pejorative meaning -- unrealistic.

Yes, for instance... Leftists in America having so little real assets to fight over, go for each others throats on the very finest points of theory, and denounce each other for not having precisely the correct view of the current struggle for... unionization among Mt. Everest sherpas, or something. The fact is, most of the leftists in America share a lot (like 95%) of the same ideology. Their publications, however, don't all use the same typeface. They might as well fight over that!

In this sense, you are 100% correct: ideology in public can be a damned nuisance, IF it get's in the way of common effort among people who essentially agree.

I'm not sure if that's directed at me or just something to keep things on track. I'll clarify why I asked how Heister is using ideology just in case.

Heister stated:

I'd argue that ideals come first in the informing of one's thinking. — Heister Eggcart

Which I took to mean ideals come first (relative to ideology) -- so I figured there must be a difference between the two, in the OP, though common usage wouldn't make a distinction.

I'm not sure if that's directed at me — Moliere

Sorry, I wasn't thinking of you at that moment.

In some ways, 'ideology' gets a bad rap. But generally, ideology is just an organized set of ideas. — Bitter Crank

Hmm, I'm not too sure about this. The criteria extends mere ideas because ideology is represented symbolically and its approach emblematic that attempts to strengthen public mobilisation because of its almost mythological position. So, while you have the functional political operation - like democracy or totalitarianism - through these ideas, the behavioural dimension is perhaps more semiotic as the elusive communication legitimises these ideas and becomes the deliberate impetus for power and control. So, I would probably call ideology an organised set of symbols.

Damnit! I so do like being thought of.

;)