Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:54:57.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Structure of Modern Ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Francis G. Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“THEORIES of Government!” exclaims Thomas Carlyle in the early pages of The French Revolution. “Such has been, and will be; in ages of decadence. Acknowledge them in their degree; as processes of Nature, who does nothing in vain; as steps in her great process.” The social theorist of today takes more seriously than Carlyle the existence of ideology, for ideology is an expression of spiritual unrest in the face of history-making issues. In turn, ideology itself becomes a problem, and we are led to examine its nature. Especially is this true today, which is a time of passionate affirmation of ambiguous positions rather than the observation of political behavior.

Type
Articles
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , October 1939 , pp. 382 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Mannheim, Karl, Ideology and Utopia, tr. from the German, (1936), p. 52Google Scholar.

2 The Future of Bolshevism (1936).

3 The Hour of Decision, tr. from the German (1934).

4 Cf. Rommen, Heinrich, Die Staatslehre des Franz Suarez, S.J. (1926)Google Scholar, for an excellent elaboration of this proposition, especially from the standpoint of the Christian development of Aristotelianism.

5 Adventures of Ideas (1933).

6 Cf. Autin, Albert, Laicité et Liberté de Consicience (1930), p. 9Google Scholar.

7 Pareto, Vilfredo, The Mind and Society, tr. from the Italian (4 vols., 1935), Vol. 3, Sec. 1793Google Scholar.

8 Ibid., Sec. 1797.

9 Mannheim, op. cit., passim.

10 Ibid., pp. 49 ff, 50.

11 Ibid., pp. 62, 67.

12 In general this is what is attempted by Mannheim in his sociology of knowledge. All knowledge he argues is relational; he approaches knowledge from the standpoint of the possessor of knowledge who thinks in a particular historical and social context. He reaches what he calls a non-evaluative conception of ideology. Profound metaphysical questions are raised, of course, by the argument that knowledge is relational. See ibid., pp. 74 ff.

13 See Sorel, Georges, Reflections on Violence, tr. from the French (1914).Google Scholar

14 We must distinguish theistic philosophy from Christian or other systems of theology. Theistic philosophy is simply compatible with theology; Catholic philosophers insist their philosophy is not based on their theology. Cf. Gilson, Etienne, The Unity of Philosophical Experience (1937), Ch. IIGoogle Scholar.

15 Cf. Cohen, M. R., Reason and Nature, An Essay on the Meaning of Scientific Method (1931)Google Scholar, passim, for one of the most thorough-going modern defenses of rationalism.

16 The works of Christopher Dawson are of particular interest in this connection. See Enquiries into Religion and Culture (1933), and Religion and the Modern State (1935).

17 One of the classics of this point of view is Buckle, Henry T., History of Civilization in England (1857), Vol. IGoogle Scholar. See also Thomas, Franklin, The Environmental Basis of Society (1925)Google Scholar, for summaries of this type of theory.

18 On the theories that tend toward the denial of rationalism, see Cohen, op. cit., Ch. I.

19 For a brief introduction to this subject, see van Teslaar, J. S., An Outline of Psychoanalysis (Modern Library, 1925)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for an introduction to Freud, see Brill, A. A. (editor). The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud (Modern Library, 1938)Google Scholar.

20 See Pareto, Vilfredo. The Mind and Society, tr. from the Italian, 4 vols. (1935)Google Scholar; Michels, Robert, Political Parfies. tr. from the Italian (1915)Google Scholar; Mosca, Gaetano, The Ruling Class, tr. from the Italian. (1939)Google Scholar.

21 A similar statement may be made of the historical school of jurisprudence during the nineteenth century, this being true of practically all of the outstanding exponents of this interpretation of the nature and growth of law.

22 The Marxian is inherently a prophet, and the Marxian philosophy is peculiarly adapted to the needs of the prophet. Max Weber emphasized the role of the prophet in hit analysis of religion. The prophet is important in change, especially as to ideas, but he must rationalize any break with tradition. See Parsons, Talcott, The Structure of Social Action (1937), pp. 563 ff.Google Scholar

23 The Revolt of the Masses, tr. from the Spanish (1932).