IndexIntroductionThe Marxist theory of ideology and its opponentsIdeological criticism of Marxist ideologyParticular ideologyTotal ideologyConclusion: my feelingsWorks citedIntroductionThis study attempts to represent multiple shades of ideologies through ideological criticism while analyzes the issues presented when attempting to define it. Then finally subjectively state the preferred definition of the term with subsequent justification. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In academia, ideology is incredibly difficult to definitively define with a bold statement. The expression 'Ideology' was conceived during the period of terror of the French Revolution and has since acquired various implications. The term was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy in 1796. He formulated the term for a "science of ideas" envisioning it as a potential thesis underlying political and philosophical thought. He put the word together with respect to two things. First, the sensations individuals experience when connecting with the physical world; and secondly the thoughts that accumulate in their mind as a result of these sensations. Since the term “Ideology” was coined, there has never been a consensus regarding its definition. it was apparently never used in the context largely imagined by De Tracy. Evidently, leading figures of his era such as Napoleon Bonaparte used the term alternatively. Significantly, when Napoleon spoke of ideology, he used it as an insult to intellectuals whom he believed to be interested in theoretical ideals, classifying them as "ideologists". Napoleon's use of the term is actually not a personalized use of the term to promote an agenda or weaken an opposing group or party. The economic and political views of Ideology derive from the fundamental political ideals of left-wing Marxists and right-wing liberalists within the political spectrum who have historically used the term to criticize opposing dogma in a polemical manner. Furthermore, the controversy over the definition of ideology is partly attributed to its use across the entire spectrum of social sciences. Ideology can be viewed from various socially scientific points of view. The sociological view of ideology denotes an investigation of human and social connections and institution. While, for example, the semiotic interpretation of ideology has been defined by eminent semioticians as “cultural beliefs that justify specific social constructions, in addition to substantial inequality”. The disparity between sociological and semiotic views is representative of the larger discrepancies in academic study in defining ideology. The Marxist theory of ideology and its opponents Karl Marx is believed to be the pioneer of the theoretical definition of ideology within the framework of sociology. Marx is revered as a figurehead in a fundamental reorientation in dealing with questions of human knowledge and reasoning. If we get to Marx's own theses in which he openly (or implicitly) discussed ideological questions, it is clear that the term is most of the time employed in a rudimentary and polemical way. The polemical nature of his theory of ideology is innate. In “German Ideology”, Marx was an unrepentant critic of the Hegelians (the philosophers of GWF Hegel's theory denoting that “only the rational is real”) for example Bruno Bauer and Feuerbach, who Marx believed had failed to understand social realities . Marx called their idealistic 'false consciousness' 'ideology'. “The ghosts that formin the human brain they are also, necessarily, sublimated of their material life process, which is empirically verifiable and linked to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding formsconsciousness, therefore no longer retain the appearance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, by developing their material production and their material relationships, alter with it their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." (The German Ideology 1932)Marx was the antithesis of a Hegelian. Marx believed that thought was determined by reality and that the focal point of reality to be ruined was "material production". For Marx it is what he described as “material production” that determines the shape of human societies throughout history. This is considered a polemical view since Hegel argued that the historical growth of human civilizations was determined by the ideas that people had during various eras. Marx again delved into the theory of ideology within the frameworks of his social, pecuniary and partisan theories. For Marx, an “ideology” was the intellectual attitude, perception, or amalgam of ideas that the ruling class advocated, whether willingly or callously. This perception was maintained and their self-interest built, and their union of ideas was established as social systems. Marx strove to expose the hidden instruments of control of the upper class and called his massive exposition the “critique of ideology.” Marx theorized that ideology arises from society's method of production. Marx observed the economic method of capitalism, the default economic method of production in Western civilizations today. Marx described the source of ideology built on his idea of ​​conceptualization of society “Base and Superstructure”. The base indicates the means of production of the social order. The "superstructure" is modeled on top of the base and includes that society's ideology, as well as its constitutional partisan system and theology. It is evident that Marx believes that the Base is the first determining factor of the “Superstructure”: “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into certain relations, which are independent of their will, that is, relations of production. appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The set of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the true foundation on which a juridical and political superstructure is raised and to which certain forms of social conscience correspond. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with existing relations of production or – an era of social revolution then begins. Changes in the economic base sooner or later lead to the transformation of the entire immense superstructure." – (Marx 1859 Contribution to the critique of political economy)Marx considered the connection between base and superstructure to be intrinsically dialectical in nature. Alluding to the fact that each correspondingly affects the other and that an alteration of one implies an alteration of the other. This belief laid the foundation for Marx's theory of revolt and revolution. He argued that once workers developed an awareness of the social order and became aware of their submission to the hands of the establishment (by simply making amonumental amendment to their ideology), then they would act on that ideology by organizing and demanding change in the social system. social, economic and political structures of society. Ultimately, Marxist definitions of ideology are apparently negative and denote: false ideas that aid the legitimation of a dominant political power forms of thought motivated by social interest. participation in a social structure (as regards production) Ideological criticism of Marxist ideology The Marxist thesis of ideology is not without its inadequacies. I firmly believe that a fluid definition should be neutral and fully inclusive. However, this ideological thesis is inherently polemical (therefore not neutral) since it was produced as a criticism of capitalism with biases in favor of communism. Secondly, the working class revolt predicted by Marx did not occur. Nearly two centuries after the publication of the “Communist Manifesto,” capitalism maintains a strong grip on the world social order and the disparities it cultivates grow incessantly. Nonetheless, Marx's original ideological thesis stimulated many others. Karl Mannheim (a sociologist) explored Marx's theory, which recognized that all ideologies, as well as Marxism, are a product of social life. Mannheim and sociological: the investigation of human social connections and institutions. The field of study that is sociology conveys a unique belief of ideology. The fusion of various subjects of study is sociology's motivation to see how human activity and knowledge shape and are shaped by understanding social and social structures. Ideology is an essential field of study within sociology. Sociologists study it because it takes on such a powerful role in shaping how society is organized and how it functions. Ideology is candidly identified with the social structure, the monetary order of production and the political structure. It is believed that ideology arises from these and shapes them in the sociological perspective. In the study of sociology, ideology is broadly defined as an individual's beliefs, reservations, desires and beliefs. It is thought to shape our reflections, actions and associations as well as the way society is structured and functions. The most prominent sociologist who evaluated ideology in the 20th century is Karl Mannheim in his work entitled “Ideology and Utopia”. In "Ideology and Utopia" he introduced a completely new conceptualization of ideology arguably creating the foundation for the modern sociological understanding of ideology. Mannheim argued that the use of the term ideology should be expanded. This led Mannheim to theorize Ideology in a dualistic dimension; described as "particular" ideology and "total" ideology. Particular ideology This conception of ideology means that we are cynical towards the notions and representations put forward by an opponent. They are seen as masks typically aware of the truth of conditions, in case the true recognition of them does not conform to the interests of an individual or a group. These falsifications range from conscious deceptions to partially conscious and accidental concealments; from determined attempts to deceive others to self-deviation. They can form and be limited to certain regions and are held by groups of people usually rooted in their culture or tradition. The “Particular Ideology” becomes very compelling when thought of in combination with the all-encompassing thesis of the “Total” ideology. Total Ideology This thesis questions the totality of an individual's worldview, arguing that the set of principles of a groupsocial is delineated by the respective social situation. This theory conveys that ideology creates their precise understanding of the world, their position in it, and their relationship with others and is naturally something they strive to defend, whether they are aware of it or not. Ultimately, these are entire classes of ideas and perspectives that structure how individuals see their surroundings, envelop everything we see, and how we understand each of these. The “Total Ideology” and the “Particular Ideology” share the sentiment that what an individual produces, articulates, and witnesses is itself a product of their place in society. Nonetheless, the “particular” thesis of ideology works largely around conscious interests, while the “total” conception uses a more tangible practical analysis, stripped of any reference to interest or agenda, limiting itself to an impartial account of ideology. Operational variations in minds functioning in different social situations. The precedent accepts that interest is the source of a certain lie or cunning. The latter simply presupposes that there is a correlation between a certain social condition and a certain perspective, point of view or "Weltanschauungen". Mannheim writes: “The notions expressed by the question are therefore considered as functions of their existence. This means that opinions, statements, propositions and systems of ideas are not taken at face value but are interpreted in light of the circumstances of the life of the person expressing them”. (Ideology and Utopia p.337). In addition to attending to such an important thesis of ideology, Mannheim argued that "the sociology of knowledge is closely related to, but increasingly distinguishable from, the theory of ideology" (Utopia and Ideology Mannheim, 1960, p. 238). in the sense of a deliberate falsification produced by clusters with equal motivations, in particular political parties. The academic world surrounding ideologies, for Mannheim, is the unmasking of these falsehoods. The sociology of knowledge deals with the numerous ways in which objects present themselves to the subject depending on differences in the social situation. Mannheim assumes a “Weltanschauung” framework for the sociology of knowledge and replaces “ideology” with “perspective”. Perspective is the themes entire method of thinking about things as controlled by its historical and cultural location. In my individual opinion, by dividing the concept of ideology in two, Mannheim's ideology thesis allows for precision in the identification and classification of ideology. It is undeniably a unique conceptualization like no other and is seemingly complete. However, it has its limitations. Mannheim has a clearly negative view of “Ideology”. In Mannheim's theory of “particular” ideology, it is equated with wrong feeling. Subsequently, this ideological model is limited to the study of ideologies that exhibit falsehoods. Although the "total" conception of ideology is supposedly the all-encompassing "Weltanschauungen" of various eras and social consortia, the two are brought together in his thesis, I personally find it inadequate. Conclusion: My Feelings I am inclined to endorse the "Meta-Ideology" account of the definition of ideology. Meta-ideology suggests that ideology is an intelligible system of ideas, dependent on some rudimentary assumptions about reality with or without substantial factual basis, but are idiosyncratic choices that serve as a foundation for further reflection. According to this position, ideologies are purely neutral, therefore correct or erroneous, they are only a truthful and palpable ploy to classify the world. The constructive and destructive effects of ideology vary from the power and zeal of the true, 2007.