Talk:Ideology

Isms and Schisms

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?

I think it's a very useful topic. (Masculinity (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC))

Christian Democracy

Anyone taking Christian democracy? [1] --Kaihsu 17:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Louis Althusser

I really think we need to add something on Louis Althusser's notions of ideology and ideological 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)

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)

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)

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

POV of Section 1

The Marxist and critical-theory accounts of the proposition of ideology are certainly pertinent points of discussion, but seems inappropriate for the general overview supplied at the head of the article. A preferable place for said points would be under the "Marxist view" subsection of "Analysis", which would work to preserve the neutrality of the article as a whole.

Political "tendencies" imply ideology

I've added an "Explain" tag after the sentence that reads,

In societies that distinguish between public and private life, every political or economic tendency entails ideology, whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.

This claim needs either a citation or some elaboration. It is not clear what the author means by "political tendencies entail (logically imply) ideology".

move text in lead/lede

I propose a major edit like this in order to address readability/clarity.

"An ideology is a set of normative beliefs and values that a person or other entity [disambiguation needed] has for non-epistemic reasons. These rely on basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis—in these there are tenuous causal links between policies and outcomes owing to the large numbers of variables available, so that many key assumptions have to be made.

The term is especially used to describe systems of ideas and ideals which form the basis of economic or political theories and resultant policies. In political science the term is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems.

The term was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy during The Terror in 1796. In contemporary philosophy it is narrower in scope than that original concept, or the ideas expressed in broad concepts such as worldview, The Imaginary and in ontology."

In the sense defined by French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, ideology is "the imagined existence (or idea) of things as it relates to the real conditions of existence"

Currently it reads as

"An ideology is a set of normative beliefs and values that a person or other entity[disambiguation needed] has for non-epistemic reasons.[1] These rely on basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis. The term is especially used to describe systems of ideas and ideals which form the basis of economic or political theories and resultant policies. In these there are tenuous causal links between policies and outcomes owing to the large numbers of variables available, so that many key assumptions have to be made.[2] In political science the term is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems.[3]

The term was coined by Antoine Destutt de Tracy, a French Enlightenment aristocrat and philosopher, who conceived it in 1796 as the "science of ideas" during the French Reign of Terror by trying to develop a rational system of ideas to oppose the irrational impulses of the mob. However, in contemporary philosophy it is narrower in scope than that original concept, or the ideas expressed in broad concepts such as worldview, The Imaginary and in ontology.[4]

In the sense defined by French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, ideology is "the imagined existence (or idea) of things as it relates to the real conditions of existence"."

(Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC))

Ideology is a term referring to comprehensive sets or expressions of the ideas of individuals, groups or societies.

I am very rarely inclined to get involved in the many regular disputes on Wikipedia, and usually do so only when I have little or no choice in the matter, but a bit of activity on Wikiquote revising the long-standing intro there, which had been derived from previous ones here, brought me here, to at least make a few comments.

There are many other alternatives which could be devised, but at this point I strongly recommend a return to something closer to the introductory definitions or descriptions existing on Wikipedia in the summer of 2017, which grammatically deficient as some of them were, I adapted at that time to a simple one line intro to the page on Wikiquote to read:

Ideology is a term which refers to comprehensive sets of normative beliefs and expressions of the conscious and unconscious ideas of individuals, groups or societies.

Such an intro could be revised slightly, perhaps to an even simpler:

Ideology is a term referring to comprehensive sets of beliefs or expressions of the conscious and unconscious ideas of individuals, groups or societies.

OR:

Ideology is a term referring to comprehensive sets of beliefs or expressions of the ideas of individuals, groups or societies.

OR, perhaps most simply and accurately:

Ideology is a term referring to comprehensive sets or expressions of the ideas of individuals, groups or societies.

or:

Ideology is a term referring to comprehensive expressions or sets of the ideas of individuals, groups or societies.

I believe the last two forms are probably most generally preferable as a concise first line to the article, but believe any of the above are quite acceptable. Further definition and descriptions could of course be expanded or refined in various ways, as they regularly are here, but I am strongly inclined to believe that only when people are caught up in rather narrow, shallow perceptions, beliefs or values "held for reasons that are not purely epistemic" could they entirely or long approve such an introductory quasi-description as "An ideology is a set of beliefs and values attributed to a person or group of persons, especially as held for reasons that are not purely epistemic." I would also note that they would NOT actually have to embrace any particular ideologies to do that — simply all-too-common forms of obtuse obscurant pedantic pretensions or their often pernicious influences on human endeavors — or merely a few other forms of ignorance or confusion.

The current statement, as an introduction to a Wikipedia article simply does not serve to either adequately describe, limit or specify the term very clearly, or in some important ways do so at all: it could be reasonably argued that very few, if any, beliefs or values are held by human beings for reasons that are "purely epistemic", and people can certainly hold a multitude of these without having any "ideology" at all being "attributed" to them. Such is an indication of some of my not "purely epistemic" beliefs and observations, which I also believe neither merit or deserve to be identified as indicating a definite or distinct "ideology", or anything beyond a genuine affinity and concern to strive towards fairly honest precision and accuracy in descriptions and definitions, when possible.

Thus I think the title of this section would be an acceptable first line to the article. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)