Andrew heywood political ideologies pdf

Thursday, April 11, 2019 admin Comments(0) Global Politics Heywood, Andrew Global Politics. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood Global Politics Heywood, Andrew Global Politics. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood Andrew Heywood-Politics, Second Edition – Palgrave Foundations S. Global Politics Heywood, Andrew Global Politics.

Language: English, Spanish, Arabic
Country: Maldives
Genre: Science & Research
Pages: 150
Published (Last): 30.11.2015
ISBN: 838-6-66286-276-8
ePub File Size: 29.37 MB
PDF File Size: 18.68 MB
Distribution: Free* [*Regsitration Required]
Downloads: 31999
Uploaded by: GRANVILLE

Political Ideologies. An Introduction. 3rd edition. Andrew Heywood interests of those who express them. Ideas have a 'material basis', they have no meaning or. Political Ideologies and Why They Matter; Liberalism; Conservatism; Socialism; Anarchism sixth edition. by Andrew Heywood Lecturer Login. The sixth edition of this leading text on political ideologies provides a clear and accessible introduction to the political creeds and doctrines that have dominated and shaped world politics.

While ideologies must, strictly speaking, be both idea-orientated and action-orientated, certain ideologies are undoubtedly stronger on one level than the other. Keynes challenged classical economic thinking and rejected its belief in a self- regulating market. Individuals make what they want. Classical liberal ideas developed during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

This had led to the dominance of technology over human existence, from which, Heidegger believed, humans could escape by developing a more receptive relationship to Being. His most important work is The Postmodern Condition Michel Foucault see p. Central to this was his belief that knowledge is deeply enmeshed in power, truth always being a social construct, and that power can be productive as well as prohibitive. Jacques Derrida — A French philosopher, Derrida is the main proponent of deconstruction, although it is a term he is reluctant to use.

The almost unquestioned status which science has come to enjoy in the modern world is based upon its claim to be objective and value-free, and so to be the only reliable means of disclosing truth. Political science is therefore essentially empirical, claiming to describe, analyse and explain government and other political institutions in a rigorous and impartial manner. Behaviouralism developed as a school of psychology known as behaviourism which, as the name implies, studies only the observable and measurable behaviour of human beings.

This encouraged political analysts such as David Easton to believe that political science could adopt the methodology of the natural sciences, leading to a proliferation of studies in areas like voting behaviour where systematic and quantifiable data were readily available.

Political theory and political philosophy may overlap, but a difference of emphasis can nevertheless be identified. Anything from a plan to a piece of Introduction: Richard Rorty — A US philosopher, Rorty has focused increasingly upon political issues, having established his reputation in the analysis of language and mind.

Politics (4th ed.)

His early work rejected the idea that there is an objective, transcendental standpoint from which beliefs can be judged, leading to the conclusion that philosophy itself should be understood as nothing more than a conversation.

Nevertheless, he supports a pragmatic brand of liberalism that overlaps at times with social democracy, for which reason he has reservations about some of the relativist trends in postmodernism. Further reading Anderson, P. The Origins of Postmodernism. Verso, Butler, C. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Lyon, D.

Milton Keynes: Open University Press, In academic discourse, however, a theory is an explanatory proposition, an idea or set of ideas that in some way seeks to impose order or meaning upon phenomena. As such, all enquiry proceeds through the construction of theories, sometimes thought of as hypotheses — that is, explanatory propositions waiting to be tested. Political science, no less than the natural sciences and other social sciences, therefore has an important theoretical component.

For example, theories, such as that social class is the principal determinant of voting behaviour, and that revolutions occur at times of rising expectations, are essential if sense is to be made of empirical evidence. This is what is called empirical political theory. Political theory is, however, usually regarded as a distinctive approach to the subject, even though, particularly in the USA, it is seen as a subfield of political science. Political theory involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to political thought.

This traditional approach has about it the character of literary analysis: An alternative approach has been called formal political theory. This draws upon the example of economic theory in building up models based on procedural rules, usually about the rationally self- interested behaviour of the individuals involved.

Although its proponents believe it to be strictly neutral, its individualist and egoistical assumptions have led some to suggest that it has an inbuilt bias towards conservative values. However, philosophy has also been seen more specifically as a second-order discipline, in contrast to first- order disciplines which deal with empirical subjects. In other words, philosophy is not so much concerned with revealing truth in the manner of science, as with asking secondary questions about how knowledge is acquired and about how understanding is expressed.

For instance, whereas 10 Political Theory Political philosophy therefore addresses itself to two main tasks. First, it is concerned with the critical evaluation of political beliefs, paying attention to both inductive and deductive forms of reasoning. Secondly, it attempts to clarify and refine the concepts employed in political discourse.

What this means is that, despite the best efforts of political philosophers to remain impartial and objective, they are inevitably concerned with justifying certain political viewpoints at the expense of others and with upholding a particular understanding of a concept rather than alternative ones.

From this point of view, the present book can be seen primarily as a work of political theory and not political philosophy. Although the writings of political philosophers provide much of its material, its objective is to analyse and explain political ideas and concepts rather than advance any particular beliefs or interpretations. Political theory in the twenty-first century Political theory was in a beleaguered state through much of the twentieth century.

Logical positivism, originally advanced by a group of philosophers collectively known as the Vienna Circle, reflected a deep faith in scientific understanding and suggested that propositions that are not empirically verifiable are simply meaningless.

After the s, however, political theory re-emerged with new vitality, and the previously sharp distinction between political science and political theory began to fade. This occurred for a number of reasons. These included a growing dissatisfaction with behaviouralism, based upon its tendency to constrain the scope of political analysis by preventing it from going beyond what is directly observable.

Moreover, faith in the ability of science to uncover objective truth was undermined by advances in the philosophy of science, stemming in particular from the work of Thomas Introduction: Concepts and Theories in Politics 11 Kuhn , which emphasise that scientific knowledge is not absolute but is contingent upon the principles, doctrines and theories that structure the process of enquiry.

Lastly, the emergence of new social movements in the s and the end of consensus politics brought normative and ideological questions back to the forefront of political analysis, as reflected in the work of a new generation of political theorists, such as John Rawls see p. However, revived political theory differs in a number of respects from its earlier manifestations.

The philosophical tradition in the study of politics had previously been thought of as an analysis, through the ages, of a number of perennial problems — most obviously, the nature of justice, the grounds of political obligation, the proper balance between liberty and equality, and so on. Political philosophy therefore considered the con- tribution of major thinkers to our understanding of such problems and analysed how this understanding had developed from the ancient and medieval periods, through the early modern period — approxi- mately to the modern period since One feature of modern political theory is that it has placed a greater emphasis upon the role of history and culture in shaping political understanding.

What, say, Plato, Rousseau and Marx wrote perhaps tells us more about the societies and historical circumstances in which they lived than it does about any supposedly timeless moral and political issues.

The extent to which contemporary understanding can be advanced through a study of past political thinkers and traditions may therefore be extremely limited. The second development is that political theory has become increasingly diffuse and fragmented. In the modern period, Western political thought had acquired an unmistakably liberal character, to such an extent that liberalism see p.

The major rivals to liberalism were Marxism see p. Key debates in political theory for 12 Political Theory However, since the s, a range of rival political traditions have emerged as critiques of, or alternatives to, liberal theory. These have included radical feminism see p. Faced by such challenges, liberalism has gone into retreat.

Anti-foundationalists, usually but not necessarily associated with post- modernism, reject the idea that there is a moral and rational high point from which all values and claims to knowledge can be judged. John Gray has proclaimed that the enlightenment project is self-destroying, in that its tendency towards relentless critique cannot but be applied to its own foundations, leading to nihilism and, he warns, violence. The implication of anti-foundationalism is that political theory is not so much an accumulating body of knowledge, to which major thinkers and traditions have contributed; rather in so far as it exists at all , it is a dialogue or conversation in which human beings share their differing viewpoints and understandings with one another.

Concepts and Theories in Politics 13 Summary 1 Politics is, in part, a struggle over the legitimate meaning of terms and concepts. Language is often used as a political weapon; words are seldom neutral but carry political and ideological baggage. If a scientific vocabulary of politics is difficult to achieve, the least we can do is be clear about the words we use and the meanings we assign to them.

Concepts are sometimes abstract models or ideal-types, which only approximate to the reality they help to understand. While political theory involves the analytical study of ideas and concepts, both normative and descriptive, political philosophy attempts to refine our under- standing of such ideas and concepts in the hope of advancing political wisdom.

Threatened in the mid twentieth century by positi- vism, which suggested that the entire tradition of normative political thought is meaningless, political theory revived after the s. However, it has subsequently become increasingly diffuse and fragmented, as the status of liberalism has been challenged by the emergence of rival schools.

More radically, anti-foundationists have attacked Enlightenment rationalism. Further reading Bellamy, R. Manchester University Press, Goodin, R. An Anthology. Blackwell, Held, D. Political Theory Today. Polity Press, Heywood, A. Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Kymlicka, W. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction.

Morrow, J. History of Political Thought: A Thematic Introduction. Political Theory in Transition. Routledge, Plant, R. Modern Political Thought. Stirk, P. Pinter, Chapter 2 Human Nature, the Individual and Society Introduction Human nature The individual Society Summary Further reading Introduction Throughout this book, and indeed throughout political theory, there is a recurrent theme: This touches on almost all political debates and controversies — the nature of justice, the proper realm of freedom, the desirability of equality, the value of politics, and so forth.

Almost all political doctrines and beliefs are based upon some kind of theory of human nature, sometimes explicitly formu- lated but in many cases simply implied.

To do otherwise would be to take the complex and perhaps unpredictable human element out of politics. However, the concept of human nature has also been a source of great difficulty for political theorists. Models of human nature have varied consider- ably, and each model has radically different implications for how social and poli- tical life should be organized. Are human beings, for instance, selfish or sociable, rational or irrational, essentially moral or basically corrupt?

Are they, at heart, political animals or private beings? The answers to such questions bear heavily upon the relationship between the individual and society.

Heywood pdf andrew political ideologies

In particular, how much of human behaviour is shaped by natural or innate forces, and how much is conditioned by the social environment? Although opinions may differ about the content of human nature, the concept itself has a clear and coherent meaning. Human nature refers to the essential and immutable character of all human beings. This does not, however, mean that those who believe that human behaviour is shaped more by society than it is by unchanging and inborn characteristics have abandoned the idea of human nature altogether.

Indeed, this very assertion is based upon clear assumptions about innate human qualities, in this case, the capacity to be shaped or moulded by external factors. A limited number of political thinkers have, nevertheless, openly rejected the idea of human nature.

To employ a concept of human nature is not, however, to reduce human life to a one-dimensional caricature. Most political thinkers are clearly aware that human beings are complex, multi-faceted creatures, made up of biological, physical, psychological, intellectual, social and perhaps spiritual elements.

It would seem reasonable, moreover, that if any such thing as a human core exists it should be manifest in human behaviour. Human nature should therefore be reflected in behavioural patterns that are regular and distinctively human. However, this may not always be the case. For instance, despite abundant evidence of greedy and selfish behaviour, socialists still hold to the belief that human beings are cooperative and sociable, arguing that such behaviour is socially conditioned and not natural.

In this light, it is important to remember that in no sense is human nature a descriptive or scientific concept.

All models of human nature are therefore 16 Political Theory Endless discussion has taken place about the nature of human beings. Certain debates have been nevertheless particularly relevant to political theory.

Are human beings the product of innate or biological factors, or are they fashioned by education and social experience? Clearly, such a question has profound implications for the relationship between the individual and society.

Important questions have also been asked about the degree to which human behaviour is determined by reason, questions which bear heavily upon issues such as individual liberty and personal autonomy. Are human beings rational creatures, guided by reason, argument and calculation, or are they in some way prisoners of non- rational drives and passions? Finally, there are questions about the impulses or motivations which dominate human behaviour.

In particular, are human beings naturally selfish and egoistical, or are they essentially cooperative, altruistic and sociable? Such considerations are crucial in determining the proper organization of economic and social life, including the distribution of wealth and other resources. Nature versus nurture The most recurrent, and perhaps most fundamental debate about human nature relates to what factors or forces shape it.

The political significance of such a belief is considerable. In the first place, it implies that political and social theories should be constructed on the basis of a pre-established concept of human nature.

Quite simply, human beings do not reflect society, society reflects human nature. Secondly, it suggests that the roots of political understanding lie in the natural sciences in general, and in biology in particular.

This helps to explain why biological theories of politics have grown in popularity in the twentieth century. Without doubt, the biological theory that has had greatest impact upon political and social thought has been the theory of natural selection, developed by Charles Darwin —82 in On the Origin of Species [] He suggested that each species develops through a series of random genetic mutations, some of which Human Nature, the Individual and Society 17 Although Darwin appears to have recognized that his theories had radical political implications, he chose not to develop them himself.

The first attempt to advance a theory of social Darwinism was undertaken by Herbert Spencer — in The Man Versus the State [] Success and failure, wealth and poverty are, in this sense, biologically determined; and tampering with this process of natural selection will only serve to weaken the species. Such ideas deeply influenced classical liberalism see p. Social Darwinism also helped to shape the fascist belief in an unending struggle amongst the various nations or races of the world.

In the twentieth century, political theories were increasingly influenced by biological ideas. For example, ethologists such as Konrad Lorenz and Niko Timbergen advanced theories about human behaviour on the basis of detailed studies of animal behaviour.

In On Aggression , Lorenz suggested that aggression was a natural drive found in all species, including the human species. Popularized by writers like Robert Ardrey, such ideas had considerable impact upon explanations of war and social violence by presenting such behaviour as instinctual and territorial.

Dawkins suggested that both selfishness and altruism have their origins in biology. In most cases, these biological theories embrace universalism; they hold that human beings share a common or universal character, based upon their genetic inheritance.

Other theories, however, hold that there are fundamental biological differences among human beings, and that these are of political significance. This applies in the case of racialist theories which treat the various races as if they are distinct species. Racialists suggest that there are basic genetic differences amongst the races of the world, reflected in their unequal physical, psychological and intellectual inheritance.

One school of radical feminism see p. Sexual inequality is not therefore based upon social conditioning but rather on the biological disposition of the male sex to dominate, exploit and oppress the female sex. The significance of such theories is to shift political under- standing away from biology and towards sociology. Political behaviour tells us less about an immutable human essence than it does about the structure of society. Moreover, by releasing humankind from its biological chains, such theories often have optimistic, if not openly utopian, implications.

Evils such as poverty, social conflict, political oppression and gender inequality can be overcome precisely because their origins are social and not biological. In the writings of Karl Marx see p. However, Marx did not believe human nature to be a passive reflection of its material environment.

Rather, human beings are workers, homo faber, constantly engaged in shaping and reshaping the world in which they live. The majority of feminists also subscribe to the view that human behaviour is in most cases conditioned by social factors.

The picture of human nature as essentially malleable, shaped by social factors, has also been endorsed by behavioural psychologists, such as I.

Pavlov, John Watson and B. They argue that human behaviour is explicable simply in terms of conditioned reactions or reflexes, for which reason human nature bears the imprint of its environment. The US psychologist B. Intellect versus instinct The second debate centres upon the role of rationality in human life.

This does not, however, come down to a choice between rationalism and irrationalism. The real issue is the degree to which the reasoning mind influences human conduct, suggesting a distinction between those who emphasize thinking, analysis and rational calculation, and those who highlight the role of impulse, instincts or other non-rational drives.

Indeed, many such theories are advanced in eminently rationalist, even scientific, terms. Faith in the power of human reason reached its high point during the Enlightenment, the so-called Age of Reason, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. During that period, philosophers and political thinkers turned away from religious dogmas and faith, and instead based their ideas upon rationalism, the belief that the workings of the physical 20 Political Theory In this view, human beings are essentially rational creatures, guided by intellect and a process of argument, analysis and debate.

Rationalism implies that human beings possess the capacity to fashion their own lives and their own worlds. If human beings are reason-driven creatures they clearly enjoy free will and self-determination: Rationalist theories of human nature therefore tend to underline the importance of individual freedom and autonomy. In addition, rationalism often underpins radical or revolu- tionary political doctrines.

To the extent that human beings possess the capacity to understand their world, they have the ability also to improve or reform it. The earliest rationalist ideas were developed by the philosophers of Ancient Greece.

Plato, for example, argued that the best possible form of government would be an enlightened despotism, rule by an intellectual elite, the philosopher-kings. Plato was born of an aristocratic family. He became a follower of Socrates, who is the principal figure in his ethical and philosophical dialogues.

In his view, knowledge and virtue are one. In The Laws, he advocated a system of mixed government, but continued to emphasize the subordination of the individual to the state and law. Liberal thinkers, such as J. Mill see p. This, for instance, explains why Mill himself placed so much faith in individual liberty: In the same way, he argued in favour of female suffrage, on the grounds that, like men, women are rational and so are entitled to exercise political influence.

In turn, socialist theories also built upon rationalist foundations. This was most evident in the writings of Marx and Engels see p. This vision of human beings as thinking machines has, however, attracted growing criticism since the late nineteenth century.

The Enlight- enment dream of an ordered, rational and tolerant world was badly dented by the persistence of conflict and social deprivation and the emergence of powerful and seemingly non-rational forces such as nationalism and racialism. This led to growing interest in the influence which emotion, instinct and other psychological drives exert upon politics.

In some respects, however, this development built upon an established tradition, found mainly among conservative thinkers, that had always disparaged the mania for rationalism. Edmund Burke see p. In short, the world is unfathomable, too intricate and too confusing for the human mind fully to unravel. Such a view has deeply conservative implications. If the rationalist theories dreamed up by liberals and socialists are unconvincing, human beings are wise to place their faith in tradition and custom, the known.

Revolution and even reform are a journey into the unknown; the maps we have been given are simply unreliable. At the same time, conservative theorists were among the first to acknowledge the power of the non-rational. Thomas Hobbes see p. In his view, human beings are driven by non-rational appetites: This essentially pessimistic view of human 22 Political Theory Burke also emphasized the degree to which unreasoned sentiments and even prejudice play a role in structuring social life.

Some modern biologists have offered a scientific explanation for such beliefs. Konrad Lorenz, in particular, argued that aggression is a form of biologically adapted behaviour which has developed through the process of evolution.

Some of the most influential theories to stress the impact of non-rational drives upon human behaviour were associated with Freudian psychology, developed in the early twentieth century. Sigmund Freud — drew attention to the distinction between the conscious mind, which carried out rational calculations and judgements, and the unconscious mind, which contained repressed memories and a range of powerful psychological drives. In particular, Freud highlighted the importance of human sexuality, represented by the id, the most primitive instinct within the unconscious, and libido, psychic energies emanating from the id and usually associated with sexual desire or energy.

While Freud himself emphasized the therapeutic aspect of these ideas, developing a series of techniques, popularly known as psychoanalysis, others have seized upon their political significance.

Competition versus cooperation The third area of disagreement centres upon whether human beings are essentially self-seeking and egoistical, or naturally sociable and coopera- tive.

This debate is of fundamental political importance because these contrasting theories of human nature support radically different forms of economic and social organization. If human beings are naturally self- interested, competition among them is an inevitable feature of social life and, in certain respects, a healthy one. Such a theory of human nature is, moreover, closely linked to individualist ideas such as natural rights and private property, and has often been used as a justification for a market or Human Nature, the Individual and Society 23 Theories which portray human nature as self-interested or self-seeking can be found among the Ancient Greeks, expressed particularly by some of the Sophists.

However, they were developed most systematically in the early modern period. In political thought this was reflected in the growth of natural rights theories, which suggested that each individual has been invested by God with a set of inalienable rights. These rights belong to the individual and to the individual alone. Utilitarianism see p. Jeremy Bentham see p. This view of human nature has had considerable impact upon both economic and political theories. Such philosophical assumptions are used, for example, to explain the vigour and efficiency of market capitalism.

Scientific support for human self-interestedness has usually been based upon Darwin and the idea of some kind of struggle for survival.

Darwinian ideas, however, can be interpreted in very different ways. Writers such as Lorenz and Ardrey hold that each individual member of a species is biologically programmed to ensure the survival of the species itself.

In other words, individuals will exhibit cooperative and sociable behaviour to the extent that they put the species before themselves. On the other hand, modern writers such as Richard Dawkins have argued that every gene, including those unique to the separate individual, has a selfish streak and seeks its own survival.

Such a theory suggests that selfishness and competition amongst individuals is essentially a form of biologically programmed behaviour. This is not to say, however, that human beings are blindly selfish. A very different image of human nature is, however, presented by the major world religions. Monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism offer a picture of humankind as the product of divine creation.

The notion that human beings are moral creatures, bound together by divine providence, has had considerable influence upon socialist doctrines which stress the importance of compassion, natural sympathy and a common humanity.

Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism lay considerable emphasis upon the oneness of all forms of life, contributing once again to the idea of a common humanity, as well as a philosophy of non-violence.

It is little surprise, therefore, that religious doctrines have often underpinned the theories of ethical socialism. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that all religious theories have socialist implications. In addition, the Christian doctrine of original sin has generated a pessimistic view of humanity which, in turn, has considerable impact upon social and political thought.

This can be seen in the writings of St Augustine see p. These have traditionally stressed the importance of social being, drawing attention to the fact that individuals both live and work collectively, as members of a community. The human essence is sociable, gregarious and cooperative, a theory which clearly lends itself to either the communist goal of collective ownership, or the more modest socialist ideal of a welfare state. One of the few attempts to develop a scientific theory of human nature along the lines of sociability and cooperativeness was undertaken by Peter Kropotkin see p.

How do anarchists defend the idea of a stateless society? Why have fascists regarded struggle and war as healthy? Before discussing the characteristic ideas and doctrines of the so-called ideologies, we need to reflect on why these sets of ideas have been categorized as ideologies.

More importantly, what does the categorization tell us? What can we learn about, for example, liberalism, socialism, feminism and fascism, from the fact that they are classified as ideologies?

The first problem confronting any discussion of the nature of ideology is the fact that there is no settled or agreed definition of the term, only a collection of rival definitions. This has occurred for two reasons. In the first place, as all concepts of ideology acknowledge a link between theory and practice, the term uncovers highly contentious debates, considered in the previous section, about the role of ideas in politics and the relationship between beliefs and.

Marx used the term in the title of his early work The German Ideology [] For de Tracy.

The origins of the term are nevertheless clear. With a rationalist zeal typical of the Enlightenment. Among the meanings that have been attached to ideology are the following: Not until the second half of the twentieth century was a neutral and apparently objective concept of ideology widely employed. More boldly. For much of its history the term ideology has been used as a political weapon. The career of ideology as a key political term stems from the use made of it in the writings of Karl Marx.

Yet the meaning Marx ascribed to the concept is very different from the one usually accorded it in mainstream political analysis. Marx's use of the term. This also contains Marx's clearest description of his view of ideology: The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal. Marx treated ideology as a temporary phenomenon. His own ideas he classified as scientific.

Ideology will only continue so long as the class system that generates it survives. In What is to be Done? In concealing the contradictions upon which capitalism. The proletariat. The interests of the proletariat thus coincide with those of society as a whole. Marx believed that the distortion implicit in ideology stems from the fact that it reflects the interests and perspective on society of the ruling class. The class system is thus presented upside down.

Later generations of Marxists have. Ideology no longer implied necessary falsehood and mystification. Marx used ideology as a critical concept. Most importantly. The contrast between ideology and science. However as all classes. This largely reflects the fact that Marx's confident prediction of capitalism's doom proved to be highly optimistic.

Lenin argued. For Lenin and most twentieth-century Marxists. The ruling class is unwilling to recognize itself as an oppressor and. The Marxist theory of ideology was perhaps developed furthest by Antonio Gramsci. Hegemony means leadership or domination, and in the sense of ideological hegemony it refers to the capacity of bourgeois ideas to displace rival views and become, in effect, the commonsense of the age.

Gramsci highlighted the degree to which ideology is embedded at every level in society, in its art and literature, in its education system and mass media, in everyday language and popular culture. The capacity of capitalism to achieve stability by manufacturing legitimacy was also a particular concern of the Frankfurt School, a group of mainly German neo-Marxists who fled the Nazis and later settled in the USA.

Its most widely known member, Herbert Marcuse see p. Italian Marxist and social theorist. The son of a minor public official, Gramsci joined the Socialist Party in , becoming in the general secretary of the newly formed Italian Communist Party. He was elected to the Italian Parliament in , but was imprisoned by Mussolini in He remained incarcerated until his death. In Prison Notebooks Gramsci, , written between and , Gramsci tried to redress the emphasis within orthodox Marxism upon economic or material factors.

Gramsci remained throughout his life a Leninist and a revolutionary. By manufacturing false needs and turning humans into voracious consumers, modern societies are able to paralyse criticism through the spread of widespread and stultifying affluence. According to Marcuse, even the apparent tolerance of liberal capitalism serves a repressive purpose in that it creates the impression of free debate and argument, thereby concealing the extent to which indoctrination and ideological control take place.

One of the earliest attempts to construct a non-Marxist concept of ideology was undertaken by the German sociologist Karl Mannheim — Like Marx, he acknowledged that people's ideas are shaped by their social circumstances, but, in contrast to Marx, he strove to rid ideology of its negative implications. In Ideology and Utopia [] Mannheim portrayed ideologies as thought systems that serve to defend a particular social order, and that broadly express the interests of its dominant or ruling group.

Utopias, on the other hand, are idealized representations of the future that imply the need for radical social change, invariably serving the interests of oppressed or subordinate groups. Mannheim nevertheless held that all ideological systems, including utopias, are distorted, because each offers a partial and necessarily self-interested view of social reality. However, he argued that the attempt to uncover objective truth need not be abandoned altogether. The subsequent career of the concept was deeply marked by the emergence of totalitarian dictatorships in the inter-war period, and by the heightened ideological tensions of the Cold War of the s and s.

However, not all political creeds are ideologies by this standard. A distinctively conservative concept of ideology can also be identified. This is based upon a long-standing conservative distrust of abstract principles and philosophies, born out of a sceptical attitude towards rationalism and progress. The world is viewed as infinitely complex and largely beyond the capacity of the human mind to fathom. The foremost modern exponent of this view was the British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott — From this perspective, ideologies are seen as abstract systems of thought, sets of ideas that are destined to simplify and distort social reality because they claim to explain what is, frankly, incomprehensible.

Ideology is thus equated with dogmatism, fixed or doctrinaire beliefs that are divorced from the complexities of the real world. Pragmatism refers generally to a concern with practical circumstances rather than theoretical beliefs, with what can be achieved in the real world, as opposed to what should be achieved in an ideal world.

John Smith's - Political Ideologies (PDF eBook) 5th Revised edition

As a philosophical doctrine most commonly associated with philosophers such as William James — and John Dewey — pragmatism holds that the meaning and justification of beliefs should be judged by their practical consequences. Though by definition a pragmatic style of politics is non-ideological, it does not amount to unprincipled opportunism. Pragmatism suggests a cautious attitude towards change that rejects sweeping reforms and revolution as a descent into the unknown, and prefers instead incremental adjustments and, perhaps, evolutionary progress.

Since the s, however, the term ideology has gained a wider currency through being refashioned according to the needs of conventional social and political analysis. This has established ideology as a neutral and objective concept, the political baggage once attached to it having been removed.

An ideology is therefore an action-orientated system of thought. So defined, ideologies are neither good nor bad, true nor false, open nor closed, liberating nor oppressive — they can be all these things. The drawback of any negative concept of ideology is that it is highly restrictive.

However, any neutral concept of ideology also has its dangers. In particular, in off-loading its political baggage the term may be rendered so bland and generalized that it loses its critical edge altogether. Two questions are especially important in this respect: Any short or single-sentence definition of ideology is likely to stimulate more questions than it answers.

Nevertheless, it provides a useful and necessary starting point. In this book, ideology is understood as the following:. An ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organized political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power. All ideologies therefore a offer an account of the existing order, usually in the form of a.

This definition is neither original nor novel, and it is entirely in line with the social-scientific usage of the term. It nevertheless draws attention to some of the important and distinctive features of the phenomenon of ideology. In particular it emphasizes that the complexity of ideology derives from the fact that it straddles the conventional boundaries between descriptive and normative thought, and between political theory and political practice.

Ideology, in short, brings about two kinds of synthesis: Ideologies are descriptive in that, in effect, they provide individuals and groups with an intellectual map of how their society works and, more broadly, with a general view of the world.

However, such descriptive understanding is deeply embedded within a set of normative or prescriptive beliefs, both about the adequacy of present social arrangements and about the nature of any alternative or future society. Ideology therefore has a powerful emotional or affective character: One of the implications of this is that no clear distinction can be made between ideology and science.

In this light, it is helpful to treat ideologies as paradigms, in the sense employed by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions An ideology, then, can be seen as a set of principles, doctrines and theories that help to structure the process of intellectual enquiry.

In effect it constitutes a framework within which the search for political knowledge takes place, a language of political discourse. For instance, much of academic political science and, still more clearly, mainstream economics draws upon individualist and rationalist assumptions that have an unmistakable liberal heritage. The notion of ideology as an intellectual framework or political language is also important because it highlights the depth at which ideology structures human understanding.

The tendency to deny that one's own beliefs are ideological often while condemning other people for committing precisely this sin can be explained by the fact that, in providing the very concepts through which the world becomes intelligible, our ideology is effectively invisible. We fail or refuse to recognize that we look at the world through a veil of theories, presuppositions and assumptions that shape what we see and thereby impose meaning on the world.

The second synthesis, the fusion of thought and action, reflected in the linkage between b and c above, is no less significant.

At a fundamental level, ideologies resemble political philosophies in that they deal with abstract ideas and theories, and their proponents may at times seem to be engaged in dispassionate enquiry. Friedrich Hayek see p. At an operative level, however, ideologies take the form of broad political movements, engaged in popular mobilization and the struggle for power. Ideology in this guise may be expressed in sloganizing, political rhetoric, party manifestos and government policies.

While ideologies must, strictly speaking, be both idea-orientated and action-orientated, certain ideologies are undoubtedly stronger on one level than the other. For instance, fascism has always emphasized operative goals and, if you like, the politics of the deed.

Anarchism, on the other hand, especially since the mid-twentieth century, has largely survived at a fundamental or philosophical level. Nevertheless, ideologies invariably lack the clear shape and internal consistency of political philosophies; they are only more or less coherent.

This apparent shapelessness stems in part from the fact that ideologies are not hermetically sealed systems of thought; rather they are, typically, fluid sets of ideas that overlap with other ideologies and shade into one another. This not only fosters ideological development but also leads to the emergence of hybrid ideological forms, such as liberal conservatism, socialist feminism and conservative nationalism.

Moreover, each ideology contains a range of divergent, even rival traditions and viewpoints. This highlights the problem of what W. These are concepts about which there is such deep controversy that no settled or agreed definition can ever be developed. Clearly, however, there must be a limit to the incoherence or shapelessness of ideologies.

There must be a point at which, by abandoning a particularly cherished principle or embracing a previously derided theory, an ideology loses its identity or, perhaps, is absorbed into a rival ideology. Could liberalism remain liberalism if it abandoned its commitment to liberty? Would socialism any longer be socialism if it developed an appetite for violence and war? One way of dealing with this problem, following Michael Freeden , is to highlight the morphology, the form and structure, of an ideology in terms of its key concepts, in the same way that the arrangement of furniture in a room helps us to distinguish between a kitchen, a bedroom, a lounge, and so on.

Each ideology is therefore characterized by a cluster of core, adjacent and peripheral concepts, not all of which need be present for a theory or a doctrine to be recognized as belonging to that ideology. A kitchen, for instance, does not cease to be a kitchen simply because the sink or the cooker is removed. Similarly a kitchen remains a kitchen over time despite the arrival of new inventions such as dishwashers and microwave ovens. Individualism, liberty and human rationality, for example, could be identified as liberalism's nexus of core concepts.

The absence of any one of them need not compromise a doctrine's liberal credentials, but the absence of two of them would suggest the emergence of a new ideological configuration. What does this tell us about the relationship between ideology and truth?

For Marx, as we have seen, ideology was the implacable enemy of truth. Falsehood is implicit in ideology because,. All people's views are shaped.

In this light. Conservatives have traditionally regarded ideology as a manifestation of the arrogance of rationalism.

Secular ideologies are therefore rejected because they are not founded on religious principles and so lack moral substance. Mannheim's own solution to this problem. Liberalism is the classic ruling-class ideology. This implies that there exists no objective standard of truth against which ideologies can be judged. Ideology is thus tainted by its association with arrogant humanism and growth- orientated economics — liberalism and socialism being its most obvious examples.

Fascists are often dismissive of ideology as an over-systematic. Ecologists have tended to regard all conventional political doctrines as part of a super-ideology of industrialism. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood being the creation of the ruling class. Religious fundamentalists have treated key religious texts as ideology. Ideology is therefore inherently repressive. Ideologies are elaborate systems of thought that are dangerous or unreliable because.

Later Marxists adopted a neutral concept of ideology. As Andrew Vincent Aristocrats who supported the king sat to his right. There is also broad agreement about where different ideas and ideologies are located along this spectrum. Ideologies are embraced less because they stand up to scrutiny and logical analysis. This is a linear spectrum that locates political beliefs at some point between two extremes. The most familiar and firmly established method of doing this is the left—right political spectrum.

Most people would recognize the spectrum depicted in Figure 1. In a world of competing truths. Ideologies therefore play a crucial role in either upholding the prevailing power structure. By providing us with a language of political discourse. A similar seating pattern was followed in the subsequent French Assemblies.

Although familiar. In terms of values. Anarchists are strongly committed to the idea of equality. For example. Political ideologies are in fact highly complex collections of beliefs. All such interpretations. This is closely related to different attitudes towards the economy. The weakness of the linear spectrum is that it tries to reduce politics to a single dimension.

For instance. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood revolutionary or egalitarian sympathies. The linear spectrum is commonly understood to reflect different political values or contrasting views about economic policy. Left-wingers are committed to equality and are optimistic about the possibility of achieving it. Right-wingers typically reject equality as either undesirable or impossible to achieve. In contemporary politics. In particular.

Attempts have nevertheless been made to develop more sophisticated political spectrums that embody two or more dimensions. The linear spectrum. Norberto Bobbio has argued that.

In this case the differences between. As a result. Nazism and Stalinism can be made clear by placing these at opposite extremes of the left—right axis.

In fact a growing body of literature advocates abandoning the left—right divide altogether. At best. As Giddens pointed out.

Eysenck took the conventional left—right spectrum as the horizontal axis of his spectrum. In sharp contrast. The shift away from old class polarities has also furthered this process.

The ramifications of the end of the Cold War have not been confined to socialist ideology. The ideological ramifications of the collapse of communism have been profound and wide-ranging. Chief amongst these have been nationalism. With hindsight. Democratic socialism has nevertheless also been affected.

Marxist-Leninist guise. Such arguments are examined in the final chapter of the book. Revolutionary socialism. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood Political ideologies in the twenty-first century Since the late twentieth century a series of political.

These developments are examined in greater detail in Chapter 4. At the very least. Such developments have certainly had a profound affect upon socialism.

The earliest and initially most influential interpretation was that the demise of communism had left western-style liberal democracy. The most significant of these are the following: For some. To the extent that the terrorist threat establishes the primacy of order and state security over a concern with civil liberties and individual rights it may be associated with a drift towards conservatism and the erosion of liberal sensibilities. On the other hand.

On the one hand. Examples of this include the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Postmodernity The birth of political ideologies can be traced back to the processes through which the modern world came into existence. To some extent. The advent of global terrorism has undoubtedly had major international and national consequences. September Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood Leninism as the leading ideology in many postcommunist states.

In The Shield of Achilles At a national level. The process of modernization had social. The collapse or retrenchment of their traditional enemy means that in the twenty-first century liberalism and conservatism are each becoming more shapeless and differentiated.

Nike running shoes and Starbucks coffee houses. This has been evident since the s in the growth of new social movements — the peace movement. Globalization affects political ideologies in a variety of ways. The prospects of postmodernism displacing conventional ideological thinking altogether are examined in Chapter These include a strengthening of religious fundamentalism in the developing world.

Globalization Globalization is a slippery and elusive concept. New ideological thinking has also been stimulated by attempts to blend established ideological traditions with the ideas of postmodernism see p. Obvious examples of this include the greater ease with which transnational corporations are able to relocate production and investment.

McDonald's beefburgers. While modern societies were structured by industrialization and class solidarity. The major theme in globalization is the emergence.

Modern liberalism and social democracy have been compromised by the declining viability of national economic strategies. These are each discussed in their appropriate chapters. Ideology Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

An examination of the major ideologies that pays particular attention to their conceptual morphology. Journal of Political Ideologies Abingdon. Ideology and Politics London: A journal. A very thorough account of ideology. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach Oxford: Clarendon Press. Further reading Eagleton. An Introduction London and New York.

An examination of the different definitions of ideology that considers the ideas of key Marxist thinkers through to the various post-structuralists. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood in the developed world that has drawn.

The idea of globalization as ideology is discussed in Chapter A clear and short yet comprehensive introduction to the elusive concept of ideology.

Studies in the Theory of Ideology Cambridge: Polity Press. UK and Cambridge.. Carfax Publishing. A good introduction to debates about the nature and significance of ideology. The Age of Ideology: A broad-ranging analysis of how the major ideological traditions are coping with the challenge of postmodern society. As a systematic political creed. Liberal ideas were radical: It also came to be increasingly associated with ideas of freedom and choice.

In many respects liberalism reflected the aspirations of the rising middle classes. Such a system of industrial capitalism developed first in the UK from the mid eighteenth century onwards. Classical liberalism 5. The nineteenth century was in many ways the liberal century. It has meant generous. By the s the term was widely recognized throughout Europe in relation to a distinctive set of political ideas. Origins and development 2.

Liberals challenged the absolute power of the monarchy. The English Revolution of the seventeenth century and the American and French Revolutions of the late eighteenth century each embodied elements that were distinctively liberal.

Liberal ideas resulted from the breakdown of feudalism in Europe and the growth. As industrialization spread throughout western countries.

The Latin liber referred to a class of free men. They also supported the movement towards freedom of conscience in religion and questioned the authority of the established church. Modern liberalism 6. In place of absolutism they advocated constitutional and. It subsequently spread to North America. The primacy of the individual — central themes 3.

Where capitalism has been successfully established. From the twentieth century onwards industrial capitalism has exerted a powerful appeal for developing countries in Africa. These systems are constitutional in that they seek to limit government power and safeguard civil liberties.

In effect liberalism has come to be the dominant ideology of the industrialized West. This has been suggested by liberalism's critics as well as its supporters.

Liberal ideas. In some cases western-style liberal regimes were bequeathed to African or Asian countries upon achieving independence.

The radical. In contrast the political cultures of most western countries are built upon a bedrock of liberal-capitalist values. Asia and Latin America. Japanese industry. Some political thinkers have even argued that there is a necessary and inevitable link between liberalism and capitalism. From the late nineteenth century onwards the progress of industrialization led liberals to question.

Liberalism thus became increasingly conservative. Hayek therefore claimed that a liberal democratic political system and respect for civil liberties can only develop in the context of a capitalist economic order.

Western political systems have also been shaped by liberal ideas and values. Ideas such as freedom of speech. Developing first in western Europe and North America. In such cases they have provided more fertile ground for the growth of socialism or nationalism rather than western liberalism. This form of liberalism was boldly universalist. During the twentieth century.

This led to the development of two traditions of thought within liberalism. While liberalism undoubtedly favours openness. So deeply have liberal ideas permeated political. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood Whereas early liberals had wanted government to interfere as little as possible in the lives of its citizens.

In other words. Since the late twentieth century liberalism has also confronted the challenge of growing moral and cultural diversity in its western homeland. The primacy of the individual — central themes Liberalism is. Liberal thinkers in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The most important of these are the following: The moral and ideological stance of liberalism is embodied in a commitment to a distinctive set of values and beliefs.

From this perspective. Their lives and identities were largely determined by the character of these groups in a process that changed little from one generation to the next. These suggested that individuals were invested with a set of God-given.

In the feudal period there was little idea of individuals having their own interests or possessing personal and unique identities.

In the form of methodological individualism. It has led some liberals to view society as simply a collection of individuals. Individuals were thought to possess personal and distinctive qualities: This was evident in the growth of natural rights theories in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

In contrast. They were encouraged. As the certainties of feudal life broke down a new intellectual climate emerged. A serf. Many of the tensions within liberal ideology can.

Such extreme individualism is based upon the assumption that the individual is egotistical. Rational and scientific explanations gradually displaced traditional religious theories. Rather people were seen as members of the social groups to which they belonged: Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood The individual In the modern world the concept of the individual is so familiar that its political significance is often overlooked.

Such a view has been called atomistic. A belief in the primacy of the individual is the characteristic theme of liberal ideology. Modern liberals. It also gave individuals the opportunity to pursue their own interests by exercising choice: Mill was subjected to an intense and austere regime of education by his father.

Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood central to any political theory or social explanation — all statements about society should be made in terms of the individuals who compose it. Individual liberty liberty and freedom being interchangeable is for liberals the supreme political value. In On Liberty [] Freedom A belief in the supreme importance of the individual leads naturally to a commitment to individual freedom.

Classical liberals and the new right subscribe to egoistical individualism. Ethical individualism. Nevertheless liberals do not accept that individuals have an absolute entitlement to freedom.

Politics Ideologies

Mill's position is libertarian see p. Whether human nature is conceived of as being egoistical or altruistic. His opposition to collectivist tendencies and traditions was firmly rooted in nineteenth-century principles. For early liberals. Mill's varied and complex work was crucial to the development of liberalism because in many ways it straddled the divide between classical and modern theories.

Later liberals have seen liberty as the only condition in which people are able to develop their skills and talents and fulfil their potential. For J. Although liberals agree about the value of liberty. Radical libertarians may defend the right of people to use addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine on the same grounds. Mill did not accept any restrictions on the individual that are designed to prevent a person from damaging himself or herself.

Although the individual may be sovereign over his or her body and mind. Socialists have generally understood freedom in positive terms to refer to self-fulfillment achieved through either free creative labor or cooperative social interaction.

Conservatives have traditionally endorsed a weak view of freedom as the willing recognition of duties and responsibilities. This has been expressed by the modern liberal John Rawls see p. Mill's major writings include On Liberty Early or classical liberals have believed that freedom consists in each person being left alone.

The new right. Social democrats have drawn close to modern liberalism in treating freedom as the realization of individual potential. Such a view suggests. Self-mastery requires that the individual is able to develop skills and talents. These rival conceptions of liberty have not merely stimulated academic debate within liberalism.

Perspectives on … Freedom Liberals give priority to freedom as the supreme individualist value. While classical liberals support negative freedom. Freedom means conformity to the revealed will of God. Progress literally means advance. Immanuel Kant. As a general principle.

By no means do liberals believe that individuals are infallible in this respect. Liberalism is. In the first place. In short. In the liberal view. Each generation is able to advance beyond the last as the stock of human Rationalism Rationalism is the belief that the world has a rational structure. Not only does paternalism prevent individuals from making their own moral choices and.

The central theme of the Enlightenment was the desire to release humankind from its bondage to superstition and ignorance. As a philosophical theory. In contrast with political freedom. Enlightenment rationalism influenced liberalism in a number of ways. Fascists reject any form of individual liberty as a nonsense.

Reason The liberal case for freedom is closely linked to a faith in reason. Rationalism thus emancipates humankind from the grip of the past and from the weight of custom and tradition.

Freedom is understood to mean the achievement of personal autonomy. A further legacy of rationalism is that liberals are strongly inclined to believe in progress. Religious fundamentalists see freedom as essentially an inner or spiritual quality. To the extent that human beings are rational. Key Enlightened thinkers included Jean-Jacques Rousseau see p. Adam Smith see p. It is associated with an emphasis on principle and reason- governed behavior.

People can better or improve themselves through the acquisition of knowledge and the abandonment of prejudice and superstition. The inevitable result of this is rivalry and conflict. Rights should not be reserved for any particular class of person.

While liberals are generally optimistic about human nature. The most important forms of formal equality are legal equality and political equality. Liberals therefore deplore the use of force and aggression. Christians or the wealthy. Individuals battle for scarce resources.

It is a vital means of promoting personal self-development and. Liberals may believe that the use of force is justified either on the grounds of self-defense or as a means of countering oppression. The narrower idea of social justice refers to the distribution of material rewards and benefits in society. The liberal theory of justice is based upon a belief in equality of various kinds. Not only does violence mark the failure of reason. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood capacity of human beings to understand and explain their world.

While rationalism does not dictate the ends of human conduct. This also explains the characteristic liberal emphasis upon education. Justice Justice denotes a particular kind of moral judgment.

The liberal preference is clearly that such conflicts be settled through debate and negotiation. The game of life. This is not to say that there should be equality of outcome or reward. Liberals believe that it is right to reward merit. By extension. Liberals believe social equality to be undesirable because people are not born the same. Such different views of social justice reflect an underlying disagreement within liberalism about the conditions that can best achieve a just society.

They possess different talents and skills. Those with more ability or who have worked hard. Such a theory of justice was developed by John Locke in the seventeenth century and has been advanced since the late twentieth century by neoliberals. Classical liberals have endorsed strict meritocracy on both economic and moral grounds.

In A Theory of Justice Wide social inequality provides both the rich and the poor with a powerful incentive to work: Classical liberals believe that the replacement of feudalism by a market or capitalist society created the social conditions in which each individual could prosper according to his or her merits. So long as individuals acquire or transfer their wealth justly. Each and every individual should have the same chance to rise or fall in society.

A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender. John Rawls see p. Locke argued that since the proper function of government is to protect life. Toleration should be extended to all matters regarded as private on the grounds that.

Toleration means forbearance. In A Letter Concerning Toleration [] This principle of balance Pluralism. Individuals and groups may pursue self-interest but a natural equilibrium will tend to assert itself. The liberal case for toleration first emerged in the seventeenth century in the attempt by writers such as John Milton —74 and John Locke to defend religious freedom. Political Ideologies An Introduction 3rd edition Andrew Heywood Toleration and diversity The liberal social ethic is very much characterized by a willingness to accept and.

From the individual's point of view. Mill developed a wider justification for toleration that highlighted its importance to society as well as the individual. This was expressed by the French writer Voltaire — in his declaration that. Toleration is thus a guarantee of negative freedom. Nevertheless these competing interests also complement one another: Toleration is both an ethical ideal and a social principle. Although individuals and social groups pursue very different interests.

Mill [] was thus able to argue as follows: If all mankind minus one. For Mill. Sympathy for toleration and diversity is also linked to the liberal belief in a balanced society.

As such it holds that power is widely and evenly dispersed in society. Locke was not prepared to extend the principle of toleration to Roman Catholics. As a normative term it suggests that diversity is healthy and desirable. Liberals may. More narrowly.

As a descriptive term. Faith in toleration is therefore linked to the Universalist belief that liberal theories and values are ultimately destined to triumph over their illiberal alternatives. Since the late twentieth century. Mill argued. This reflects a shift from universalism to pluralism within liberalism. More commonly. This may deprive liberal values of their privileged status. For John Gray b. Such a view is based upon the belief.

Locke studied medicine at Oxford before becoming secretary to Anthony Ashley Cooper. Liberals have traditionally believed that such protection can only be provided by a sovereign state. His political views were developed against the background of and were shaped by the English Revolution.

John Locke — English philosopher and politician. The liberty of one person is always therefore in danger of becoming a licence to abuse another. This is where liberals disagree with anarchists. This argument is the basis of the social contract theories.

Liberals fear that free individuals may wish to exploit others. Our liberty requires that they are restrained from encroaching upon our freedom. They may also break or ignore their contracts when it is to their advantage. Although he accepted that by nature humans are free and equal.

Hobbes and Locke constructed a picture of what life had been like before government was formed. Locke is usually seen as a key thinker of early liberalism. Born in Somerset. As individuals are selfish. As human beings are self-seeking creatures. The essential characteristic of any such umpire is that its actions are. This principle was developed by Locke in Two Treatises of Government [] and was used to justify the Glorious Revolution of One the one hand.

In other words Hobbes and Locke wished individuals to behave as if the historical fiction were true. The state is created by individuals and for individuals. It was also clearly expressed by Thomas Jefferson see p.

All individuals would recognize that it is in their interests to sacrifice a portion of their liberty in order to set up a system of law. The state is not created by a privileged elite.

In their view. Constitutional government Although liberals are convinced of the need for government. This implies that citizens do not have an absolute obligation to obey all laws or accept any form of government. The purpose of the social contract argument. Simply put. Liberals thus regard the state as a neutral arbiter amongst the competing individuals and groups within society. The state therefore embodies the interests of all its citizens and acts as a neutral arbiter when individuals or groups come into conflict with one another.

Pdf ideologies andrew political heywood

The social contract argument embodies several important liberal attitudes towards the state in particular and political authority in general. When the legitimacy of government evaporates. If government is based upon a contract. Government arises out of the agreement. This holds that the legislative. All liberal political systems exhibit some measure of internal fragmentation. This can be achieved by applying the doctrine of the separation of powers. Government can be limited. As the French political philosopher Montesquieu — put it.

Support for constitutionalism can take two forms. This was most clearly expressed in nineteenth-century Germany in the concept of the Rechtsstaat. The first ten amendments of the US Constitution. This was expressed in Lord Acton's famous warning: In many cases bills of rights also exist.

The most important of these is a so-called written constitution. More broadly. Israel and New Zealand. The US presidential system of. A constitution is a set of rules that seek to allocate duties. Constitutionalism in this sense can be said to exist when government institutions and political processes are effectively constrained by constitutional rules.

Liberals therefore fear arbitrary government and uphold the principle of limited government. Where neither written constitutions nor bills of rights exist. As such. It therefore Constitutionalism Constitutionalism.

It is typically expressed in support for constitutional provisions that establish this goal. Constitutionalism is thus a species of political liberalism. The first such document was the US Constitution.

In this respect.