Ideology in three voices: an adapted methodology for the study of political ideology

Abstract

Theology in four voices represents a fitting methodological model for the study of political ideology, given the similarities between religions and ideologies as belief systems with ineliminable, fundamental beliefs. The formal theological voice is dropped from consideration on the grounds that, while the involvement of academic theologians in the theology of ordinary believers is entirely appropriate, political theorists ought not to be involved in seeking to change or refine the ideologies which they research. The normative voice – which we refer to as the established voice – consists of texts which carry authority within a particular ideology, such as The Communist Manifesto in Marxism, or J.S. Mill’s On Liberty in liberalism; the espoused voice represents that which adherents of an ideology explain about what they believe; the operant voice consists of the political action taken by the adherents. While there are potential disadvantages to this method, there are also potential advantages. Firstly, it enables a fuller understanding of an ideology, especially when tensions arise between the three voices. Secondly, it allows the researcher to enter at any one of three points into a circle leading from pre-understanding to understanding. Thirdly and finally, the model presents opportunities to combine different methodological approaches into ideological research.

Notes

1. H. Cameron, D. Bhatti, C. Duce, J. Sweeney and C. Watkins, Talking About God in Practice: Theological Action Research and Practical Theology (London: Hymns Ancient and Modern, 2010), p. 54.

2. Ibid., p. 55.

3. E.G. Carmines and N.J. D’Amico, ‘The new look in political ideology research’, Annual Review of Political Science, 18 (2015), pp. 206–207.

4. T.A. Van Dijk, ‘Ideology and discourse analysis’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2) (2006), p. 116. Emphasis in original.

5. J. Gerring, ‘Ideology: a definitional analysis’, Political Research Quarterly, 50(4) (1997), pp. 966–967.

6. R. Shorten, ‘The status of ideology in the return of political religion theory’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 12(2) (2007), p. 181.

7. M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 84.

8. Shorten, ‘Political Religion Theory’, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 181.

9. M. Freeden, ‘Ideology and political theory’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(1) (2006), pp. 7–8.

10. Freeden, Ideologies, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 31.

11. Gerring, ‘Definitional analysis’, op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 978.

12. R.L. Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 60 and pp. 223–224. One might not view this development as a positive, but our case is not that religion changes for better or worse, simply that it is capable of change.

13. C. Watkins and H. Cameron, ‘Epiphanic sacramentality: an example of practical ecclesiology revisioning theological understanding’, in C.B. Scharen (Ed.), Explorations in Ecclesiology and Ethnography (Grand Rapids MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2012), p. 85.

14. Cameron et al., Talking About God, op. cit. Ref. 1, pp. 87, 54, 50.

15. Ibid., pp. 64–65.

16. M. Freeden, ‘Thinking politically and thinking about politics: language, interpretation and ideology’, in D. Leopold and M. Stears (Eds), Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 208.

17. Freeden, ‘Ideology and political theory’, op. cit., Ref. 9, pp. 5, 18.

18. Freeden, Ideologies, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 8.

19. M. Freeden, ‘Practising ideology and ideological practices’, Political Studies, 48 (2000), p. 303.

20. R. Niebuhr, ‘Introduction’, in K. Marx and F. Engels, On Religion (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1964), pp. vii, xii-xi.

21. S. Keeble, Industrial Day-Dreams: Studies in Industrial Ethics and Economics (London: E. Stock, 1896), p. 70.

22. R. Moy, ‘An analysis of helen cameron: life in all its fulness’, available at: https://www.academia.edu/9098287/An_Analysis_of_Helen_Cameron_Life_in_All_Its_Fulness (accessed July 2015).

23. Freeden, Ideologies, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 78.

24. Ibid., p. 79.

25. Cameron et al., Talking About God, op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 86.

26. Ibid., pp. 85–86.

27. M. Woodin and C. Lucas, Green Alternatives to Globalisation: A Manifesto (London: Pluto Press, 2004).

28. Freeden, Ideologies, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 78.

29. Freeden, ‘Ideology and political theory’, op. cit., Ref. 9, p. 14.

30. Freeden, Ideologies, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 107.

31. Cameron et al., Talking About God, op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 51.

32. Freeden, ‘Ideology and political theory’, op. cit., Ref. 9, p. 20.

33. Gerring, ‘Definitional Analysis’, op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 967.

34. B. Susser, ‘The Domains of Ideological Discourse’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 1(2) (1996), p. 169.

35. Van Dijk, ‘Ideology and discourse’, op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 124, 138.

36. Freeden, ‘Ideology and political theory’, op. cit., Ref. 9, p. 21.

37. Susser, ‘Ideological discourse’, op. cit, Ref. 34, p. 179.

38. Freeden, ‘Thinking politically’, op. cit., Ref. 16, p. 206.

39. Watkins and Cameron, ‘Epiphanic Sacramentality’, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 74.

40. Freeden, Ideologies, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 103.

41. Cameron et al., Talking About God, op. cit., Ref. 1, p. 53.

42. Susser, ‘Ideological discourse’, op. cit, Ref. 34, p. 180.

43. K. Marx and F. Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992 [1848]), pp. 14–15.

44. M. Alvesson and K. Skoldberg, Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research (London: Sage, 2010), p. 96.

45. J.L. Maynard, ‘A map of the field of ideological analysis’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 18(3) (2013) p. 301. Emphasis in original.

46. Ibid., p. 310.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid., p. 315.

49. Ibid., p. 318.

50. Ibid., p. 304.

51. Van Dijk, ‘Ideology and discourse analysis’, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 115.

52. Maynard, ‘Map of ideological analysis’, op. cit., Ref. 45, p. 305.

53. This is discussed in full on p. 5, above.

54. M. Freeden, ‘Is nationalism a distinct ideology’, Political Studies (1998), p. 750; B. Stanley, ‘The thin ideology of populism’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1) (2008), p. 99.

55. Stanley, Populism, op. cit., Ref. 54, p. 100.

56. Freeden, ‘Nationalism’, op. cit., Ref. 54, pp. 751, 758.

57. Maynard, ‘Map of ideological analysis’, op. cit., Ref. 45, pp. 309–10.

58. Gerring, ‘Definitional analysis’, op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 980.

59. A. Fagerholm, ‘Ideology: a proposal for a conceptual typology’, Social Science Information, 55(2) (2016), p. 141.

60. Ibid., p. 143.

61. M. Freeden, ‘Fundaments and foundations in ideologies’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 10(1) (2005), pp. 3–4.

62. Stanley, ‘Populism’, op. cit., Ref. 54, p. 100.