Considering ideology as a presence to be dealt with in social analysis, Coates (1999: 239 – 295) identifies competing ideologies. He writes that, for the purpose of locating core issues and major cleavage lines in social thought, it is useful to distinguish “four traditions of thought, which we will refer to as liberalism, marxism, social reformism, and conservatism” (ibid, 244).
These traditions, he says, have shaped contemporary social science such that many social theorists have used them to describe their own intellectual positions. Moreover, the 4 traditions have all directly influenced society itself, by inspiring – as ideologies – political and social movements, and by entering “at the level of popular consciousness …….. as common sense” (ibid, 292). In fact, argues Coates, these ideologies have penetrated so widely and deeply that people can agree with particular political arguments without realising that they are at the same time subscribing to a much wider underlying body of thought.
However, it is important to say that while these traditions are very important in social matters, other ideological views – such as feminism, environmentalism, religion etc. – are at play in society. Nor should it be expected that the traditions should map neatly onto political parties, even when sharing the same name; the UK Conservative Party for example clearly displays features of both conservatism and liberalism. Individuals too may find themselves identifying completely with a single tradition, or with aspects of more than one.
A summary table contrasting the traditions follows, after a quick outline of these positions in turn.
Note that each tradition has a characteristic view of human nature, of society and the economy; of the role of the state; of the causes of social problems; and of social change.
Liberalism – sees human beings as rational, self interested individuals. Society is a collection of such individuals, who are born with rights that the State should protect without too much interference. Freedoms of speech, of the press, of religious conviction etc. are stressed. State interference is a significant cause of social problems.
Competitive markets, without interference by the state, by trades unions, by cartels etc., are the best means of ensuring economic growth and allocating resources. Social change is best served by liberalising markets and rewarding individual initiative.
Conservatism – sees human nature as imperfect, with innate differences, and inevitable inequalities, between individuals. Society is a historically evolved organism, held together by leadership and discipline; by institutions such as the state, church and family; and by traditions of community and nation. Social problems result from the erosion of these factors and of mutual obligations and duties.
The economy is best served by competitive markets under careful state regulation. Continuity is more important than social change.
Marxism – sees human beings as fundamentally social, with the ability to change their nature through their own actions. Society under capitalism is inherently unstable due to conflicting class interests. The state is an organisation serving the control of society for the dominant capitalist class. Social problems are due to class domination and class conflict.
Production in the economy is for profit (i.e. for the capitalist class) rather than for meeting people’s needs. Production should be democratically controlled by the wealth producers, the working class. Social change should be driven by class struggle to achieve a classless society, with no role for the oppressive state.
Social Reformism – sees human nature as changeable. It can be improved by better conditions and by education. Society comprises a variety of institutions and social groups, pursuing their own interests under the state as ‘referee’. Social problems arise from society’s complexity and its changeable nature, and by inadequate institutional arrangements.
Private enterprise should be controlled by state regulation on behalf of the public, and supplemented by the state, and where necessary by state run industry. Change should be gradual and managed by the democratic state.
———————–
The implication of all this is that none of us – social theorist, researcher, analyst or interested layperson – can escape the influence of such ideological moulding, whether we are aware of it or not. Both Dobb and Coates advise that is essential that those attempting to analyse society should be awake to these influences, and should use them to test the adequacy of their own analyses.
Profit, Wealth and Value 