Inquiry 5 (1-4):179 – 196 (1962)
|Abstract||It is customary to apply the term “ideology” to political statements and statements about politics believed to be saturated with irrational elements. Since more often than not it is applied to the political science and policies of parties of the extreme, one may suspect that this usage is itself colored by political interests. However, “ideology” can be redefined at the level of a meta-science that reduces, though it cannot altogether eliminate, the partisan function of language about politics. Ideological thinking can then be shown to involve a logical error that is the counterpart of the genetic fallacy. Surprisingly, in this usage liberal political science, or that with liberal preconceptions, is a more frequent offender against the logic of science than a science of politics with illiberal preconceptions.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James Martin (2005). Ideology and Antagonism in Modern Italy: Poststructuralist Reflections. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8 (2):145-160.
Gayil Talshir, Mathew Humphrey & Michael Freeden (eds.) (2006). Taking Ideology Seriously: 21st Century Reconfigurations. Routledge.
Robert Grant (2003). Imagining the Real: Essays on Politics, Ideology and Literature. Palgrave Macmillan.
D. J. Manning (ed.) (1980). The Form of Ideology: Investigations Into the Sense of Ideological Reasoning with a View to Giving an Account of its Place in Political Life. G. Allen & Unwin.
Michael Freeden (2005). Confronting the Chimera of a 'Post‐Ideological' Age. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 8 (2):247-262.
David Miller (1981). Philosophy and Ideology in Hume's Political Thought. Oxford University Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-03-05
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?