Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

A map of the field of ideological analysis

2013; Routledge; Volume: 18; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/13569317.2013.831589

1469-9613

Jonathan Leader Maynard,

Sociopolitical Dynamics in Russia

AbstractOver the past two decades, research on ideology has grown considerably. This should be welcomed, but it comes with problems. Recent advances have been made in several fairly isolated academic communities from different disciplines that frequently appear unaware of each other. Research has therefore become fragmented, rather than productively integrated. This paper suggests that the fundamental cause of this fragmentation is the lack of a 'map of the field' of contemporary ideological analysis—a shared framework for conceptualizing the scope of research on ideology and the range of approaches available. This paper provides such a map, based on an extensive survey of the current literature. In part 1, I describe the defining features of a number of distinct approaches divided into three broad categories: conceptual approaches, discursive approaches and quantitative approaches. In part 2, I proceed to discuss the points of convergence and divergence between these approaches, to demonstrate how this map might enable a much needed increase in critical debate and interdisciplinary collaboration. AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Elizabeth Frazer, without whom I would never have embarked on this project or successfully concluded it, and to two anonymous referees, whose helpful comments significantly shaped the final version of this paper.Notes 1. 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), pp. 196–215. 2. T. Ball, 'Ideology and consistency: a dialogical approach', Journal of Political Ideologies, 1(1) (1996), pp. 97–99; R. Boudon, 'Local vs general ideologies: a normal ingredient of modern political life', Journal of Political Ideologies, 4(2) (1999), pp. 141–142. 3. J. Jost, A. Kay and H. Thorrisdottir, Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 3. 4. N. Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (Harlow: Pearson), 2010. 5. See also M. Freeden, 'Review: social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. By John T. Jost, Aaron C. Kay and Hulda Thorrisdottir (Eds)', Political Psychology, 31(3) (2010), p. 479. 6. M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); M. Freeden, 'Editorial: political ideology at century's end', Journal of Political Ideologies, 5(1) (2000), pp. 5–15; M. Freeden, Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2003; K. Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubney & Co.), 1940; J. Thompson, Studies in the Theory of Ideology (Cambridge: Polity), 1984; J. Plamenatz, Ideology (London: Pall Mall Press), 1970; K. Knight, 'Transformations in the concept of ideology in the twentieth century', American Political Science Review, 100(4) (2006), pp. 619–626; M. B. Hamilton, 'The elements of the concept of ideology', Political Studies, 35(1) (1987), pp. 18–38; R. Boudon, The Analysis of Ideology (Cambridge: Polity Press), 1989, pp. 3–68; T. Eagleton, Ideology: An Introduction (London: Verso), 1991; W. Mullins, 'On the concept of ideology in political science', AmericanPolitical Science Review, 66(2) (1972), pp. 498–502; R. Bendix, 'The age of ideology: persistent and changing', in D. Apter (Ed.) Ideology and Discontent (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), pp. 294–327; J. Larrain, The Concept of Ideology (London: Hutchinson), 1979; D. McLellan, Ideology (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1995). 7. Knight, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 620; Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6; T. van Dijk, Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach (London: Sage), 1998; Eagleton, op. cit., Ref. 6; Boudon, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 71–169; Mullins, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 502–510; C. Geertz, 'Ideology as a cultural system', in Apter, op. cit., Ref. 6; S. Žižek (Ed.), Mapping Ideology (London: Verso), 1994; M. Freeden (Ed.), The Meaning of Ideology: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007); Apter, op. cit., Ref. 6; J. Gerring, 'Ideology: a definitional analysis', Political Research Quarterly, 50 (1997), pp. 957–994; Hamilton, op. cit., Ref. 6; M. Humphrey, '(De)contesting ideology: the struggle over the meaning of the struggle over meaning', Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(2) (2005), pp. 225–246. 8. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 5–6; Boudon, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 67; N. Fairclough, 'A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research', in R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (London: Sage, 2009), pp. 166–167, 169. 9. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 68–69, fn. 36; Hamilton, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 19; S. W. Rosenberg, Reason, Ideology and Politics (Oxford: Polity), 1988, p. 53; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 7; Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 983. 10. R. Mayer, 'Strategies of justification in authoritarian ideology', Journal of Political Ideologies, 6(2) (2001), pp. 147–168. See also N. C. Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2002, pp. 30–31. 11. R. Scott, 'An "official" Islamic response to the Egyptian al-jihād movement', Journal of Political Ideologies, 8(1) (2003), pp. 39–61. 12. I. Halfin, 'The Bolsheviks' gallows laughter', Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(3) (2006), pp. 247–268. 13. A. Norval, 'The things we do with words', British Journal of Political Science, 30 (2000), p. 342, fn. 126; Humphrey, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 240. 14. Freeden, op. cit., Ref. 6 (1996), p. 52. See also: R. Koselleck, 'Begriffsgeschichte and social history', Economy and Society, 11(4) (1982), pp. 418–419; Humphrey, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 242. 15. M. Freeden, 'Editorial: what is special about ideologies?' Journal of Political Ideologies, 6(1) (2001), p. 6; Freeden, op. cit., Ref. 6 (1996), pp. 22, 40–42; Freeden, op. cit., Ref. 6 (2000), p. 6. See also: Hamilton, op. cit., Ref. 6. 16. See also: L. Tower Sargent, Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth), 2009, pp. 7–9. 17. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 3; A. Finlayson, 'Rhetoric and the political theory of ideologies', Political Studies, 60(4) (2012), pp.751–754. See also: Apter, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 40; Geertz, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 47. 18. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 55–60. 19. Freeden, 'Review: social and psychological bases', op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 480. See also Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 58–60. 20. Freeden, op. cit., Ref. 6 (1996), p. 4. 21.Ibid. 22.Ibid., p. 68. 23.Ibid., p. 69. 24.Ibid., pp. 69–70. See also: Crawford, op. cit., Ref. 10, p. 52. 25. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 63. 26. See also: Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, pp. 324–325. 27. See also: D. Collier, F. D. Hidalgo and A. O. Maciuceanu, 'Essentially contested concepts: debates and applications', Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(3) (2006), pp. 211–246; B. Stanley, 'The thin ideology of populism', Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1) (2008), pp. 95–110; T. Ball, J. Farr and R. L. Hanson (Eds), Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1993; Ball, op. cit., Ref. 2; T. Ball, 'From "core" to "sore" concepts: ideological innovation and conceptual change', Journal of Political Ideologies, 4(3) (1999), pp. 391–396. 28. Koselleck, op. cit., Ref. 14; R. Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 1985. 29. See: J. H. Tully, 'The pen is a mighty sword: Quentin Skinner's analysis of politics', British Journal of Political Science, 13(4) (1983), pp. 489–509; Norval, op cit., Ref. 14, p. 320. 30. Q. Skinner, Visions of Politics: Volume 1: Regarding Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2002, pp. 27–56; Q. Skinner, Foundations of Modern Political Thought:Volume 1:The Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1978. 31. Q. Skinner, 'Some problems in the analysis of political thought and action', Symposium on Quentin Skinner, Political Theory, 23 (1974), pp. 284–285; Tully, op. cit., Ref. 29, p. 491. 32. Skinner, op. cit., Ref. 31, pp. 292–300; Tully, op. cit., Ref. 29, pp. 505–506. 33. Tully, op. cit., Ref. 29, p. 495. 34. Skinner, op. cit., Ref. 31, p. 294. 35. Sometimes the method is called Cognitive-Affective Modeling; see: http://wici.ca/research/cam/. 36. P. Thagard, 'Mapping minds across cultures', in R. Sun (Ed.) Grounding Social Sciences in Cognitive Sciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 2012, p. 11. 37.Ibid., pp. 10–11; S. Mock, 'Cognitive-affective mapping (CAM) in the study of national identity', working paper, pp. 3–4, available at http://wici.ca/research/cam/ (accessed 22 February 2013). 38. Thagard, op. cit., Ref. 36, pp. 5, 26–32. For other potential uses, see: P. Thagard, 'EMPATHICA: a computer support system with visual representations for cognitive-affective mapping', in K. McGregor (Ed.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Visual Reasoning and Representation (Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, 2010), pp. 80–81; Mock, op. cit., Ref. 37, pp. 5–6. 39. Mock, op. cit., Ref. 37, pp. 3, 5–7, 12. See also: C. Grafton and A. Permaloff, 'Liberal-conservative conflict and consensus in policy making', The Social Science Journal, 45 (2008), p. 581. 40. Thagard, op. cit., Ref. 36, p. 10 (emphasis in original); see also p. 24; Thagard, op. cit., Ref. 38, p. 79; P. Thagard, 'Explaining economic crises: are there collective representations?' Episteme, 7(3) (2010), pp. 274, 277. 41. Freeden, op. cit., Ref. 6 (1996), p. 37. 42. See also: Mock, op. cit., Ref. 37, pp. 1, 12. 43.Ibid., p. 4; Thagard, op. cit., Ref. 36, p. 18. 44. Mock, op. cit., Ref. 37, p. 5. 45. Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, pp. 342, fn. 126, 344. 46. See van Dijk, op. cit., Ref. 7. 47. R. Wodak and M. Meyer, 'Critical discourse analysis: history, agenda, theory and methodology', in Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 8, pp. 3, 11. 48. See: D. Howarth, A. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (Eds), Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change (Manchester: Manchester University Press), 2000; J. Townshend, 'Discourse theory and political analysis: a new paradigm from the Essex school?' British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 5(1) (2003), p. 129. 49. J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen, 'Critical discourse analysis', Annual Review of Anthopology, 29 (2000), p. 448; N. Fairclough, Language and Power (Harlow: Longman), 2001, pp. 2–3; P. Seargeant, 'Language ideology, language theory, and the regulation of linguistic behaviour', Language Sciences, 31 (2009), p. 346; Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, pp. 314, 318–319; M. Reisigl and R. Wodak, 'The discourse-historical approach (DHA)', in Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 89; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 176; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 4. pp. 2, 4–5; E. Laclau, 'Foreword', in Howarth, Norval and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 48, p. xi; D. Howarth and Y. Stavrakakis, 'Introducing discourse theory and political analysis', in Howarth, Norval and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 48, pp. 2–3, 6; Z. Leonardo, 'Discourse and critique: outlines of a post-structural theory of ideology', Journal of Education Policy, 18(2) (2003), pp. 204–205. 50. Blommaert and Bulcaen, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 448; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 2; Reisigl and Wodak, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 89. 51. Blommaert and Bulcaen, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 448; N. Fairclough, Media Discourse (London: Edward Arnold), 1995, p. 54; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 8, pp. 163–164. 52. Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 49, pp. 2–3; M. Toolan, 'What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such terrible things about it?' Language and Literature, 6 (1997), pp. 85, 89; Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 6–7; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 163; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 6, 27; Leonardo, op. cit., Ref. 49, pp. 204, 207, 211; Blommaert and Bulcaen, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 448; Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. x; Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, pp. 14–16; A. M. Clohesy, 'Provisionalism and the (im)possibility of justice in Northern Ireland', in Howarth, Norval and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 48, pp. 70–71; Reisigl and Wodak, op. cit., Ref. 49, pp. 87–89; Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 334, fn. 97; S. Žižek, 'Invisible ideology: political violence between fiction and fantasy', Journal of Political Ideologies, 1(1) (1996), p. 16. 53. Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 2; Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13. 54. T. van Dijk, 'Critical discourse studies: a sociocognitive approach', in Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 62–64. See also: Blommaert and Bulcaen, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 449; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 163; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 7–9; Humphrey, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 235. 55. Leonardo, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 203; see also pp. 205, 212; Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, pp. 327–328, 345–346; Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48, pp. 129–130. 56. Indeed, Norval erroneously asserts that ideology has 'always' been conceived in such a pejorative way; see: Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 315. See also: Humphrey, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 225–226. 57. Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 47, pp. 8–10; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 171. See also: Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 968–969. 58. E. Laclau, 'The death and resurrection of the theory of ideology', MLN, 112 (1997), pp. 303–306; R. Barthes, Mythologies (London: Vintage Books), 2000, pp. 142–156; Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 4; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 8, pp. 169, 181. 59. Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 4; Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 13 and 17–18; Barthes, op. cit., Ref. 58, pp. 110–112, 112, fn. 2; Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 327; Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 47, pp. 15–16, 28–30; S. Jäger and F. Maier, 'Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis', in Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 8, pp. 39–41, 56–60; Reisigl and Wodak, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 90; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 8, pp. 163, 165–166; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 7, 20, 28. See also: N. Kirk, 'History, language, ideas and post-modernism: a materialist view', Social History, 19(2) (1994), p. 225. 60. Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 5, pp. 4–5. 61.Ibid., pp. 8–9, 67. 62. Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 333. 63. Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 3, 6–7; Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 58, p. 299. See also: Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, pp. 4, 9; Humphrey, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 234, 243. 64. Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 7. 65.Ibid., pp. 11, 21, 25. 66. Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 58, p. 299. See also: McLellan, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 72–73. 67. Y. Stavrakakis, 'On the emergence of Green ideology: the dislocation factor in Green politics', in Howarth, Norval and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 48, p. 103. See also: Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 756; McLellan, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 72. Post-structuralists do, however, critique Saussure's 'structural linguistics' as insufficiently socially situated; see: Leonardo, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 204. 68. C. Belsey, Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2002, pp. 8–9. 69. Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 10. 70. Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 58, pp. 297–298; Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 8, 26; Leonardo, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 211; Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48, pp. 131–132, 139–140. 71. Van Dijk, 'Editor's foreword', Discourse & Society, 4(2) (1993), p. 132. 72. J. Glynos, 'The grip of ideology: a Lacanian approach to the theory of ideology', Journal of Political Ideologies, 6(2) (2001), p. 191. See also: J. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality (London: Penguin), 1996, pp. 7–13; I. Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1999, pp. 4–5, 22, 30. 73. Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 3. 74. J. Joseph, 'Derrida's spectres of ideology', Journal of Political Ideologies, 6(1) (2001), pp. 95–115. 75. Leonardo, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 212. See also: Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48. 76. Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 3. 77.Ibid., pp. 9, 26. See also: Leonardo, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 204. 78. Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 7. 79.Ibid., p. 4. 80.Ibid., p. 7. See also: Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48, p. 140. 81. See Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 47, pp. 28–30; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 58, 60–61. For an interesting debate amongst CD analysts on the dangers of nominalizing in analysis, see: M. Billig, 'The language of critical discourse analysis: the case of nominalization', Discourse & Society, 19(6) (2008), pp. 783–800; N. Fairclough, 'The language of critical discourse analysis: reply to Michael Billig', Discourse & Society, 19(6) (2008), pp. 811–819; T. van Dijk, 'Critical discourse analysis and nominalization: problem or pseudo-problem?' Discourse & Society, 19(6) (2008), pp. 823–828; M. Billig, 'Nominalizing and de-nominalizing: a reply', Discourse & Society, 19(6) (2008), pp. 829–841; N. Fairclough, 'A brief response to Billig', Discourse & Society, 19(6) (2008), pp. 843–844. 82. See: Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 47. 83. Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 49, pp. 5–9; Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 60–61. 84. The obvious similarities between this account and Freeden's focus on 'decontestation' are discussed in Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13. 85. Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 52, p. 22. 86. Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 329; Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 15. See also: Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 977. 87. M. Beckstein, 'The dissociative and polemical political: Chantal Mouffe and the intellectual heritage of Carl Schmitt', Journal of Political Ideologies, 16(1) (2011), pp. 35, 41–43. Žižek's concerns with this post-structuralist account—that it obscures the way it is not a constitutive exterior but the inability to symbolize the 'real' which actually blocks complete identities—is summarized in Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 341. 88. Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, pp. 11–12. 89.Ibid., pp. 12–13. See also: A. Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 756. 90. Kirk, op. cit., Ref. 59, p. 224; Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, pp. 321, 329–330. See also: L. Huddy, 'From social to political identity: a critical examination of social identity theory', Political Psychology, 22(1) (2001), p. 127. 91. Leonardo, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 207. 92. Belsey, op. cit., Ref. 68, pp. 37–39, 72–73; Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 329; M. Foucault, 'The subject and the power', in H. L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (Eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1981), p. 222; D. Filc, 'Post-populism: explaining neo-liberal populism through the habitus', Journal of Political Ideologies, 16(2) (2011), pp. 208–226. 232. 93. Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 12. 94. Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 330 (my emphasis). 95. Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 58, pp. 305–306. See also: Barthes, op. cit., Ref. 58, p. 128; Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, pp. 330–331. 96. Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 12. 97. Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 330. 98.Ibid., p. 330. 99. Fairclough, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 165.100.Ibid., pp. 165, 174.101. Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 52, p. 29; Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48, p. 131.102. Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 13; Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 67.103. E. Laclau, 'Ideology and post-Marxism', in Freeden (Ed.), The Meaning of Ideology, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 99.104. Laclau, op. cit., Ref. 58, pp. 301–306; Howarth and Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 49, p. 8; Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 67, pp. 100–101.105. See also: Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 327–328.106. See also: Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 7.107. Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 326.108. See also: Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48, p. 135.109. Žižek himself rejects the label 'post-structuralist', and is critical of the work of Laclau, Mouffe and other 'post-Marxists', but the line between such approaches and his own is not easy to draw. See: Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 341, fn. 121; Belsey, op. cit., Ref. 68, pp. 93–94. See also: M. Sharpe, 'The aesthetics of ideology, or "The Critique of Ideological Judgement" in Eagleton and Žižek', Political Theory, 34(1) (2006), p. 96, which sees Žižek as straightforwardly Marxist.110. R. Skelton, 'Lacan for the faint hearted', British Journal of Psychotherapy, 10(2) (1993), p. 420.111.Ibid.112. Žižek, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 17, 25; Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48, p. 131.113. Glynos, op. cit., Ref. 72, pp. 191–214.114. Jäger and Maier, op. cit., Ref. 59, pp. 34–61.115. T. Purvis and A. Hunt, 'Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology…', British Journal of Sociology, 44(3) (1993), pp. 473–499; S. A. Reid and S. Hung Ng, 'Language, power and intergroup relations', Journal of Social Issues, 55(1) (1999), pp. 119–135; Seargeant, op cit., Ref. 50. See also: H. G. Widdowson, 'Discourse analysis: a critical view', Language and Literature, 4 (1995), pp. 157–172; A. P. Simonds, 'Ideological domination and the political information market', Theory and Society, 18(2) (1989), pp. 181–211.116. A. Finlayson, 'From beliefs to arguments: interpretive methodology and rhetorical political analysis', British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(4) (2007), pp. 545–563; Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17; R. Shorten, 'Towards a political rhetoric of wrongdoing: the case of moral equivalence', Journal of Political Ideologies, 16(2) (2011), 195–219.117. Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, pp. 762–764; A. Finlayson, 'Rhetoric, invention and the art of politics', Political Ideologies Research Seminar Hilary Term 2012, University of Oxford, Oxford, 21 February 2012.118. Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 762.119.Ibid., p. 761.120.Ibid., p. 760.121.Ibid., p. 764.122. G. Mautner, 'Checks and balances: how corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA', in Wodak and Meyer, op. cit., Ref. 8, pp. 122–143; H. E. Nafstad and R. M. Blakar, 'Ideology and social psychology', Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(4) (2012), pp. 282–294.123. Knight, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 622.124. M. Kent Jennings, 'Ideological thinking among mass publics and political elites', Public Opinion Quarterly, 56 (1992), pp. 419–441; Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 959.125. See: J. Jost and B. Major, The Psychology of Legitimacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2001, for an excellent compendium of this literature.126. J. Jost, C. M. Federico and J. Napier, 'Political ideology: its structure, functions and elective affinities', Annual Review of Psychology, 60 (2009), pp. 326–327. See also: Freeden, 'Review: social and psychological bases', op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 479.127. H. Mirels and J. Dean, 'Right-wing authoritarianism, attitude salience, and beliefs about matters of fact', Political Psychology, 27(6) (2006), pp. 839–866; C. Weber and C. M. Federico, 'Interpersonal attachment and patterns of ideological belief', Political Psychology, pp. 390–391, 396.128. G. Caprara, D. Francescato, M. Mebane, R. Sorace and M. Vecchione, 'Personality foundations of ideological divide: a comparison of women members of parliament and women voters in Italy', Political Psychology, 31(5) (2010), p. 741.129. Knight, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 622; Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, p. 309–310; C. M. Federico, 'Expertise, evaluative motivation, and the structure of citizens' ideological commitments', Political Psychology, 28(5) (2007), p. 539.130. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, p. 324; W. G Jacoby, 'Ideology and vote choice in the 2004 election', Electoral Studies, 28 (2009), pp. 584–594.131. Geertz, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 52, 56–57; C. Tileagă, 'Ideologies of moral exclusion: a critical discursive reframing of depersonalization, delegitimization and dehumanization', British Journal of Social Psychology, 46 (2007), pp. 717–737.132. Knight, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 619; Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 310–315; M. L. Gross, 'Moral reasoning and ideological affiliation: a cross-national study', Political Psychology, 17(2) (1996), pp. 318–338; Federico, op. cit., Ref. 129, pp. 535–536; C. Grafton and A. Permaloff, 'The behavioural study of political ideology and public policy formation', The Social Science Journal, 42 (2005), p. 204.133. Knight, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 624–625.134. Jacoby, op. cit., Ref. 130, pp. 584–585; Federico, op. cit., Ref. 129, p. 536.135. H. McClosky and J. Zaller, The American Ethos: Public Attitudes Toward Capitalism and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1984, quoted in: J. Jost, 'The end of the end of ideology', American Psychologist, 61 (2006), p. 654. See also: Grafton and Permaloff, op. cit., Ref. 132, p. 208; Grafton and Permaloff, op. cit., Ref. 39, p. 582.136. Gross, op. cit., Ref. 132, p. 320; Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 310–311. For exceptions, which do explicitly limit their assumption of a liberal–conservative framework to US politics, see: Grafton and Permaloff, op. cit., Ref. 132, p. 201; Grafton and Permaloff, op. cit., Ref. 39, p. 580.137. Kent Jennings, op. cit., Ref. 124, p. 436; See also: P. E. Converse, 'The nature of belief systems in mass publics', in Apter (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent, op. cit., Ref. 6; Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 985; Crawford, op. cit., Ref. 10, pp. 55–57.138. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 317–323.139. Rosenberg, op. cit., Ref. 9, p. 42.140.Ibid., p. 49.141. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, p. 309.142. N. J. Shook and R. H. Fazio, 'Political ideology, exploration of novel stimuli and attitude formation', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (2009), pp. 995–998. See also: G. Caprara and P. Zimbardo, 'Personalizing politics: a congruency model of political preference', American Psychologist, 59(7) (2004), pp. 581–594; Mullins, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 508; Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 320; Caprara, Francescato, Mebane, Sorace and Vecchione, op. cit., Ref. 128.143. G. V. Caprara, C. Barbaranelli, L. Borgogni and M. Perugini, 'The big five questionnaire: a new questionnaire to assess the five factor model', Personality and Individual Differences, 15 (1993), pp. 281–288.144. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, p. 320.145. S.H. Schwartz, 'Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications', Revue française de sociologie, 47(4) (2006), pp. 929–968.146. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126.147. Mirels and Dean, op. cit., Ref. 128; J. Sidanius, 'Cognitive functioning and sociopolitical ideology revisited', Political Psychology, 6(4) (1985), pp. 637–661.148. T. Adorno, E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Row), 1950; B. Altemeyer, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press), 1981; B. Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1996.149. G. Hodson, S. M. Hogg and C. C. MacInnis, 'The role of "dark personalities" (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice", Journal of Research in Personality, 43 (2009), p. 687; Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, p. 322.150. Shook and Fazio, op. cit., Ref. 142; A. G. de Zavala, A. Cislak and E. Wesolowska, 'Political conservatism, need for cognitive closure, and intergroup hostility', Political Psychology, 31(4) (2010), pp. 521–541; J. Jost and O. Hunyady, 'Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies', Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5) (2005), pp. 260–265.151. M. Mildenberger, 'Exploring the state space of ideological possibility', WICI Working Paper No. 5 (2013), p. 16.152. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 311, 320–322; J. Haidt, J. Graham and C. Joseph, 'Above and below left-right: ideological narratives and moral foundations', Psychological Inquiry, 20 (2009), pp. 117–118; D. R. Weise, T. Pyszczynski, C. R. Cox, J. Arndt, J. Greenberg, S. Solomon and S. Kosloff, 'Interpersonal politics: the role of terror management and attachment processes in shaping political preferences', Psychological Science, 19 (2008), pp. 448–455.153. Weise et al., op. cit., Ref. 152, pp. 448–455; Weber and Federico, op. cit., Ref. 127; Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 963.154. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 318–320.155.Ibid., p. 311.156. Sidanius, op. cit., Ref. 147, p. 644.157. J. Block and J. H. Block, 'Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later', Journal of Research in Personality, 40 (2006), pp.734–749. See also: Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, p. 318.158. Haidt, Graham and Joseph, op. cit., Ref. 152, p. 118.159.Ibid., p. 110.160.Ibid. See also: Gross, op. cit., Ref. 132.161. Huddy, op. cit., Ref. 90.162. J. W. Koch, 'Assessments of group influence, subjective political competence, and interest group membership', Political Behaviour, 15(4) (1993), pp. 309–325.163. H. Tajfel, Human Groups and Social Categories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1981.164. J. N. Druckman, 'The implications of framing effects for citizen competence', Political Behaviour, 23(3) (2001), pp. 226–231.165. See: Jost and Major, op. cit., Ref. 125, p. 6.166.Ibid.167.Ibid.168. J. T. Jost, M. R. Banaji and B. A. Nosek, 'A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo', Political Psychology, 25(6) (2004), pp. 881–919; Jost, Kay and Thorrisdottir, op. cit., Ref. 3; Jost and Hunyady, op. cit., Ref. 150, pp. 260–265. See also: Freeden, 'Review: social and psychological bases', op. cit., Ref. 5.169. See: Jost and Major, op. cit., Ref. 125.170. Jost, Banaji and Nosek, op. cit., Ref. 168, p. 885.171. Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 755.172. See Refs. 6 and 7 for the key texts in this literature.173. Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 965, 983. See also: Mildenberger, op. cit., Ref. 151, pp. 11–12.174. See: Freeden, 'Review: social and psychological bases', op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 481; Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6 (1996), p. 22; Haidt, Graham and Joseph, op. cit., Ref. 152, pp. 110–119; Huddy, op. cit., Ref. 90, p. 141; J. White, 'Left and right as political resources', Journal of Political Ideologies, 16(2) (2011) pp. 123–144; B. Swedlow, 'Beyond liberal and conservative: two-dimensional conceptions of ideology and the structure of political attitudes and values', Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(2) (2008), pp. 157–180; Mildenberger, op. cit., Ref. 151, pp. 7–14. See also: R. Farneti, 'Cleavage lines in global politics: left and right, East and West, earth and heaven', Journal of Political Ideologies, 17(2) (2012), pp. 127–145.175. See: Kent Jennings, op. cit., Ref. 124, p. 428; Jacoby, op. cit., Ref. 130, p.587. See also: Mildenberger, op. cit., Ref. 151, p. 9.176. Kent Jennings, op. cit., Ref. 124, pp. 429, 436; Federico, op. cit., Ref. 129, pp. 535, 557; Converse, op. cit., Ref. 137. This conclusion is rejected in: Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 311, 325. See also: Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 985.177. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126. See: Federico, op. cit., Ref. 129, p. 535 for a summary of some of the literature on this topic.178. See: Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 310–315; Weber and Federico, op. cit., Ref. 127, p. 402; See also: Mildenberger, op. cit., Ref. 151, pp. 13–14; Farneti, op. cit., Ref. 174.179. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, p. 310. The distinction is often also linked to the rejection or acceptance of inequality, and sometimes the opposite prioritization of freedom. Again, this looks odd to those from outside American politics, since it could be argued that American liberals and conservatives both heavily prioritize freedom over equality when compared to the mainstream political spectrums of most other democracies. See also: Farneti, op. cit., Ref. 174, pp. 130–131.180. See also: Mildenberger, op. cit., Ref. 151, p. 8; Nafstad and Blakar, op. cit., Ref. 122, pp. 285–286.181. Knight, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 619; Federico, op. cit., Ref. 129, p. 536.182. See: Thompson, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 4, 12, 82; Larrain, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 13, 15, 52, 77 for earlier defences, although not, in my view, successful ones.183. See, for example: Geertz, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp.49-57; Van Dijk, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 11.184. Norval, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 316, fn. 18, pp. 325, 327.185. Gerring, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 965–966, 982–983. See also: Eagleton, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 1, 7; Humphrey, op. cit., Ref. 7.186. See, for example: Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 308–315.187. See: Glynos, op. cit., Ref. 72; Geertz, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 64.188. Thagard, op. cit., Ref. 36, p. 22.189. Federico, op. cit., Ref. 129, p.556.190. Filc, op. cit., Ref. 92, p. 235. See: Jost and Hunyady, op. cit., Ref. 150, p. 260.191. Stavrakakis, op. cit., Ref. 67, p. 101.192. Thagard, op. cit., Ref. 36, pp. 15, 20, 28–29, 31–32; Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 756; Huddy, op. cit., Ref. 90, p. 145; Tileagă, op. cit., Ref. 131. See also: Farneti, op. cit., Ref. 174.193. See: Huddy, op. cit., Ref. 90, pp. 133–134, 144.194. Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, pp. 763,765; Haidt, Graham and Joseph, op. cit., Ref. 152, p. 110; S. Shernav, 'Political narratives and political reality', International Political Science Review, 27(3) (2006), pp. 245–262.195. Jost and Hunyady, op. cit., Ref. 150, p. 262; Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 762. See also: Ref. 40 and Ref. 42.196. Skinner, op. cit., Ref. 31, pp. 294–300; Thagard, op. cit., Ref. 36, p. 25; Tully, op. cit., Ref. 29, pp. 495–497. See also: Koselleck, op. cit., Ref. 14, p. 417.197. Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 763.198. See also: Mildenberger, op. cit., Ref. 151, pp. 14–24; Skinner, op. cit., Ref. 31, pp. 281–282.199. Such questions were once key questions in the study of ideology, notably in the work of Gramsci and Mannheim. See: Mannheim, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 9–10, 136–146, 232–233; A. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence & Wishart), 1971, pp. 3–23, 210–218.200. Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, pp. 317; Tully, op. cit., Ref. 29, p. 498; M. Glassman and D. Karno, 'Ideology as instrument', American Psychologist, 62(9) (2007), p. 1075; Jacoby, op. cit., Ref. 130; Shook and Fazio, op. cit., Ref. 142, p. 996; Grafton and Permaloff, op. cit., Ref. 39, p. 584; Simonds, op. cit., Ref. 115. See also: J. Hardwig, "Epistemic dependence", Journal of Philosophy 82(7) (1985), pp. 335–349.201. See: Grafton and Permaloff, op. cit., Ref. 39.202. Ball, op. cit., Ref. 2. See also: Haidt, Graham and Joseph, op. cit., Ref. 152.203. Thagard, op. cit., Ref. 36, pp. 11, 17, 21.204. See: M. Freeden, 'The politics of ceremony: the Wootton Bassett phenomenon', Journal of Political Ideologies, 16(1) (2011), pp. 1–10.205. For a powerful critique of Lacanian assumptions, for example, see: M. Billig, 'Lacan's misuse of psychology: evidence, rhetoric and the mirror stage', Theory, Culture & Society, 23(4) (2006), pp. 1–26. For a response, see: Y. Stavrakakis, 'Wallon, Lacan and the Lacanians: citation practices and repression', Theory, Culture & Society, 24(4) (2007), pp. 131–139. See also: Finlayson, op. cit., Ref. 17, p. 757; Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48, p. 135.206. Notably, I have not mentioned Michael Rosen, Michael Billig or Raymond Boudon, though all three are key theorists. See M. Rosen, On Voluntary Servitude: False Consciousness and the Theory of Ideology (Cambridge: Polity Press), 1996; M. Rosen and J. Wolff, 'The problem of ideology', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 70 (1996), pp. 209–228; M. Billig, Ideology and Opinions (London: Sage), 1991; Boudon, op. cit., Ref. 6.207. Freeden (Ed.), The Meaning of Ideology, op. cit., Ref. 7; M. Freeden, L. Tower Sargent and M. Stears (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2013. See also: Haidt, Graham and Joseph, op. cit., Ref. 152, p. 118; Jost, Federico and Napier, op. cit., Ref. 126, p. 310; Townshend, op. cit., Ref. 48, p. 130.208. See also: Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 117–118; Skinner, op. cit., Ref. 31, p. 281.