Rhetoric and the Political Theory of Ideologies
| Author | Alan Finlayson |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00948.x |
| Date | 01 December 2012 |
| Published date | 01 December 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Original Article |
bs_bs_banner
P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S : 2 0 1 2 VO L 6 0 , 7 5 1 – 7 6 7
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00948.x
Rhetoric and the Political Theory of Ideologiespost_948751..767
Alan Finlayson
University of East Anglia
The political theory of ideologies proposes a distinct way of conceiving of and analysing political thought, especially
as it appears ‘in the wild’. Exploring the claim that there is a form or mode of thinking specific and proper to politics,
and that it is the concern of the political theory of ideology, the article examines two of the leading contemporary
approaches in this field: the morphological analysis of Michael Freeden and the discourse analysis associated with
Ernesto Laclau. In showing how each produces a distinct object for theoretical analysis (respectively,‘the concept’ and
‘the signifier’) the case is made for constituting a third object – the political argument – the apprehension of which
requires the integration of aspects of the rhetorical tradition into the political theory of ideologies. The conclusion
briefly outlines some of the possible implications, for political theory and analysis more generally, of the rhetorical
conception of political thought and ideology.
Keywords: rhetoric; ideologies; Laclau; Freeden; political argumentation
The political theory of ideologies is an established sub-field of political theory, distinguished
by a commitment to studying political ideas as they are found ‘in the wild’. Often political
theorists attend most to terms, ideas and concepts found in the key texts of the official
canon of great political theory. But scholars of political ideologies look also to the ‘everyday’
and ‘routine’ political ideas found in, for example, speeches, statements, debates, interviews,
pamphlets, newspaper columns, websites, posters, placards, demonstrations and perfor-
mances. And while some forms of political theory might wish to bridge the gulf between
such everyday political expressions and the more perfect conceptions of political philosophy
(between doxa and episteme) the political theory of ideologies is concerned to establish how
political doxa works – how it forms, is manifested, reproduced, develops and decays. The
purpose of such study is not to produce a non-normative sociology of political knowledge
but to help us conceptualise the specificity of political thinking and to make this available
for further philosophical reflection and evaluation.
In this article I begin by exploring the claim that there is a form or mode of thinking
specific and proper to politics, and that it is the concern of the political theory of
ideology. I then examine two of the leading contemporary approaches: the morphologi-
cal analysis of Michael Freeden and the discourse analysis associated with Ernesto Laclau.
In showing how each produces a distinct object for theoretical analysis (respectively, ‘the
concept’ and ‘the signifier’) I make the case for constituting a third object – the political
argument – the apprehension of which requires the integration of aspects of the rhe-
torical tradition into the political theory of ideologies. In this respect the article is a
contribution to the ongoing research programme of the political theory of ideologies; it
seeks to extend that research to ‘the argument’, and to strengthen it by bringing it into
a productive relationship with the rich and vibrant rhetorical tradition. The political
theory of ideologies often reflects on what its findings more generally indicate about the
nature of political thought and action. Accordingly, in the conclusion I briefly outline
© 2012 The Author. Political Studies © 2012 Political Studies Association
752
A L A N F I N L AY S O N
some of the general implications of the rhetorical conception of political ideologies for
political theory.
The Specificity of Political Thinking
A question stands behind and informs the political theory of ideologies: is there a valid form
of specifically political thinking? It is a question that is far from unique to this field and one
that is usually answered in the negative. Plato’s specification of philosophy, rather than
political rhetoric or dramatic poetry, as the only way to speak truly and justly about the polis,
continues to inform suspicion of any politics unregulated by a higher-order discourse (be
it religious, moral or scientific).
Contemporary rational and social choice theory displaces political thinking into a more
general form of thinking – rational, calculative decision making (see Mackie, 2003) – the
political form of which is distinguished only by the particular circumstances and institutions
in and through which collections of otherwise individual decisions are collated or aggre-
gated. Analogously, much political philosophy displaces political thinking into moral
philosophy (or related epistemological arguments) and seeks a stable basis or framework
upon or within which it may justly claim the right to govern (or at least evaluate) the
thoughts and actions taking place within the ‘non-ideal’ political realm. As Freeden
observes, the consequence for this philosophical genre is that ‘Many of its versions display
a flight from the political, the crowding out of diversity and the shrinking of the political
to an area of constructed consensus guided by a vision of the good life’ (Freeden, 2005,
p. 113; see also Honig, 1993).
In contrast, the political theory of ideologies refuses to displace actual political thinking,
taking as a starting position the presumption that politics involves a particular way or mode
of thinking which it is necessary to explicate and assess in terms appropriate to it. Thus, for
Freeden, ‘The study of ideology becomes the study of the nature of political thought: its
building blocks and the clusters of meaning with which it shapes the political worlds we
populate’, and this is a ‘step towards comprehending what the social product we call
“political thought” is’ (Freeden, 1998, p. 15).
For Freeden ideologies are ‘a major genre of political thought’ (Freeden, 1998, p. 13) and
a ‘ubiquitous and normal aspect of social life’ (Freeden, 2005, p. 115); they are ‘the
thought-products par excellence of the political sphere: they are necessary, normal and they
facilitate (and reflect) political action’ (Freeden, 2006, p. 19). This ubiquity derives, in
Freeden’s account, from the essential contestability of political concepts. Relatively deter-
minate but nevertheless shifting organisations of political thought are formed out of the
necessity to achieve at least partial or temporary de-contestation, an agreement on the basis
of which politics may take place. Such arrangements consist of a specific form of conceptual
de-contestation that drives subsequent political thought along certain routes, impacted
upon by historical events in ways that are traceable and explicable by historically and
theoretically informed analysis.
The view that ideologies are ubiquitous, intrinsic and necessary components of political
life is one shared by Marxian cultural studies. For instance, Stuart Hall – taking his cue from
Antonio Gramsci, for whom ideology was ‘the terrain on which men move, acquire
consciousness of their position’ (Gramsci, 1971, p. 377) and from the recognition of Louis
© 2012 The Author. Political Studies © 2012 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2012, 60(4)
R H E TO R I C A N D I D E O L O G I E S
753
Althusser that ideology is ‘not an aberration’ but ‘a structure essential to the historical life
of societies’ (Althusser, 1969, pp. 232–3) – sees ideology as the means by and through which
‘ideas of different kinds grip the minds’ of political subjects and become ‘a material force’
(Hall, 1996, p. 27). For Hall, ideologies are ‘mental frameworks – the languages, the
concepts, categories, imagery of thought, and the systems of representation’ through which
social groups make sense of themselves and their society (Hall, 1996, p. 26).
Now, to the extent that it emphasises only the ubiquity of ideologies, a theory may be
no more than an empirical observation (of the kind found in studies of the use by
political actors of transaction-cost-cutting cognitive ‘short cuts’ or ‘schema’). But con-
temporary political theories of ideology do not stop at this empirical observation, nor do
they divert from it into a search for a more comprehensive or less contingent basis for
political thinking. Instead they propose that ideological thinking is not only a common
or necessary property of politics but also a potentially positive one. For instance, accept-
ing the charge that ideologies may not always fully conform to the requirements of
analytic philosophy, Freeden nevertheless insists that such failure provides no reason for
‘dismissing them as bad or inferior political thought’ (Freeden, 1998, p. 37). That is
because they have a particular role to play as ‘historically grounded doctrines not model
propositions’. Ideological claims may be ambiguous but this does not mean they are
duplicitous. Ambiguity, Freeden writes, is ‘a form of political language that is vital to the
central aim of mobilising support’ and ‘significantly dependent on linguistic formulations
that are open-ended, that carry multiple meaning, and can be consumed differentially’
(Freeden, 2005, pp. 121–1). Indeed, Freeden (2005, p. 130) perceives that consensus
may in fact be ‘predicated on ambiguity, not precision’, a view echoed in the work of
William Connolly, for whom ‘Modern politics, at its best, is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial