The Meaning of Ideology and Social Action

Abstract will be Recent attempts by Michael Freeden and others to offer a coherent theory of ideology and a method for its analysis have been very useful. These scholars’ efforts, known as conceptual morphology, have treated ideology as tool of social understanding and, therefore, worthy of serious academic analysis. While conceptual morphology has moved the theory and study of ideology into the mainstream of political science, it has not explicitly embraced any one account of social phenomena or reality. Conceptual morphology’s lack of a theory of action undermines its ability to understand social practices fully. For instance, conceptual morphology has embraced a universal definition of the concept of politics, which is vague and of little use. This flawed concept of politics could be avoided, however, if the movement embraced a theory of action. It is the purpose of this essay, therefore, to construct a theory of action appropriate for conceptual morphology. By treating social practices and artefacts as conventional objects a clear notion of what kind of thing they are emerges. This in turn enables scholars to understand what it means to explain and interpret social action and what the relationship between social action and its interpretation is. Moreover, by establishing a theory of action, conceptual morphology can defend in a theoretical way its methods of political inquiry. Finally, a theory of action that embraces the conventional nature of action also suggests that no single concept of politics exists. Politics, therefore, like all concepts, is essentially contested, and this has major ramifications for the methods conceptual morphology uses to study ideology.provided by author.