For this post, the term ideology is used broadly to refer to the systems of beliefs within which all individuals perceive all social phenomena.
In this usage, no one system of beliefs is more correct, or more privileged, than any other. Rather they are our own systems of beliefs that shape and structure the way we see the world and make judgments about it.
As such, people will draw upon a range of different ideologies within welfare and social policy debates, generating disagreements and differences regarding, for our interest, the appropriate mix of welfare providers and how to address certain social problems.
This post serves as an introduction to further posts on theories of the welfare state to follow….
Ideologies are value laden
Ideologies are both critical and prescriptive: we know what is wrong with the world around us, and we know what should be done about it. As a result of this, they are therefore partial and value-laden; we do not know or understand everything but we do know what we like and do not like.
Ideological perspectives therefore influence the way in which all of us perceive the world in which we live, and they do so in a way that leaves all of us with a more or less restricted and biased perspective on it. They provide a lens through which we view injustice, inequality, and social problems and a framework through which we determine solutions.
Our individual systems of belief, however, are also part of broader ideological perspectives from which we draw the ideas and values which we use to form judgements, and to which we may contribute ideas and values of our own.
Individual ideologies are shaped by social ideologies
Individual ideologies are constructed within wider ideological perspectives in which views are shared and debated, and within which shared views are held and disseminated. Such broader ideological perspectives may be held by relatively small social groups and may focus specifically upon particular issues, or they may be much wider in both scale and scope, enlisting adherence or support from the majority of people throughout the country (or even across countries) and addressing a range of social issues from a particular perspective.
Such broader ideological perspectives influence those individuals, or groups, who are in positions of power and, through this influence, those individuals or groups who are in positions of power are able to shape the world in which we live. Indeed, it is because ideologies shape the social world that we debate so passionately about them, and within them. The power of ideology cannot be overestimated in social sciences and, as we shall see, in social policy, ideologies of welfare have shaped and structured all perceptions of welfare policy and the development of all policy planning.
It is important to recognize here, however, that ideological perspectives not only determine which policies we propose to develop or support but also influence how we view, and judge, policy developments that have already taken place. Ideological perspectives offer different judgements of the same social problems and relationships between welfare providers (state, market, voluntary and informal sectors).
At this broader social level, however, the size and scope of ideological perspectives will vary dramatically. A perspective shared by the majority of people in any society will be rather more important in influencing how a group of friends and neighbours, in their discussion of a social problem, may develop a shared view.
Four characteristics of ideological perspective
In their discussion of ideological perspectives and ideologies of welfare, George and Wilding (1994) discussed this point and argue that major ideological perspectives must possess certain characteristics in order to be regarded as of particular social importance. They outline four such characteristics:
- Coherence – ideological perspectives must have an internal logic and theoretical consistency.
- Pervasiveness – ideological perspectives must be current and relevant, as old perspectives may have lost their social base.
- Extensiveness – ideological perspectives must be widely shared within, or across, societies.
- Intensiveness – ideological perspectives must command the support, and commitment, of those who share them; they must really be believed.
Therefore an ideological perspective is a shared view, or set of views, with a clear social impact. Of course, not all ideological perspectives focus on, or even address, social policy issues; indeed, most do not. As such, the focus here is upon those that do address welfare issues and focus on description, and judgement, of policy development, and prescription for future policy reform. These we can call ideologies of welfare.
Theory and Politics
Commentators have frequently attempted to compare ideologies of welfare according to their location within a continuum of political preferences. George and Wilding did this in 1976 in their first book on ideology and social welfare. In their later text (1994) they produced a table summarizing a total of ten separate analyses of ideologies of welfare.
These various analyses identify a range of different numbers of perspectives and also sometimes give these perspectives different names. In practice, however, many analysts place the different perspectives that they identify at different points within a continuum moving from the political left to the political right, in particular in terms of their support for (or opposition to) the role of the state in welfare provision.
Thus on the left are socialists or Marxists, who believe the state should play the major, or exclusive, role in the provision of social policy. As you move towards the centre of the continuum political ideologies linked to the Fabians, the social democrats and the revisionist left are located. On the right are anti-collectivists or liberals, who believe individuals should be free to provide (or not) for whatever needs they wish.
This is a simplified, shorthand way of classifying political ideologies and within the continuum, as we shall see later, there will be a variety of ideas and arguments. Additionally, not all ideologies of welfare can be so readily classified along such a left-to-right political spectrum. For example, some political parties, like nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, will be influenced by a desire for independence but encompass a broader range of welfare brought together around the one central goal. Nevertheless, a debate about the relative politics in social policy, and the central role played in both of these, the link between ideology and the state and the market, means that political differences here are also likely to represent ideological differences, and vice versa.
Ideology and Politics are not the same
However, although ideology and politics may be linked, they are not the same thing. Ideology is concerned with ideas, ideals and principles; politics is concerned with pragmatism and results. Thus debate and study of the politics of welfare focuses not primarily upon differing perspectives and approaches, still less on the differences between theoretical concern of theory, but rather upon events and achievements.
Deakin (1994) and Page (2007) independently examined the changes in British welfare policy in the latter half of the last century, taking the arguments in more detail, taking analysis up to the start of the new century; and Bochel (2011) has brought together analysis of the arguments underpinning the politics of the Conservative Party in the 2000s, which later became a central part of the Coalition government. In all writing on the politics of welfare, however, the differences in view are contrasted in terms of their impact on the development and implementation of policy.
During the first two decades following the Second World War, however, the appearance of political consensus over the future direction of policy development, characterized by the notion of Butskellism, suggested that such political differences had been superseded. Commentators argued that this also implied that ideological differences had disappeared (in particular, the differences between left and right over the role of the state) and that future political conflict would be ‘a fight without ideologies’ (Lipset, 1963).
This end of ideology thesis proved to be a little premature, or over-simplistic, however, for ideological disagreements did remain and, in particular after the early 1970s, they were represented again in political debate and conflict over the future direction of reform, with a significant divide opening up between the Conservative right and the Labour left over the appropriate future direction for policy development.
This triggered a renewed claim of the end of history (Fukuyama, 1992) in which neoliberalism largely replaced the traditional differences between left and right politics and become the final form of economic and political existence.
However, the 2008 financial crisis and the more recent revival of left-wing arguments through Corbynism has demonstrated stark differences in thinking between Labour and Conservative parties can remain. Additionally, since the 1970s the rise of more critical theories such as feminism and anti-racism have offered alternative interpretations of the state welfare, and some have even suggested that traditional ideologies can no longer provide viable explanatory frameworks in the complex (post)modern world that we now occupy.
Related Posts
See also:
To return to the homepage – revisesociology.com
Leave a Reply