This introduction to systematic ideology was begun in 1991. On an irregular basis it is revised. Thank you to those who have inspired me by their support and criticism to make this a better essay. Enjoy this work in progress.

Introduction

This essay begins with a breathless and wordyintroduction, followed by a more detailed explanation of what is found in the introduction. If these first few sentences do not make sense, please be patient and read on.

Systematic ideology is a study of ideologies founded in the late 1930s in and around London, England. It seeks to understand the origin and development of ideologies, and how ideologies and ideological groups interact

The basic premise of systematic ideology is that ideology is the central motivator in human affairs; that the characteristics that make up the major ideologies come in sets; that those sets of characteristics form a series; and that the ideological series forms a system. This long, complex sentence will be expanded upon semicolon by semicolon below.

Systematic ideology seeks to explain the world but does not seek to change the world. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. The theory can be applied to larger-scale social trends but is nearly useless in explaining individual human behavior. The theory has made claims that later were discovered to be in error, and in this way it has grown. The theory has been applied to individual behavior, and as a means of guiding social relationships, and as a means of predicting future social relationships. In these three ways, at least, the theory has proven of little value. The theory continues to evolve, and we welcome the criticism necessary for such evolution.

What is an Ideology?

Ideology is often spoken of as the Marxists define it: a false belief used to trick others into compliance. In this definition of ideology, a person who has an ideology is blinded to a the truth. Systematic ideology does not agree with this definition of ideology because it cannot include itself in what it describes. That is, if ideology is false consciousness, the claim that 'ideology is false consciousness' would also be false. Ideology is therefore not false in itself.

Systematic ideology defines ideology as the sum of all theories, assumptions, emotions, memories, intuitions, dreams - all cognitive processes, rational and irrational, true and false, self-aware and not self-aware. What a person thinks is what guides their actions, be it walking across a room or on the surface of the moon. Ideology includes the subconscious and the assumptions involved in everyday life, such as failing to question whether gravity will disappear with each step we take. The assumption that gravity will remain in effect is a part of the ideology that makes up our being. We are our ideology.

Ideology: the Central Motivator in Human Affairs

The beginning of our definition of systematic ideology is that systematic ideology suggests that ideology is the central motivator of human affairs. There are many theories that seek to explain human behavior. Some believe human behavior is motivated by supernatural means. Some believe it is caused by 'blood' (for example, royal families are destined to rule and slaves are destined to serve). Marx and those inspired by him believed a person's relation to the means of production is the engine of history. All of these explanations have had their advocates and have their advocates still, but none of them agree with each other. Is there anything that they have in common?

All these theories have at least this in common: they are theories. Theories are suggestions as to how something works. And so whatever theory a person might have as to how the world works, no matter how detailed or vague, educated or intuitive, it is this theory - ideology - that is their guide. There are theories for large and complex events, such as weather patterns. But there are also theories for simple and everyday events, such as what might happen if one drinks from a cup of tea before it properly cools. Some theories are deliberated (that is, thought of 'on purpose') and others are assumed (that is, accepted without questioning). Economic theories are usually deliberated but can also be assumed; a lack of loud noises at night can be assumed but can also be deliberated ("who is making that racket?"). Political theories, those most readily identified as ideologies, are considered by systematic ideology as ideologies as well - but significant emphasis is made on the claim that ideologies are not limited to political theories. All theories, big and small, deliberated and assumed, work together as the central motivator in human behavior. Where do these ideologies come from in the first place?

The first ideology (termed the "absolute assumption" in systematic ideology) is the idea that one is self-motivated. This ideology does not come to us from the outside, like ideas of 'freedom' or 'rights.' The absolute assumption may initially occur when a child - or even a newborn - first has some understanding that it is no longer as one with environment. Once one realizes that one is distinct from one's environment, one begins to investigate where one can and cannot control or be controlled by one's environment. The tension between the absolute assumption on the one hand, and efforts to make the absolute assumption real in the external world on the other, is proposed as the cause of all other ideologies.

The Defining Characteristics of Ideologies are Found in Sets

The second part of our definition is that the characteristics that make up the major ideologies come in sets. What do we mean by characteristics of ideologies, by major ideologies, and by sets of characteristics in major ideologies?

As defined earlier, an ideology is the sum of all the beliefs and assumptions of an individual. As beliefs and assumptions approach the realm of action (behavior, history, politics), their characteristics are especially clear. An ideology will tend to support or reject issues in economic controls or free speech, for example. Another characteristic of ideologies is numbers: is the issue considered worthy of attention by large numbers of people or small numbers of people? Do most people support the idea or reject it? That ideologies include support or disfavor of an issue, consideration that it is worthy of attention or inconsequential, that it has large numbers of supporters or small numbers of supporters, are some of its characteristics. A comparison might be made with individual persons: some are taller and stronger, some are smaller and weaker, some favor sports and activity, some favor intellectual pursuits and contemplation.

In the realm of politics and economics, the lines between major ideologies can be clear. Capitalism and communism are readily identifiable ideologies that are clearly enough defined (in themselves and against each other) and have so many advocates that they can be considered major ideologies. But in the systematic ideology definition of ideology, all cognitive processes are ideological - and so limiting our ideologies to just the realm of politics and economics would not be appropriate. Systematic ideology does not claim that what a purposeful group says about itself is necessarily true, only that what claims a group makes about itself appear to occur in sets and that these sets form a series. Just because a group claims that world socialism or free markets are possible does not mean that they are, in fact, possible.

Systematic ideology suggests these characteristics of ideologies are not random. Instead, they appear in groups. For example, the characteristic of demanding great and immediate global change occurs only in groups with small numbers. Such a demand is seldom if ever found in groups with large numbers. When a demand for great amounts of change appears on a large scale, as with a revolution, it does not last long. The large numbers of supporters dwindle, and once again only a small minority call for revolution. At the same time, no amount of unpopularity or outright oppression seems to get rid of that minority that calls for revolution. It is as if the majority favoring stasis and the minority calling for change form an ecology, a system. Part of the goal of systematic ideology is understanding these relationships.

A major ideology is one which may have many specific examples but is not generally expressed in a 'pure' form. In the United States there are two major political parties (the Democrats and the Republicans) and many smaller political parties (Libertarian, Green, etc.). While these parties have any number of significant differences between then, they all have more in common than any of them have with (for example) a machette-weilding mob. Both the machette-weilding mob and political parties are means to address the question of how we will all live together, but they are different approaches indeed. Systematic ideology suggests political parties are generally examples of a major ideology rather than being a major ideology in themselves. It is also suggested that machette-weilding mobs are an example of a major ideology. Again, it is important to not confuse an example of a major ideology with a major ideology. One of the possible strengths of systematic ideology is that it offers a more neutral vocabulary for discussing ideologies (political and otherwise) than loaded / shifting terms such as capitalist or communist, liberal or conservative. Is 21st Century China communist? Was the United States Bush administration conservative? They each identified themselves as such, yet their decisions and behavior appear in direct contradiction to these claims. The concept of major ideologies will hopefully be made more clear momentarily as they are discussed in more detail.

Systematic ideology suggests there are seven major ideologies. But before identifying these seven major ideologies, the theory suggests that there is a most broad but still useful distinguishing characteristics of ideologies that divides them into two groups. One group is ideologies that emphasize stability and the other group is ideologies that emphasizes change. These have been called the epistatic and the epidynamic ideologies. Three major ideologies are epistatic, three are epidynamic, and one is... something else. These seven major ideologies include the majority of human affairs and behavior. Each of the first six major ideology considers itself whole and incompatible with the rest, but only by the co-existence of all is the modern world possible. None of the ideologies 'go away' once they appear, although each tries to do away with the others (especially those that come after it). The seven major ideologies appear roughly chronologically as if they had evolved, but it is important to remember that evolution is not goal-oriented or 'progressive.' Perhaps history could have happened very differently. The theory claims it applies to all people, but little has been published that confirms or discredits this claim when it comes to non-Western history or politics or culture. Perhaps in other places and times, the theory will be found in need of revision or outright abandonment.

These seven major ideologies have been given different names by different students of the theory. This author prefers those used by George Walford in his later writing. The seven major ideologies are Expediency, Domination, Precision, Reform, Revolution, Repudiation and the Ideologies of Ideologies. Are there any groups or individuals that align themselves with a particular ideology by this name? Only one or two, and they are exceptionally small in number and social significance. Remember, these major ideologies address groups of characteristics found underneath the assumptions of politics (and elsewhere), not on the surface. Also, no moral value is placed on any major ideology. No major ideology is better than any other, in the same way that a heart is no better than a lung. A heart is a better organ for the circulation of blood than a lung, but a lung is in no way a second-class organ for it. Each major ideology appears to have its function in a larger system.

The Major Ideologies

In this brief account of the major ideologies, all quotations are from the works of George Walford.

The ideology of Expediency 'provides a criterion for selection among morally indifferent actions' by selecting whatever is easier, more available, more immediate. Expedient thought is unsystematised; it concerns itself with the immediate more than experiences from the past or predictions about the future. The spiritual world and the material world are seen as one. Expediency is nonpolitical. Only a foraging community could operate entirely through Expediency, but Expediency is also the only universal major ideology. Not every ideological event in a person's day requires a rule book and a discussion group - sometimes, we simply make a decision and move on.

The ideology of Domination concerns itself with 'establishment, principle, the state, conventionality, commitment, devotion, discipline, authoritarian relation, social production' and the like. Thinking tends towards dualistic classification: good/bad, subject/ruler, sacred/secular. 'Compliance with the rules gives predictable behavior, enabling large societies to function.' Conservative politics and the rule of royalty are political manifestations of Domination.

The ideology of Precision is the ideology of 'science, logic and accountancy. Ethics predominate over conformity and compliance, in religion as elsewhere.' Humanism, agnosticism, sufferage and freethinking are primary concerns. Precision politics tend toward the liberal and the green. Bureaucracy.

The ideology of Reform introduces a desire for 'profound but gradual change; evolutionary science and gradualist socialism. Increasingly independent thinking leads sometimes to atheism, sometimes to mysticism, inspirational or esoteric religion. The world is viewed as having an internal interrelatedness.

The ideology of Revolution 'Sets its own values aggressively against conventional ones, assuming economic classes to be in a conflict resolvable only by revolution, violent if need be; these social relations override other influences.' "Ideology" and/or religion is condemned as bourgeois misdirection of "the workers." Separatist politics (of gender or ethnicity, for example).

The ideology of Repudiation 'Condemns all that has gone before, demanding immediate elimination of government, classes, religion and private ownership of the means of production, resulting in free access to goods in place of the exchange of commodities.' Politically, anarchist.

The Ideology of Ideologies 'recognizes and accepts all of the major ideologies, and has for its task resolution of the problems arising from their interaction.' Examples might include systematic ideology, Fortean studies, situationist theory and postmodernism. Note that there is only occasional agreement among these Ideologies of Ideology.

Viewing the seven major ideologies in a series, patterns emerge. Most people, in most of their day-to-day activities, follow Expediency. Some few seek to rule, and act according to Domination. Fewer still seek to teach, following Precision. And the numbers continue to diminish in those who seek Reform, Revolution or Repudiation. The smallest numbers of all are found in the Ideology of Ideologies - systematic ideology being perhaps the very smallest.

Related to the numbers of people involved in a major ideology is the social and political power they hold. Power really does belong with 'the people,' and the majority of people operate out of Expediency. By the time one reaches the Ideology of Ideologies, the amount of social and political power held is almost none. 'The people' may not be able to establish anything they want, but they seldom tolerate for long anything they don't want. The majority seems to have a strong veto power.

There are other relations between the major ideologies that do not diminish as one moves from Expediency to the Ideology of Ideologies. Reliance on theory is a primary example. Expedient behavior includes almost no theory - things are done because they need doing, and if it doesn't need doing then it isn't done. Domination justifies itself a bit by claiming the right to rule, with or without much justification beyond that. Precision starts to explain itself in detail with the emergence of science. Reform has quite a bit to say about how things should be, Revolution even more, and Repudiation has to comment on everything that has gone on before it. The Ideology of Ideologies is all theory - it may have no practical application at all, aside from being a theory that explains theories.

The ideological series demonstrates a spectrum on perceptions of freedom. Ideologies closer to Expediency emphasize the freedom to buy and sell, while ideologies closer to Repudiation emphasize the freedom to say and do. Often these freedoms are entirely compatible, but sometimes they are not. Often these freedoms are found cohabiting the same social body, but sometimes one enjoys social sanction and the other is condemned. Moving from Expediency to the Ideology of Ideologies, there is an internalization of political authority. Political authority moves from 'nature' and the gods, to kings, to governments, to soviets, to individuals. At the same time, in moving from Expediency to the Ideology of Ideologies there is an externalization of economic power. Things move from 'mine!' to markets, to collectives, to propertilessness.

No other arrangement of the characteristics of ideologies shows these relations. No other arrangement of the major ideologies shows these relationships. There seems to be something significantly stable about the ideological series. It has the stability of a bottom-heavy, pyramid-like structure as well as the stability of a top-heavy, gyroscope-like structure. Pyramids are stable because they have a broad base and not much going on up top, while gyroscopes are stable because they are in constant motion. When part of the system goes out of balance - such as when large numbers call for revolution - the system seems to soon 'right' itself (with no claim that such a righting is right or wrong).

What is Systematic Ideology Good For?

The study of systematic ideology can be a neutral alternative to social models such as Marxism, which include a value judgment (prescription) with their analysis (description). Systematic ideology has a moderately lengthy history for such a small field of study, and many colorful characters have moved through it. While work has been done comparing the theory to Western thought and history, very little has been done comparing the theory to the East, or the Rest Of The World - the potential for profound confirmation or condemnation awaits. With few exceptions, the major students of systematic ideology have all been self-educated: no one yet knows if academia may also hold some damming challenges or accolades for the theory.

And an annual scholarship of three thousand five hundred British Pounds doesn't hurt.