The phenomenon of ideology is ambiguous; until now, experts in the field of political science and political philosophy have expressed different points of view on the issues of defining the boundaries of ideology and ideological relationships. The existing definitions and interpretations of the very concept of “ideology” often contradict each other. Nevertheless, it is important to find out the significance of this structure for the modern society and its place in the global order.
For modern philosophers and politicians, theory and facts are completely absent in ideology, but deception is present. Since the 1960s, the intellectual elite of Europe began to actively discuss the issue of the entry of the most developed countries into a qualitatively different stage of social development, which they call “information” or “post-industrial” society (Gennaioli & Shleifer 36). Daniel Bell noted that, in connection with the entry into a new era, a scientific, technological revolution takes the place of the social revolution (Gennaioli & Shleifer 51). In a society of this type, the significance and need for traditional ideologies fall, and the guidelines put forward by them for organizing the world are abandoned. D. Bell postulated the identity between the role of ideology and its existence. The American futurist proceeded from the premise of K. Marx that ideology is an image of reality transmitted from above (Gennaioli & Shleifer 61). Over time, the elite ceases to play the role of a translator of ideology, as a result of which a certain way of life, rights, norms and values, aspirations, privileges, and culture now extend to everyone. In other words, with the victory of mass culture, the need for ideology disappears.
In general, the idea of ​​de-ideologization gained popularity in Europe in line with liberalism and assumed the consideration of the phenomenon as false knowledge. In the early 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, a new wave of discussion about the “end of ideologies” emerged (Gennaioli & Shleifer 38). World history as a product of competing ideas and ideologies has come to an end as economic and political liberalism has triumphed in the world of ideas. The struggle for a more effective strategy for meeting human needs took the place of the struggle of ideologies, religious and worldview systems, and the era of consumerization has come.
With the fall of socialist regimes and the disintegration of the superpower, the political constraints on global political and economic transformations initiated by the United States disappeared. However, the American establishment not only did not abandon the ideological principles but even strengthened its adherence to them (Gennaioli & Shleifer 70). The exclusion of ideology from international relations is nothing more than an illusion, and its presence in the foreseeable future cannot be eliminated. The victory of one ideology over another does not mean the departure of the phenomenon from international relations but only the dominance of the worldview of the winner (Gennaioli & Shleifer 239). The transformations of the political world order of the 1990–the 2000s are still far from completion, that is, to stabilization in the form of stable structures and mechanisms of the world order.
Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 21st century, there was a tendency towards the universalization of “Atlantic” ideas. These ideas are reflected in the liberal direction of the ideological and political life of European countries due to the strengthening of the influence of liberalism on global development. In recent years, movements have arisen in the world that opposes liberalism. As a result, liberalism has ceased to be regarded as a universal model of world development. The main divergence among the various currents of liberalism was the question of the role and function of the state in the modern world order. The current crisis of most ideological systems indicates the need for the emergence of a new global ideology. Perhaps the ideological foundation of such will be democracy, globalism, or other existing ideological systems.
Work Cited
Gennaioli, Nicola and Shleifer, Andrei. (2020). A Crisis of Beliefs. Investor Psychology and Financial Fragility. Princeton University Press.