Basic types of ideology. Ideology

State ideology of the Russian Federation.

1. Introduction.

Throughout the history of the Russian state, the issue of ideology and the development of a national idea has been very important for our society. It just so happened due to the nature of the character that a Russian person cannot live without a goal. Even now, the need to choose a certain course is very important, especially since the 21st century is a century of new challenges and dangers that threaten the sovereignty of our country and the lives of Russian citizens. Of course, the choice of ideological direction of development is of great importance and cannot be decided overnight, therefore both political scientists and politically active citizens must take an active part in determining the vector of development of society and the country as a whole.

The issue of the formation of ideology in our country cannot be divorced from historical events. As a result of political transformations that have occurred in recent decades, Russian citizens have found themselves in a vacuum of political ideology. Of course, there were ideologies, they always exist, but there was no key direction of development. Instead of working out the direction for the development of the entire state, uniting in this difficult time, all people were subjected to the pressure of individualism, which was instilled by Western propagandists and domestic liberals.

2.1. The ideological component of modern Russian society.

It so happened that the entire nineties passed under the slogan of de-ideologization, and people were brought to their senses, Firstly, the fact that ideology is something negative, a kind of barrier and obstacle on the way to a bright future, a democratic society and freedom. Second The main target of liberal reformers was the state, therefore, during the drafting of the main law of the country, the constitution stated that no ideology could be considered state, that is, the liberal ideology of the West was taken as the basis. As a result, such de-ideologization led to the degradation of all spheres of society, in which chaos arose due to the lack of a common goal. And the introduction of an alien ideology, formed on Protestant materialistic morality in a collision with Orthodox spiritual values, is certainly the cause of social conflicts.

However, from a political science point of view, it is obvious that not a single civilization, not a single society can manage and develop harmoniously without a national ideology. The development of society and its vitality depend on the ideological subsystem. As a result of the absence of such a system, fertile soil is formed in society for the polarization of the views of various social groups of society and even the radicalization of left and right forces, which leads to the destabilization of society, which could be observed at the end of the last century. If one ideology ceases to exist, all layers of society direct their aspirations to the development of a new ideological doctrine. When this process ends, then the crisis comes to an end. Of course, it is absolutely permissible for several ideologies to exist in society at once, but to prevent social cataclysms, a state ideology is necessary, an ideology that is shared by the authorities and supported by society.

This new ideology must respond to the challenges of our time and form a new matrix of life in a new society. Just like every person has a unique DNA chain, every civilization also has its own civilizational code, in which a set of value guidelines of a particular society is hidden. At the present time, they are present in our society in an unclear form. Therefore, political scientists and all representatives of social sciences must comprehend and interpret the basic values ​​of the Russian nation, which will form the basis of a new ideological model.

2.2 The importance of introducing state ideology.

At the beginning, it is important to understand what ideology is and what its forms are. Currently, many people use the concepts of ideology, state ideology and national ideology, but do not always know that there is a difference between them. Ideology is a system of views and ideas that recognize and evaluate people’s attitudes to reality and to each other, social problems and conflicts, and also contain goals (programs) of social activity aimed at consolidating or changing (developing) these social relations. . Thus, ideology appears as something necessary and inherent in every society. Another thing is that this may or may not be formalized and secured or not legally secured. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation: “Ideological diversity is recognized in the Russian Federation. No ideology can be established as state or mandatory.” State ideology is a kind of national idea formalized and supported by the authorities, which all citizens of a given country must adhere to. At the moment of development, the Russian Federation does not have any state ideology. But Russia, like every civilizational community, has its own national ideology. National ideology is a system of views, ideas, values ​​based on the principles of spiritual unity, community, nation and the priority of its interests in all spheres of public life.

The importance of taking measures to develop a new ideology is now understood by representatives of various parties and political movements. Including the current President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin. Even during his first presidential term, he developed the basic principles of the so-called “Russian idea”. Modern political scientists share the same opinion. For example, in his reflections, the famous analyst, S.S. Sulakshin, commenting on the ideological vacuum in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, writes that “this part of the Russian Constitution contains the formula for the destruction of Russian statehood.” Such a measure will be able to smooth out the situation between various ethnic, religious and economic groups, which worsened in the 90s. last century in connection with the de-ideologization of Soviet society, and to bind together a single people. Many researchers in this area recognize that “such an “integrative” ideology should not only unite people and smooth out conflicts, but also form public morality and generally accepted norms of behavior.”

However, it is worth noting here that the importance of developing an integrative national idea does not imply the introduction of unanimity, which in our time is in principle difficult to imagine, since there are not one or two ideological centers in the world, but much more. Be it the USA with its tenets of democracy and liberalism or the PRC, which lives according to the principles of communist ideology. In view of such pluralism of opinions, it is worth emphasizing that a national ideology must be accepted by the people of their own free will, and not out of fear of terror. Society is always, to one degree or another, diverse in terms of their religious, social or ethnic background, so the desire to reconnect with one's historical and cultural heritage must be voluntary. Marxism-Leninism and liberalism, which they tried to instill in Russian society twice already in the 20th century, are living proof that it is impossible to force certain views on people. Violent interference in the spiritual and social life of people inevitably leads to counter-reaction and resistance from society. An example of this is the sharp reorientation of values ​​from communist to capitalist ones. But at the same time, these stages in the history of our people will become building blocks in the construction of a unified national ideology that will combine the experience of past generations. After all, it is the difficult stages in history that determine the fate and strengthen the character of various peoples, and the dialogue between different currents will lead to a synthesis of the various currents of modernity and past eras.

In addition, it is worth emphasizing that the process of developing a new state ideology is complicated by the fact that the Russian people currently lack socio-cultural and national self-identification.

2.3. The role of the state in creating a new national ideology.

The role of the state is very important in the process of this synthesis. Taking into account the paternalistic traditions of Russian society, one cannot deny the fact that power will always be of great importance in the fate of our people. Just as a moderator is often required to resolve international conflicts, an arbitrator is also needed to stabilize social tension within society. From this we can conclude that the future of our people will be inseparably linked with the state and its institutions. This is common to all continental powers. Unlike maritime states, in which the individual comes first, in our country the state takes the leading position. Even in the very first years of Soviet power, the role of the state did not fade into the background, only the names changed, but no one canceled the essence of the state apparatus. Only the content has changed, which was previously monarchical, but has become socialist.

In the 90s The state's reputation fell due to shock therapy and other adversities, but already at the beginning of the 21st century, trust in state power began to return again. The experience of the 90s showed the alienation and unpleasantness of liberal values ​​and left an imprint on our civilizational DNA. Of course, now people do not see something divine in the state, as they did before, but the authority of the state has not been completely exhausted. And he is quite capable of acting as a corrective force in the development of a national ideology, establishing the rules of the game, preserving the diversity of the Russian people.

As a result of the changes that have taken place in the history of the Russian people, it becomes clear to most Russian citizens that survival in a globalizing world is achievable only with a strong Russia. And despite the calls of liberal forces for a life of prosperity, the majority of citizens want to preserve their identity and homeland, rather than follow a dead-end road. What is attractive is not even the image of wealth, but the image of a strong Russia. Even in the USA, one of the sources of liberal movements, there is its own state ideology, the so-called “American Dream”. And American citizens are ready to defend this image, just as they did in the 18th century. The components of the American national ideology are patriotism, belief in the greatness of the United States, freedom and a life of abundance. It was these slogans that American democrats used in the middle of the century in order to make the United States one of the key centers of power instead of a fading Europe. “The proclamation of the highest national values ​​is of particular importance in a crisis, becoming one of the mechanisms for overcoming it.”

3.1. The appearance of the new state ideology of the Russian Federation.

Considering the current identity crisis of modern Russia, it is very important to use the spiritual component of the potential ideology of our country. Faith in the strength and greatness of our country is a key link on the path to building a new state ideology. At the same time, many modern researchers are confident that Russia should be a great and strong country; a number of factors oblige us to do this. Firstly, this is a geopolitical component. Our country stretches from the Baltic and Black Seas all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and there are a large number of natural resources on its territory. At the same time, approximately 143 million people live in Russia, which is not much for such a territory. Secondly Over the centuries, Russia has been formed as a country with a cohesive economy that has worked for the greatness of our country. Our economy can be called an integral mechanism, nothing else. Thus, such a rich country will not be able to maintain its territory and wealth without being great. “Either Russia is a great power or the collapse of Russia into a number of Russian-speaking countries,” is the opinion of modern analysts. It turns out that the basis of the new national ideology should be the idea of ​​a great Russia, capable of withstanding the threats of our time. Third, Another important component of the all-Russian ideology should be the rule of law in social and political life. The meaning of this proposal is to counterbalance all branches of government and the inadmissibility of revolutionary violence. In modern Russia, we can observe that all power, by and large, is in the hands of the president and his apparatus. In reality, harmony in society can be achieved by maintaining balance between the three branches of government. If such parity is achieved, all conflicts will be resolved within the legal framework, plus they will not spill out onto the streets. The development of the political system in such a case will take an evolutionary path. An example of how this mechanism works is the United States, where the constitution adopted in 1787 was never changed, only supplemented. The constitution itself, of course, plays a big role in this. The constitutions of Western states contain words that characterize them as countries where the moral and political matrix of the entire society is defined. For example, in the German Constitution there are the concepts of “common good”, “common objectives”, “state community”. Such concepts lead to the idea that the introduction of a truly new ideology into modern Russia seems possible only with amendments to the constitution of our country. The Constitution should not be a dogma, but should reflect the needs of the state and its citizens.

3.2. The national question within the framework of the new state ideology.

Another very important issue in the analysis of the introduction of state ideology in Russian society is the national question. After the disintegration of the USSR, the national question became one of the key ones, taking into account modern Russian realities. After the formation of the Russian Federation, the administrative-territorial division of the country began to be formed according to the principle of federalism, but federalism based on nationality. In view of the fact that the Russian population, according to the 2010 census, is approximately 78%, it will not be possible to build a strong state where Russians will not be a state-forming nation. But at the same time, this statement should not sound like a threat to representatives of other nationalities. Unlike, for example, the USA, a country of emigrants, in Russia all peoples have a rich history and have lived on their lands for many centuries. The goal of the United States is to assimilate all waves of emigrants and create an artificial nation, while in Russia the history of every nation is part of Russian history. Federalism on a national basis for indigenous peoples only leads to aggravation of relations between the federal center and the regions of the Russian Federation. The ideas propagated by Western agents of influence in such areas are based on demands for freedom for each ethnic unit. But the concept of freedom should not be harmful to the future of Russian ethnic groups. Such ideas pose a threat to Russian sovereignty, since only a strong and united nation can survive in an actively globalizing world, no matter what people make it up. Plus, Russians, by their nature and historical experience of cohabitation with many peoples, are tolerant and friendly towards all ethnic groups. Thus, the state ideology in Russia must contain two key rules. Firstly, Russians must be the basis and core of Russian statehood. Secondly, all peoples living on the territory of the Russian Federation are equal in their rights and responsibilities in relation to their homeland. Moreover, many peoples managed not to disappear on the pages of history and preserve their culture only because they “adjoined larger nations, state-owned and tolerant.” In addition, in the modern world there is no such rule that would say that there are as many states in the world as there are peoples.

3.3. The role of spirituality and paternalism in the formation of the state ideology of the Russian Federation.

Another key issue in the formation of a new ideology should be spirituality. The spiritual factor seems to be very important not only for Russia, but also for all states that want to continue their existence in the 21st and subsequent centuries. It can already be observed that many countries in the world are consolidating along civilizational lines. For example, China positions itself as a guide to all Asian countries; Latin American countries strive to act as a single whole, as representatives of Ibero-American culture. According to the French scientist Alain Touraine, in industrial society the main conflict developed between representatives of different classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and the discussion was about the rights of people, their freedom and the fair distribution of goods produced. In a post-industrial society, the central issue will be the organization of society, its integrity and level of happiness. We should not forget about the three pillars of the Russian Empire: monarchy, Orthodoxy, nationality. Already in the 20th century, the ruling circles understood how important the spiritual factor is in the unification and integrity of the state. In the 21st century, we are not talking about the fact that Orthodoxy should be a pillar of our statehood, but spirituality, which consists of history, traditions and the experience of intercultural communication, should serve as a cementing part of the state ideology of Russia.

In addition, a certain paternalism should be an important component of the Russian state ideology. Of course, the state should not patronize its citizens in the same way as the paternalism of Tsarist Russia, when the people were presented as a helpless object of history. The new Russian ideology should be based on a synthesis of pre-revolutionary paternalism and Soviet trusteeship. Russia, as stated in this constitution, is a social state, but simple words are not enough to create a strong state. There must be a paternalistic minimum in society, the purpose of which would be to educate and maintain spiritual and moral values ​​in society. In turn, this is very important in the formation of patriotism and civil society among Russian citizens. And civil society is characterized not only by developed democracy and self-government, but also by “the presence of many strong and, most importantly, responsible, political and social actors.” And the education of such political and social actors is possible only under the influence of public morality, regulated by state ideology.

U Reading the crisis of development of Soviet collectivism, which is also characteristic of Eastern civilizations, and the problematic adaptation of Western individualism, the new ideology should focus on the institution of the family. The family serves as a point of contact between West and East and well reflects the Eurasian essence of Russia. Family is the best source of spirituality in society in a globalizing world. It is the family that gives strength to every citizen of the state and serves as building material in the construction of a legal and social society.

4. Conclusion.

To summarize, it is worth highlighting the main provisions regarding the new ideology of modern Russia.

Firstly, ideology is directly related to state well-being and the state of development of social relations and, therefore, is a systemically formative foundation for ensuring the sovereignty of the Russian Federation. From this we can conclude that Russia in the 21st century can protect its sovereignty and maintain its position in the world only by having a strong ideological foundation. But at the same time, state ideology should not impose one point of view on a person and control his behavior and interfere in his personal life. Regardless of whether a new constitution is adopted or the current one is amended, Article 13 is a time bomb and must either be amended, allowing for the creation of a state ideology based on the cohesion and unity of all citizens of the Russian Federation, or completely removed. But in this case, one of the normative documents should stipulate the inadmissibility of creating a society similar to a totalitarian one.

Secondly, It is not acceptable to transfer ideological models that dominate in other countries to the Russian civilizational community, since each state has its own national ideology, which will come into conflict with the state ideology. This could lead to a repetition of the events of the early 90s, except that Russia at the moment may not be able to endure new political upheavals and may lose its integrity and sovereignty. Therefore, a new state ideology must be developed through scientific, analytical and expert activities, taking into account the rich cultural and historical heritage of the Russian Federation and with the assistance of government authorities.

Third, the new state ideology should be based on spirituality, taking into account cultural and historical experience and regardless of religious affiliation, patriotism, which should be cultivated from the family to educational institutions, and which V.V. has repeatedly spoken about. Putin , and social justice.

In addition, state ideology should be based on three principles:

1. use of an evolutionary approach in the development of society and the formation of state ideology, preservation of cultural and historical values;

2. strengthening statehood and maintaining order in society, which includes the restoration of moral values ​​and mutual respect in the spiritual sphere;

3. priority of the common interests of the state, nation and society over individual interests, which is one of the principles of “sovereign democracy”, which finds support in scientific and political circles.

It is worth noting that in addition to these principles, one should also take into account the experience that Russia gained in the 20th century and which is reflected in the following provisions. Firstly, in order to avoid repeating the revolutionary path of development, Russian society should not lose touch with the past and take into account all the pros and cons of past political systems and regimes. Secondly, the new state ideology must contain provisions on the inadmissibility of fragmentation of the state and the development of certain boundaries in the field of disintegration of the state in order to avoid the cessation of the existence of the Russian nation. It must be laid down in the Russian DNA once and for all that our prosperity and well-being depends on spiritual strength, moral affinity and sound patriotism.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that in every society a correction of public opinion and the political psychology of the population must be carried out. Regardless of society and form of government, a country can survive and protect its sovereignty only if it has a state ideology based on the social-state ideal of the necessary state. Of course, this does not reduce the role of other ideologies that exist in the world, and which, moreover, are an incentive for the development and improvement of state ideology. In ancient Rome, soldiers went into battle, led by the idea of ​​​​Great Rome, Russian soldiers went on the attack, believing that they were fulfilling their sacred duty to their family and land, in the USA people are ready to stand up as a wall for freedom and their rights, as well as for the “American dream." We can say that all these ideas rule and control people more than specific actors and organizations, which is why they constitute a psychological portrait of various nations and are included in the civilizational matrix. Russian citizens need a state ideology that could lead Russia to a great future, an ideology that can lead Russia out of its current chaotic state. The state of the 21st century is not just a territory surrounded by border posts, it is a super-idea and the meaning of life. Without such an officially formalized idea, not a single organization can exist, let alone the state.

5. List of used literature:

1. Alekseeva T.A., Kapustin B.G., Pantin I.K. “National ideology”: an illusion or a misunderstood need? // October. – 1997. – No. 1. – pp. 137-153.

2. Zaorskaya I.Yu. Statehood in the historical fate of the peoples of Russia // Power and society: vector of change. Sat. scientific tr. Vol. 1. M. 1998. P. 7.).

3. Sokolova R.I., Spiridonova V.I. The state in the modern world. – M., 2003. – 253 p.

4. Surkov V.Yu. Texts 97–07. – M.: Publishing House “Europe”, 2008. – 192 p.

5. Constitution of the Russian Federation. // “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” dated January 21, 2008 [Electronic resource] URL:

6. Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. [Electronic resource] URL:

7. Plenary meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club

8. Popov G. Why Russia needs to be great // Nezavisimaya Gazeta dated 03/29/2000. [Electronic resource] URL:

9. “Russia at the turn of the millennium” // Rossiyskaya Gazeta dated December 30, 1999. [Electronic resource] URL:

10. Sulakshin S.S. What is ideology. [Electronic resource] URL:

11. Federal State Statistics Service. Number and composition of the population.

12. Federal State Statistics Service. Census results for 2010. [Electronic resource] URL:

13. Center for Problem Analysis and Public Management Design // “National Idea” cycle: National Idea of ​​the USA: [Electronic resource] URL:

14. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary // Ch. editor: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. [Electronic resource] - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1983. [Electronic resource] URL:

Ideology is, of course, a spiritual education, due to the fact that, within the framework of its content, it constantly goes beyond the limits of everyday experience. However, the formed and current ideology of society has a predominantly practical purpose, which is why it unites people who share its principles, and also determines the motivation for their deeds and actions.

Interpretation of the concept in question

There are quite a few interpretations of this term.

1. According to the sociologist K. Marx, ideology is a false consciousness that expresses the special interests of the corresponding class, which are presented as public opinion.
2. Sociologist K. Mannheim interpreted the concept in question as a distorted, incorrect reflection of reality within society, which expresses the interests of specific classes or groups seeking to preserve the established order of things.
3. Sociologist A. Gouldner believed that ideology is the result of socio-cultural changes that are associated with the crisis of classical methods of social reproduction, as well as the formation of a new type of rationality in European societies.

History of ideology

The main forms of political consciousness are political psychology and ideology, among which an increasing role belongs to the second form. According to the ancient Greek interpretation, ideology is the “study of ideas”, as it consists of two roots: “idea”, “logos”. This term was originally used in the works of Plato. His work combined a deep interest in social relations and philosophical idealism. It is the first root that is important, which was used by ancient Greek thinkers and served as the etymological designation of the newest field of knowledge, namely ideology. Subsequently, it was used to characterize social life in the form of its phenomenon and element of the consciousness of society.

The concept of “idea” appeared as a characteristic of being to designate the predominantly immaterial world. In addition, from the very beginning of the introduction of this concept into the scientific sphere, it was a kind of symbol of the opposition between phenomenon and essence, material and ideal, which has been preserved within the scientific world to this day. Ideology is the result of the growth of scientific knowledge, in particular its social orientation. Although it, together with the social sciences, continues to develop in opposition to the latter, both areas emerge due to the crisis of the “obsolete regimes”, as well as the various systems of authority founded by them. Changes in traditional society lead to the emergence of new expressions and new ways of explaining them, new interpretations of social life and corresponding projects for its transformation.

Like religion, ideology pays close attention to everyday life and strives, so to speak, to reconcile existing worlds. Public organizations turned to ideology as part of the defense of rationally based, public projects for the restructuring of society, relying on reason and evidence. In this regard, ideology marks the emergence of a new mode of political discourse (principles according to which reality is presented and classified in relation to certain time periods), calling for action, but not justifying it by attracting tradition or authority, or purely emotional rhetoric. But nevertheless, ideology is closely interconnected with the formation of a nation and a national state. Over the past few centuries they have stimulated and complemented each other.

Most of the political events of the period of maturation, the Great French Bourgeois Revolution, were based on dynamic and radical changes both in practical life and in the consciousness of French society. This phenomenon interested many French scientists in the sphere of social consciousness as an opportunity to control society through ideas. In 1796, the French scientist A. D. de Tracy used the term “ideology” in one of his works (“Etude on the ability to think”) to characterize the science of ideas. He subsequently developed this concept in a multi-volume work entitled “Elements of Ideology.” The scientist justifies this by the desire of large owners to appropriate state power, using the services of outstanding scientists and writers who managed to turn public opinion against the regime existing at that time. Since that moment, in many social sciences, various kinds of views have appeared regarding this socio-political phenomenon, but still the majority of researchers were of the opinion regarding the idea of ​​​​the content and significance of ideology as a political instrument that is capable of developing specific goals for direct political development, as well as uniting people , unite their political energy, ensure strengthening and, as a result, play a significant role in public life.

Typology of ideologies

In the 19th century there were the following main ideologies.

1. Liberal (within the framework of classical liberalism, this is a religious-secular ideology: the coexistence of religious-Protestant values ​​and secular liberal-educational values; and neoliberalism is only secular: the idea of ​​privatization of state property).
2. Conservative (ideas of the inviolability of existing traditions of the past).
3. Social democratic (communist ideology: a theoretically formed narrow system of worldviews).
4. Nationalist (fascism: exaggerated manifestation of deep nationalist feelings).

Ideology of state and politics: definition

The relationship between these two phenomena is the most important issue within the philosophical and theoretical aspect. This significance is due to the need to identify the essence of the differences between such concepts as “ideology of the state” and “political ideology”.

It would be correct to differentiate them by content. Thus, the ideological work of all political parties that strive for power and state ideological activity are completely different phenomena (types of political activity). They have different goals, objectives, scales and even the means used.

Firstly, state ideology and politics are qualitatively different social phenomena regarding their essence. The first is the program of life of a particular state in the current and long-term perspective, and the second is a specific form of abstract logical thinking within a certain topic (a system of ideas and ideas that express the interests, ideals and worldview of a social community, grouped by a political party, the goal of which is to conquer or maintaining political power).

Their distinctive features

As has already become clear, these ideologies pursue different goals. Thus, state ideology is aimed at solving the problems of simplifying existing power relations, and political ideology is aimed at gaining power.

Also, state ideology and politics have fundamentally different carriers (subjects). In the first case - a specific state or nation as the overwhelming majority of its citizens, and in the second - only part of the state or nation.

As for the mechanism of functioning of these ideologies, we can say that state ideology is implemented through a powerful, branched system of various government institutions, and ideology is still deprived of such powerful means of disseminating its ideals, values ​​and ideas. However, this state of affairs can change dramatically, due to the fact that a political party that is guided by a certain doctrine is able to achieve the desired political power either peacefully or through revolution (as a state ideology). For example, such an ideology as the official nationality (autocracy-Orthodoxy-nationality), which emerged in the 19th century. as the ideology of Russia (the Russian state), it was unable to resist the pressure of the social democratic one and was forced to step aside.

Another distinctive feature of the concepts under consideration is the criterion of ideological source: state ideology is closely tied to a particular state or nation and is based on its foundations and traditions (this ensures its stability), and political ideology crosses state borders (for example, social democratic, liberal ideology, etc.) . P.). They have the opportunity to theoretically and materially influence from the outside (ideology is developed by theorists of a particular state, but its implementation is carried out outside its borders).

You can also turn to the historical premises of these ideologies. Here the picture is as follows: state ideology takes shape during its emergence as a religious consciousness (mainly at the earliest stages of state development), and political ideology is developed at a higher level of social development (when powerful social classes enter the political arena).

But it is worth clarifying that these ideologies should not be separated 100%, since they are organically interconnected and act as a dialectical identity of opposite sides of social life.

The relationship between legal ideology and politics

It is known that law and the state are closely interconnected both genetically, functionally, and substantially, which is justified by the presence of a common denominator - political power (it is materialized through the laws it creates).

According to the Saratov scientist A.V. Malko, legal policy is a systematic, consistent and scientifically based activity of both state and municipal bodies, aimed at creating an effective regulatory mechanism (legal), as well as at the civilizational use of legal means to achieve the intended goals.

He also highlighted its characteristic features:

• relationship with legal activities;
• diversity (criminal, family and marriage, constitutional, financial, etc.);
• the ability to manage complex processes of legal evolution of a particular country while increasing the organization and orderliness of the legal component of life.

According to A.P. Korobova, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between concepts such as “legal policy” and “legal ideology”, because otherwise, if legal policy is interpreted as a complex of ideas, then it will be impossible to distinguish it from legal ideology.

Many agree with the opinion of S.S. Alekseev regarding the degree of correlation of the concepts under consideration. Legal ideological ideology is the closest basis for policy in this area. So, we can say that legal ideology is an idea, program, model of state legal activity, and legal policy is legal activity in itself (its direct, rough form). The first concept precedes the second.

Social component of ideology

The specificity of the phenomenon under consideration is its emergence on the basis of economic relations already existing in society with a reflection of reality through the so-called prism of these relations.

Within the framework of a class society, economic relations are class interests, which is why the peculiarity of ideology is its presentation in the form of a reflection of reality through the same prism of the interests of specific classes, their systems of views, ideas.

Ideology is the self-consciousness of classes, a theoretical weapon (this is the main social function). If we talk about her from the point of view of the exploiting classes, her theories justified oppression and social injustice. And within the working class, it served to liberate it in particular and society as a whole from oppression and exploitation, as well as to build a communist society. In the first case, ideology is illusory in nature, and in the second it is scientific (Marxism-Leninism).

Conditions for the formation of this phenomenon

Socio-historical practice proves that the formation of ideology implies the presence of two conditions:

• the presence of a specific objective picture (objective laws of society and nature known by the ideologist and science);
• there must be an ideal, subjective reason, some stability, a significant tendency in social psychology.

In a situation where social ideology arises for no reason (not reflecting a significant trend in social psychology), then it is “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” It doesn’t matter what kind of ideology promises people, they will still not need it. Conversely, every ideology that influences social life always has a specific cause.

There have been cases in history when public ideology arose without the necessary conditions (without scientific support and social laws). Then it is not recognized as an ideology in its essence, but is a utopia or a certain religion, and cannot act as a materially meaningful, immediate, productive goal of people. However, ideology can have extensive spiritual or ethical value, acting as a distant, teleological goal, due to which it can still attract the attention, minds and souls of many people.

The phenomenon under consideration within the framework of modernity

Many modern (political) ideologies consist of those that develop along the path of radical traditions. They consider it necessary to make fundamental changes in the political and social system. It is customary to distinguish radicalism into right and left. The first is mainly in the form of a fascist movement.

Today, a dual perception of such a phenomenon as “fascism” has formed. Some consider it a specific form of political ideology that developed in Italy, Spain, and Germany in the 20s. XX century and acting as a means of exiting these countries from the severe post-war crisis, while others are a meaningless ideology that arises in places where political forces are aimed at suppressing democracy and seizing power.

The central place in fascist ideology is occupied by ideas regarding military expansion, racism, anti-communism, chauvinism, the use of radical measures against all workers and the working class, the widespread spread of state-monopoly techniques and methods of regulating the economy and politics, demagoguery to strengthen the positions of fascist organizations and parties.

Russian ideology of the future

Many experts believe that the main conditions and factors for its formation are those listed below.

1. De-prioritizing political goals. Understanding ideology as a system of values, intended government guidelines, influencing ethical comfort, mentality, spiritual health, interpersonal relationships, positive moods in society.
2. Approval of a system of competent value-goals, focused on uniting society according to the priority principle “for”, regardless of confessional, stratum-class, political, ethnocultural, gender views and differences regarding the prosperity of Russia.
3. Appeal to invaluable historical experience with regards to ensuring the development and interrelation of the cultural identity of indigenous Russian ethnic groups in a single all-Russian culture.
4. A detailed study with subsequent consideration of traditional interests, global claims of our civilization in the form of a chronological hierarchy to ensure national security and state leadership on the world stage.
5. Actively positioning the necessity and importance of Russia for the entire world community in the form of a strong “bridge” between East and West.

The national ideology of our time should become the basis for the National Doctrine of Russian development being developed today in the future. But first, it is necessary to finally decide on the role and place of Russia within the world community.

The word “ideology” contains two Greek roots: idea-concept, image and logos-word, teaching, thought. In this sense - as a doctrine of ideas - ideology was initially perceived by philosophers.

An idea matures and develops in a certain intellectual environment, influences public consciousness and is implemented in practice.

However, there is no single definition of the category “ideology”. To be even more specific, we can indicate that existing concepts sometimes even contradict each other. Judge for yourself, dear reader, about the following definitions presented in the scientific literature.

Ideology is:

· the process of production of meanings, signs and values ​​in social life;

· a set of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class;

· “false” ideas that contribute to the legitimization of the dominant system of power;

· constantly distorted communication;

· forms of thinking motivated by social interests;

· identification type;

· socially necessary illusions;

· coincidence of government attitudes with the prevailing socio-political discourse;

· activity-oriented group of beliefs;

Why are there so many different definitions of ideology? The fact is that various concepts of ideology, whether this is realized or not, begin their origins from a diverse palette of ideological and historical traditions (we will trace this in the next topic “Ideology and its social purpose”), which in turn grew out of the different experiences of historical conditions for the emergence and functioning of ideology as a need of the human community. Satisfying needs is the basis of human life. Needs are the objective need of a person for objects of material and spiritual production. Need is a specific (essential) force of living systems in the world around us. Conscious needs act as interest.

The interest of any social community and individual lies in optimizing their life activity. Interest is the ability of an individual to connect with the environment in order to satisfy his needs.

In real life, the interests of various social actors may coincide, only partially coincide, or be opposite. This is the life mechanism that unites, unites or divides certain groups of people. Consequently, a collective and public need and interest arises in regulating the expression of the will of citizens, in the consolidation and harmonization of society. Such a mission can be fulfilled by an idea that unites society - the starting point of ideology, influencing public consciousness and being implemented in practice.

Thus, ideology can be considered as a system of ideals, values, interests, convictions, beliefs and norms of a particular social community (individual, group, society as a whole), on the basis of which integrative political-economic, social programs and projects are developed that define the goal activities, ways and means of achieving them. The above definition combines three important aspects of ideology: system political, economic, social, legal ideals, values, interests, convictions, beliefs and norms of a particular social community (individual, group, society as a whole), social concepts and theories; purpose of activity, which encourages people to strive to achieve it; integrative political-economic and social program , the defining strategic vector of which is the formation of an effective state.

IDEOLOGY: ESSENCE, STRUCTURE, FUNCTIONS, REGULARITIES OF DEVELOPMENT

The essence of ideology

The concept of “ideology” reflects its essential characteristic features. If we consider the essence of any social phenomenon, then, first of all, it is necessary to determine the totality of its main properties, its internal content. The essence of such a social phenomenon as ideology is expressed, first of all, in the definition of this concept, which gives it a strictly fixed meaning.

In defining ideology as a system of ideals, values, interests, convictions, beliefs, norms of a particular community (individual, group, society as a whole), on the basis of which integrative political-economic, legal, social programs and projects are developed that determine the purpose of activity, the ways and means of achieving it are terminologically designated the essence, the core of the social phenomenon we are considering. But this is not the only thing that determines the essence of ideology. This definition also establishes a connection between people’s worldview and behavior. In addition, the essence of ideology consists in understanding the meaning (or giving meaning) to processes and changes, the internal patterns of their occurrence that occur in society. Disclosure of the principles of self-propulsion of the system, algorithms of its self-development, which allows us to speak about the purposefulness of these processes and changes, about the internal need for the generation of one state by another, also reveals the essential characteristics of ideology. The essence of ideology includes everything with the help of which we perceive the world around us and our own world. It is also an explanation and justification, defense or criticism of emerging new social phenomena, relationships, structures by correlating them with the system of values ​​and ideals accepted and approved (or not approved) by a given community (party, people, society). And if we combine the above qualitative characteristics of ideology and consider them in interrelation and interdependence, in unity, then we will be able to more or less clearly imagine what the essence of the social phenomenon under consideration is.

Structure of ideology

The basis of any system (we consider ideology as a system of ideals, values, interests, convictions, beliefs, norms) is its structure. Giving the most general definition of structure, A.N. Averyanov, for example, points out that “structure in the literal sense of the word is the structure of the system. There are no structures outside the system.” “The latter, as S.Yu. claims. Solodovnikov, is nothing more than a set of: a) the most stable, essential, regularly recurring relationships between its elements and b) these elements themselves. The structure of the system can be considered both horizontally (ordination) and vertically (hierarchy). This provision is one of the principles that constitute the essence of the systems approach. The use of these principles allows scientists to formulate a number of initial epistemological foundations that should create conditions for a systematic consideration of various social phenomena, including ideology. Thus, Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus E.M. Babosov carried out structural-component, structural-functional and structural-dynamic analysis of ideology. He presents the structural-component orientation of ideology as follows.

1. The spiritual basis of ideology is worldview, i.e. the totality of a person’s views on the world as a whole and his own place in this world, expressed in the axiological (value) attitudes of the individual of a social community, group regarding the meaning of life and human activity, the destinies of humanity in the context of the development of the natural and social world. What is the type of worldview, such is the ideology.

2. Philosophical and worldview ideas are embodied in the second
structural element of the ideological system - in socio-political views and concepts that concentrate political knowledge, beliefs, aspirations, principles, theories and programs of action.

3. Economic views, ideas and theories are organically interconnected with political concepts, including the third element of ideology.

4. From political and economic concepts and theories
the fourth structural element of ideology is derived - legal (legal) theories and norms that represent
is a specific type of social regulation of social relations, namely a system of rules, norms, legislative acts, etc.

5. Interconnected with the previous element are moral beliefs and principles that impute certain moral standards of behavior to a person or a social group. This cross-section of human experience is expressed by the terms “good” and “evil”, “virtue” and “vice”, “justice” and “injustice”, etc. Morality is designed to ensure the independence of a person as a member of the community and a spiritual being (personality).

6. With moral principles and standards at all times
aesthetic ideals interact, embodying the entire diverse, emotionally rich area of ​​exploration and perception of the world according to the laws of beauty.

7. An element of structural differentiation of ideology is
hierarchy of values ​​and value orientations. Values ​​are a generalized idea of ​​people about objects and phenomena that are significant, important to them, and the actions of other people, defined by the categories of what is proper, noble, beautiful, moral, etc. Their purpose is to serve as a kind of criteria for people to choose the most important and meaningful alternative for them in the process of orientation in the surrounding changing reality.

8. The eighth element is goal setting. The goal is
the ideal or real object of the subject's conscious or unconscious choice and aspiration, as well as the final result of social action.

9. An element of structural differentiation of ideology is the will and determination of an individual or social community to actively and effectively act towards achieving a set goal

Thus, ordination of ideology includes:

Worldview;

Socio-political views and concepts;

Economic theories;

Legal norms;

Aesthetic ideals;

Moral Beliefs;

Hierarchy of values;

Goal setting;

The will and determination to act to achieve a goal.

The process of implementing the ideological structural-component ordination of ideology can be understood through consideration of its vertical structure (hierarchy). The ideological basis of ideology is embodied in

slogans, commandments, guidelines that are introduced into the mass consciousness of people. They are reflected in ideas, feelings, beliefs, and value orientations. So that slogans and attitudes can be found
embodiment in the mass consciousness, the activity of ideological services and organizations is necessary. Only in the process and as a result of purposeful ideological activity, formed ideals, feelings, ideas, beliefs can be embodied in beliefs, life aspirations, political orientations, life positions of individual citizens, social groups, movements, political parties and organizations. Next - the practical activities of the subjects.

Thus, component hierarchy includes:

Slogans, commandments, guidelines;

Mass consciousness (ideas, feelings, beliefs, value orientations);

Practical activities of ideological services;

The embodiment of ideals and feelings in people’s life positions;

Specific activities of people.

The role of ideology in the life of society is determined by the functions it performs. It contains values ​​that act as a political and social worldview. The following humanitarian functions of ideology can be distinguished:

· epistemological– allows you to reveal objective trends in socio-political development and realistically assess the ideological situation;

· integration-consolidating– ensures the continuity of ideals, basic values ​​of society and the individual, contributes to the achievement of the integrity of society and the formation of civil harmony;

· software– serves as the basis for the formation of programs for sustainable social development;

· innovative- updates social values ​​and norms by developing new and borrowed progressive values ​​from other cultures;

· mobilization– mobilizes citizens and social groups to implement socio-political programs and projects; national idea, the ideal of a more perfect society;

· orientational– sets a system of meanings and orientations of human activity;

· motivational– gives internal impulses to motivate action;

· selective– selects from inherited values ​​and norms those that are necessary to solve the problems of social development;

· educational– is the value basis in determining the goals and means of education for the formation of a moral, socially active and creative personality;

· damping– helps to relieve social tension in a situation where there is a discrepancy between the needs of society, a group, an individual and the real possibilities of meeting them.

The listed functions of ideology are associated with the commitment of its supporters to the values ​​and norms that it cultivates.

Greek idea - concept, representation; logos - word, concept, doctrine) - 1. a system of ideas that determine activity (scientific, social, political, moral, etc.); 2. The term is often used in a negative sense, as if ideology only fetters, disorients people, deprives them of freedom of choice and absolutely no one needs it. This is a somewhat tendentious point of view of thinkers who, along with the water they hate, are ready to throw out the child they love equally dearly from the bathtub. Ideology as a system of ideal values ​​(ideals, desired prototypes of the future) exists in any society, it permeates all its layers and groups, all spheres of human activity and affects every person, being repeatedly refracted in all of them, sometimes in the most unexpected way. This system of beliefs expresses not only the best that was or is at a given time, it reflects the most important thing, namely, what can or should be in its most developed, highest manifestation. But the main thing, perhaps, is that it is in ideology that a person more often shows his best qualities and thereby preserves them. Despite the fact that ideology, as A.A. points out. Zinoviev, has no scientific basis and is not subject to scientific evaluation; it performs a function that regulates people’s behavior, and does it more effectively than all laws and moral norms combined. The norms of morality and law are conservative, they impose various prohibitions, imply some kind of sanctions, but these norms do not indicate the direction of movement, do not have motivational power, do not give a sense of meaning to what a person does and without which he will never do anything creative. Psychiatry, like medicine in general, has its own aspects of ideology. The list of ideas that form it is usually not directly formulated, as Hippocrates did in his commandments; they would look no less naive and ambiguous, but in any textbook or manual on psychiatry its ideologemes are always given the place worthy of their significance. Without an adequate, albeit implicit ideology, the hard work of a psychiatrist would turn into a real nightmare, truly hard labor under duress, and not of one’s own free will, much less by vocation; 3. comprehensive knowledge capable of destroying prejudices and reforming society (A.D. de Tracy); 4. in the theory of K. Marx and F. Engels - a picture of the world and society from the point of view of the ruling class; 5. a system of ideas and views (political, legal, religious, etc. ), in which people’s attitudes to reality are recognized and assessed, and the interests of social groups are expressed.

Ideology: yesterday, today and tomorrow

Ideology– what is it, what role does it play in uniting people, is it needed in modern conditions of development of society? If necessary, what kind and in what form? I will try to raise these questions in this material and propose to discuss them in the comments below.

After the collapse of the USSR, within the newly formed CIS states, there is a constant search for an ideology that would unite society and strengthen the state system. I can judge the results of this search only by the fact that in two decades of independence I have not been able to find it.

Whether this is good or bad is not for me to decide, and this is not the purpose of the article. Same search "own" ideology happens in . For part of society, both Ukraine and Russia, this issue is relevant, it worries them, and in the process of searching for the necessary ideology, they discuss this topic on various information platforms/forums. Initially, on these platforms, during the discussion process, commentators are divided into two camps - conservatives And liberals, but then it turns out that the conservatives cannot determine which of the leaders to resurrect, and the liberals do not want to see everyone in their city. So gradually, the two camps, in the process of disputes and discussions, are divided into many groups that begin to fiercely defend their “only correct” point of view (ideology).

So it turns out that initially 100 people are divided into two camps, which, in turn, are divided into groups (10*10), and it turns out that when you find one ideological supporter in your group, you receive nine more “as a gift” opponents from other groups? Is it possible in such conditions of ideological division to talk about social unification and be constructive? Of course, within your group (10 people) it is possible, but the goal should be to unite the whole society, otherwise, why fence this garden?

In my personal experience, this is practically unreal. As soon as the conversation turns into ideology, division and endless verbal chatter of everyone about their own begins. Why does this happen and is it possible to go beyond endless division and antagonism? Let's think about it.

Ideology (idea– prototype, idea; And logos– word, reason, teaching):

• a system of conceptually formulated views and ideas that expresses the interests of various social classes, groups, societies, in which people’s attitudes to reality and to each other are recognized and assessed;
• a system of ideas, ideas, views, characterizing views on the socio-political and other life of some kind. social group, class, political party, society;
• a concept by which a set of ideas, myths, legends, political slogans, party program documents, and philosophical concepts is traditionally designated; not being religious in essence;
• by justifying and expressing interests, indicating ways of their implementation and offering appropriate patterns of behavior, ideology unites individuals into a single community. The integration function of ideology is most clearly manifested in national ideologies that seek to unite all representatives of the nation to achieve common goals.

It turns out that ideology promotes bringing people together With certain views and worldview into the corresponding social groups, classes, political parties. If we consider the process of uniting people into ideological groups as a whole from the position of society, then any ideology, as such, shares a single public space into groups of people with different and sometimes conflicting views, ideas, etc.

It turns out that ideology, on the one hand, unites people into groups, and on the other - divides society into groups, pastes. At the same time, the higher the level of “ideological pumping” in groups, the higher the conflict environment and the stronger their opposition: the core of ideology is a circle of ideas related to the issues of seizing, retaining and using political power by political subjects. Ideology is based on the conflictual nature of the world, its alignment according to the polar “enemy-friend” model, crystallizing supporters of a particular ideology. The degree of development and visibility of the image of an ideological enemy can rightfully be considered the main basis for the cohesion of a social group - the bearer of ideology.

Those people who are already in a certain ideological group or associate themselves with it may not agree with the above, and from their point of view, from the position of a separate group, ideology unites. The problem is that this unification takes place in a “constructed” reality, with the goal of manipulating and controlling people by influencing their consciousness. In Mythologies (1957), Barthes combined myth and ideology, calling them "metalanguage." Barth did not consider it advisable to draw a semiotic distinction between ideology and myth, defining ideology as a mythical construction introduced into the framework of general history and meeting certain social interests.

Let me give you a few more definitions:

• ideology according to K. Mannheim - distorted reflection of social reality, expressing the interests of certain groups or classes seeking to preserve the existing order of things.
• ideology by – this ready-made “mental goods”, disseminated by the press, speakers, ideologists in order to manipulate the mass of people for a purpose that has nothing to do with ideology and very often completely opposite to it.

If the use of various generally accepted ideological models to unite society is ambiguous and leads to its fragmentation with uncertain consequences, then why are individuals/groups still trying to find, approve and impose their ideologies?

I believe that the search for ideology is more disturbing to older generations, and the older a person is, the more pressing this question is, and for some it becomes an obsession: “The idea, and then everything else.” Why older? I think this is due to their life experience and the state of development of society, communication connections in which they became like personalities. Access to information was limited and almost completely controlled, communication links were weak, because not even everyone had a landline telephone.

In such conditions, the idea, which was directively sanitized into a society with weak communication ties, captured minds and played a role stabilization of society and its associations. The problem is that in modern conditions this approach to unification may work, but it is not effective. Almost any resident has access to any information that interests him, as well as the opportunity to communicate with people from different parts of the Earth and exchange information online. Yet attempts to sanitize an idea into a highly connected society are simply “eroded.”

This approach can still be applied somewhere in the world, where you can say that this is true and it is so, the tribes stood up and followed you. But in the civilized World this no longer works. Everyone has the opportunity to determine for themselves: is social equality so equal, is it possible to live without gay pride parades, and is it worth resurrecting the leaders?

Previously used approaches to building society through ideology no longer give the same effect and do not capture minds as before. But we all feel the objective need for the unification, stabilization and development of all social and state institutions. If such a need is felt, then one should look for something outside of generally accepted ideological constructs, something that allows one to unite already existing ideological groups into a single system with a minimum level of antagonism.

Before I start thinking about a free topic and searching for that “ideology” that would correspond to modern conditions, I would like to quote an excerpt from the speech Evgenia Primakova at an international conference “Russia in the world of power of the 21st century”, dedicated to the 20th anniversary of SVOP and the 10th anniversary of the magazine “Russia in Global Affairs” (Images of Russia and the World Beyond Ideology):

“The power of ideas and images” – the theme highlighted at our conference is absolutely justified. In the current conditions, the ideas and images of states participating in international relations influence the development of the global situation no less than the power of money and the power of weapons. First, about general approaches.

First . It is wrong to imagine that after the end of the Cold War, politics and the balance of power at the regional and global levels in general are no longer subject to the influence of ideology. The nature and form of this influence have changed, but it has not disappeared anywhere. Moreover, ideological confrontation, the purposeful introduction of one’s own, often tinted, images while distorting those of others, has become one of the components of foreign policy practice.

Second approach : Liberalism, conservatism and socialism remain as the three most significant ideologies. However, in current conditions they do not manifest themselves independently, experiencing mutual influences, being in the process of convergence (the process of rapprochement, convergence, compromises), they have become components of the ideological model inherent in different countries. To understand today’s ideology (this also applies to other states), one should proceed not only from the content of ideology, but also from the fact that the determining factor is the relationship between the parts of the ideological model.

Third approach : the policies of individuals or groups of individuals who identify themselves with a particular ideology do not always correspond and correspond to its essence...

I understand this statement by E. Primakov as: “Yes, they still remain the main ideologies, but today they are not self-sufficient, they are forced to interact, make compromises, and the future of the country is determined by the balance between them and the degree of interaction.”

We must assume that today and tomorrow these three main ideologies will be present in society, which, due to the development of communications, will increasingly interact and intersect with each other. I believe that in the current conditions it is not worth directing all efforts to eliminate one of the groups. After all, the fight against it does not lead to anything other than wasting resources (temporary, human) and even greater polarization in society. It is necessary to look for optimal forms of interaction between these already existing ideological groups.

When searching for an “ideology” that can establish interaction between different ideological groups, one must identify the basis that unites them all. What will lead to interactions and compromises. It can be called "evolutionary development". socio-economic spheres and public-state institutions without revolutions, coups, economic upheavals, wars, etc. But it's hard for me to call it ideology, rather, it is a natural need of anyone and everyone, regardless of belonging to a particular group.

This can also be defined as “rational pragmatism” or “sound rationalism”, it doesn’t matter. It is important that this is outside the ideologemes, to some extent above it, and allows interaction and compromises to be established between them. The driving force in this case is not slogans about a “bright future” or ideas about the “City of the Sun”; the driving force can be every representative of society associated with any ideological group.

He expressed an interesting thought on this matter David Eidelman: new ideological concepts, in order to be successful and in demand, must first pay attention to what is called the “human factor”, “human capital”. In general, it seems to me that man is the cornerstone and guarantee of everything. And tomorrow belongs not to representatives of the exact sciences, who are still stuck, since lagging humanity is not ready for their further advancement, but to those who deal with human resources and building interpersonal relationships. People have already accumulated enough weapons to destroy each other many times over. Now progress is not only in further strengthening technology, but in improving human society.