A primer on ideology and ideologues

Or, why no one is got when there is a "gotcha" moment

When you hear the word “ideology,” what comes to mind? I reckon most folks would say something like: ideas people have about the world. If I asked for an evaluation of ideology—good, bad, or neutral—most folks would say ideology is a bad thing. An ideology is a false belief. Or it’s something used to justify the mistreatment of people.

Well, here’s how ChatGPT defines it:

If I asked someone what ideologue means to them, I suppose I’d get something similar to Sir Winston Churchill’s description of a fanatic: someone who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject.

With respect to both ChatGPT and Sir Winston, I think this view of ideology—and of ideologues—leaves much to be desired.

The many ideologies of Teun A. Van Dijk

Dutch sociologist Teun A. van Dijk understands ideology differently than most of us. He outlines his theory in the 2006 work Ideology and Discourse Analysis. The article, as the title suggests, begins with a description of ideology and then turns to a method for analyzing it that he terms discourse analysis. I will focus on the first part of the article—his theory of ideology.

To summarize Van Dijk: An ideology is

a stable system of beliefs shared by a group of people that organizes the group’s behaviors and communication.

Here are some ideologies Van Dijk mentions in his seminal article: sexism, pacifism, feminism, socialism, the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s, and neoliberalism. He also refers, more generally, to professional organizations, whose members share the ideology adopted by their profession. Van Dijk’s article, though written in 2006, predates contemporary movements like MAGA or the push for trans rights. Still, his framework readily applies to such ideologies.

Ideologies perform several functions for Van Dijk:

• They bind a group of people together. Indeed, if there is no group of people who adopt the beliefs and use them as a basis for communication, there is no ideology to speak of.

• They form the cognitive basis of a social group’s self-image: “I and the people I identify with think this about the world.”

• They provide rationalizations and justifications for the group’s identity, norms, values, and attitudes: “The morals and values we hold, the policies we support, the things we do, the things we build—these are grounded in this set of beliefs.”

• They shape how the group relates to other social groups: “Because of this set of beliefs, we think those ‘others’ who do not share them are wrong, immoral, or dangerous—and this is how we should treat them.”

So far, this may not sound terribly different from how most people think of ideology—if they were compelled to think about it. But let’s dig a bit deeper into Van Dijk’s theory.

There are many types of ideologies.

In his article, Van Dijk discusses ideologies such as sexism and feminism, which we might call social ideologies, though they also carry political implications. He also mentions socialism and neoliberalism—economic ideologies, likewise politically charged. He even includes the anti-nuclear movement, a grassroots movement much like Black Lives Matter, as an ideology.

This, I believe, marks a departure from how ideology is commonly understood. In everyday thinking, belief systems we dislike, such as communism, are often labeled as ideologies, while belief systems we favor, such as capitalism, are treated as common sense. Van Dijk points out—correctly, I believe—that both are ideologies: stable systems of beliefs shared by a group of people.

Ideologies can be good, bad, or neutral.

While they are often viewed as having a negative influence on society—especially by academics and activists influenced by Marxist thought, who see ideology primarily as a tool of domination and subjugation—Van Dijk offers a more nuanced perspective. He argues that ideologies can function positively, negatively, or neutrally.

For example, sexism—a belief system about gender roles—can be used to justify the domination of women: “a woman’s place is in the home”. But feminism, as a set of beliefs, is also an ideology. It functions to challenge and resist harmful gender norms. In this case, ideology serves as a tool of empowerment and resistance.

Some ideologies, Van Dijk notes, have no explicit political implications. They serve instead as “the basis of the ‘guidelines’ of professional behaviour—for instance for journalists or scientists.” As a professor, I have adopted a set of beliefs about the discipline of sociology—its purpose, boundaries, and the expected conduct of sociologists. Because others share these beliefs, we form a social group bound by a (neutral) professional ideology.

Ideologies are not inherently “false.”

A common way of thinking about ideology is that it consists of false beliefs, and that those who adopt them are suffering from false consciousness. This view is especially prevalent among Marxists, who often assume that when working people adopt capitalist or Christian ideologies, they are blinded to their own subjugation by the wealthy.

Van Dijk challenges this notion. At several points in his article, he explicitly dismisses the idea of false consciousness. I tend to agree with him, although his reasoning is not fully spelled out. I believe his position is best captured in the following quote:

“...a racist ideology may control attitudes about immigration, a feminist ideology may control attitudes about abortion or glass ceilings on the job or knowledge about gender inequality in society, and a social ideology may favour a more important role of the State in public affairs. Hence, ideologies are foundational social beliefs of a rather general and abstract nature.”

In other words, ideologies cannot be “false” in the traditional sense because they are, by their very nature, abstract systems of belief. What can be evaluated are the actions, policies, or consequences that stem from these ideologies—not the ideologies themselves. The Hippocratic Oath, which is no doubt part of the belief system shared by medical professionals, cannot meaningfully be called “false,” any more than the belief in individual hard work leading to success can be labeled “false” by adherents of neoliberalism.

Members of a group understand an ideology to varying degrees.

For Van Dijk, an ideologue is someone with a strong grasp of the beliefs that compose an ideology. This contrasts with the more common understanding of an ideologue as someone so entrenched in their beliefs that they can no longer think rationally or engage constructively with those who disagree. Van Dijk offers a different interpretation. For him, an ideologue is someone who uses their deep understanding of an ideology to articulate it to others or to make its underlying beliefs more coherent.

Examples of ideologues: From top and clockwise - Sam Seder, Matt Walsh, Joy Reed, and Chris Rufo

Ideologies, he writes, are “acquired, confirmed, changed and perpetuated through discourse.” It is the ideologue who guides and shapes this discourse. The thought leaders I often write about in this newsletter are, in effect, the equivalent of Van Dijk’s ideologues.

Ideologies need not be logically consistent, but they are emotionally consistent.

As Van Dijk puts it, “...they are not logical systems, but socio-psychological ones.” The beliefs that compose an ideology must have some coherence, but that doesn’t mean they need to align with formal logic. Rather, they must be—emotionally—consistent. That is, the beliefs must resonate with and support the needs, desires, and identity of the in-group.

Consider the oft-cited contradiction within the MAGA movement: many of its members are Christian fundamentalists, yet they support a figure widely viewed as one of the most morally compromised presidents in U.S. history. (In my view, the best writing on this tension comes from Tim Alberta in The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory.) This contradiction is logical, but not emotional. It overlooks the emotional appeal Trump holds for his supporters.

Ideologues can and often do attempt to resolve such contradictions. As Van Dijk writes, “various ideologues (writers, leaders, teachers, preachers, etc.) may try to enhance the coherence by explicit manifestoes, catechisms, theories, and so on.” One such attempt among MAGA supporters is the reframing of Trump as a modern-day King Herod—morally flawed, even sinful, but nevertheless being “used by God” to fulfill a divine purpose.

The drive for coherence is a defining feature of all belief systems. What is an academic discipline, after all, if not a sustained effort to create a coherent understanding of a particular subject? Just as academics find meaning and connection in their shared frameworks and assumptions, MAGA supporters find meaning and identity in their shared ideological worldview.

So what?

The point of this piece is to communicate a different, richer understanding of ideology—one that is far more productive for the times we live in. Too often, we use ideology as a pejorative, a way to belittle others or dismiss ideas we disagree with. But this approach does little to foster dialogue or mutual understanding, especially in an era of deep political and cultural polarization. We can’t simply write off every belief system we reject as “just ideology,” nor should we mock those who articulate and defend their group’s beliefs as mere ideologues.

Dutch sociologist Teun A. van Dijk offers a more nuanced and useful perspective. His framework treats ideologies not as distortions or delusions, but as the shared cognitive and emotional structures that bind social groups together, shape their worldview, and guide their actions.

If we take Van Dijk seriously, we can begin to move beyond contempt and toward comprehension. We can learn to see ideologies not as enemies of reason, but as expressions of identity, community, and meaning-making. In a world where shouting across the aisle has replaced listening, this shift in perspective is not just helpful—it’s necessary.