The “Science” of Ideas and the Word We Love to Hate: The Definition of Ideology
- Bryan Dumont
- Apr 30
- 9 min read
Updated: May 9
In the turbulent years following the French Revolution, Paris was a city alive with ideas. The legendary philosophes gathered in salons to debate competing visions of a world governed by reason, where ignorance and superstition would be swept aside in pursuit of the perfectibility of man. These were the heirs of the Enlightenment, still drunk on the possibilities of a new order, convinced that ideas—not birth, tradition, or divine right—would shape the future.
Among them was a man of calm intensity: Antoine-Louis-Claude Destutt de Tracy, a noble-turned-philosopher whose life had been upended by the Revolution. Stripped of his title, imprisoned during the Reign of Terror, and narrowly escaping the guillotine, de Tracy—like so many others of the time—emerged from the ashes in awe of the power of ideas. If they could dismantle the Ancien Régime and send a king to his death, could they not also be understood, harnessed, and structured into something more systematic?
One stormy autumn night in 1796, de Tracy sat in his modest Paris apartment, his desk cluttered with manuscripts, his thoughts consumed by the works of Locke and Condillac. He was searching for a framework to describe the mechanics of ideas—how they were formed, transmitted, and transformed into action. The terms available to him—"philosophy," "metaphysics"—were too broad, too abstract. He sought something more precise, an empirical, rational discipline that could dissect ideas as thoroughly as natural science had begun dissecting the physical world.
Dipping his pen into ink, he began to write feverishly. He needed a term to describe this new science of ideas. Borrowing from the Greek roots idea and logos, he scrawled the word:
idéologie.
It was a word both scientific and elegant, embodying the rational spirit of the Enlightenment. Idéologie was not a set of beliefs but a method—an attempt to understand how beliefs are formed and propagated.
A band of philosophes soon joined de Tracy, calling themselves the Idéologues. Even Napoleon Bonaparte—then an ambitious young general—was an early admirer. But the Idéologues, much like the Jacobins before them, believed they could construct a perfect political order based on pure reason, with little patience for the complications of human nature. Napoleon, ever the pragmatist, grew impatient with their abstract theories, dismissing them as detached from the realities of governing a nation in crisis.
His insult—"ideologue"—was the first, but not the last, time the term would be used in derision.
And yet, the word lived on, evolving far beyond its original meaning. It would become a cornerstone concept in philosophy, politics, and sociology. It would shape revolutions, justify wars, and inspire utopian dreams and totalitarian nightmares. De Tracy’s invention would ultimately be implicated in the great ideological battles of the 20th century, in which the French Revolution he barely survived would serve as the amuse-bouche for the horrors to come.
Ideology: A Word Without Meaning?
In the modern era, ideology has become a word we love to hate. Few concepts are blamed for more horrors. It is easy to point to the atrocities committed in the name of ideology—communism’s gulags, fascism’s gas chambers, the millions slaughtered in ideological crusades—and conclude that ideology itself is the enemy. Many have.
But before we rush to dismiss it, let’s contemplate for a moment the alternative: What does politics look like in the absence of ideology?
The past few decades have given us some clues. After the Cold War, many believed we had entered a post-ideological era, where pragmatic governance would replace ideological dogma. Barack Obama explicitly positioned himself against ideology, running as a pragmatist who valued what works over rigid theories of government. Donald Trump, in his own way, has represented another rejection of ideology—his politics are not constrained by a coherent set of ideas but driven by instincts, grievances, and personal power.
And yet, we still reach for the word constantly. It has never been used more, even as it has lost its precision. Today, "ideology" is applied to anything and everything—often inaccurately. Consider some of the ways it’s been thrown around in just the past few years:
Few terms have been more overused, misunderstood, and weaponized than "woke ideology." Originally meaning awareness of social injustices, “woke” has expanded to mean everything from anti-racism initiatives and gender identity policies to corporate diversity programs and climate activism. Even using the broadest possible definition of ideology—a coherent set of ideas—“wokeness” fails to meet even this basic standard, since it is the opposite of coherent and a classic example of being "in the eye of the beholder."
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is frequently described as an ideology, but this is misleading. CRT is a legal and academic theory, not a comprehensive worldview about how society should be structured. While inspired by Marxist modes of analysis, it does not prescribe a governing system as communism ultimately did.
Identity-based movements are also mislabeled as ideological. What exactly is the “LGBTQ ideology”? Or a “trans ideology”? These are movements seeking legal protections or policy outcomes, not coherent systems of political thought. Some might invoke ideological arguments in defense of or opposition to these interests, but having a point of view is not the same as having an ideology.
The Definition of Ideology
While dictionary definitions provide a foundational understanding of "ideology," they often reflect prevailing usage and may not capture the term's theoretical depth. Yet, it is the obvious place to start in answering this question:
Oxford English Dictionary: “A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.”
Merriam-Webster: 1a: “A manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.” 1b: “The integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.”
Cambridge English Dictionary: “A set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based.”
Collins English Dictionary: (1) “A body of ideas that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system, etc., and underlies political action.”
Political scientists also disagree on the precise definition, but provide more depth and context that establish some clear criteria we can work with that distinguish ideology from other intellectual or political frameworks.
A Structured System of Beliefs: Many political scientists define ideology as a comprehensive set of ideas and values that provides a framework for interpreting political, social, and economic realities. It combines empirical and normative elements—it both explains the world as it is and prescribes what should be done (Heywood, 2017).
Operational vs. Philosophical: Unlike philosophical traditions, which explore abstract concepts, ideologies are action-oriented. A philosophy may ponder the nature of justice; an ideology provides a political program for achieving justice. For example, liberalism as a philosophy is broad and theoretical, while liberalism as an ideology becomes specific and tied to policies like free markets or individual rights.
Coherent but Simplified: Political scientists argue that ideologies take complex philosophical traditions and simplify them for mass politics (Freeden, 1996). Ideologies are not as rigorous as philosophy, but they are more structured and enduring than ad hoc political movements.
Different from Political Movements: Political movements may draw on ideologies, but they are often defined by their immediate goals. The Civil Rights Movement was a political movement. In contrast, ideologies provide long-term frameworks that outlive individual movements.
Broad Societal Relevance & Impact: Interest and identity politics focus on protections or material gains for specific groups. Ideologies, however, transcend narrow interests, providing a universal vision for how society should be organized—even when they align normatively around particular interests.
While dictionary definitions are shaped by common usage and may lack theoretical depth, they still reveal something important: across Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Collins, ideology is consistently described as both a set of beliefs and a basis for political or social action. That dual structure—a worldview and a method—also appears more clearly in political science. Scholars define ideology as a system of ideas that explains how the world works and offers a plan for how it should be changed. It’s more practical than philosophy and more enduring than short-term political movements. Pulling this together, I define ideology as:
A coherent system of normative beliefs about how society should be organized, paired with a methodology for collective action to realize those beliefs.
This definition highlights the two essential dimensions of ideology:
A Normative Framework (Philosophical Dimension): An ideology is not just a random collection of ideas. It presents a structured and comprehensive worldview about what a society should look like.
A Methodology for Action (Structural Dimension): An ideology is not just a theory—it includes a system for achieving its goals through political structures, institutions, and collective action.
A Framework for Understanding the American Ideology
One of my stated objectives in this endeavor is to persuade people who are often perplexed—if not completely skeptical—of the existence of an American Ideology. To these people, I pose this question: How can the only nation founded upon ideas (or, as Chesterton said, “founded on a creed”) not have an ideology?
America is not only a nation with an ideology—The American Ideology may be the first ideology in the truest sense of the word.
Most nations throughout history were formed around ethnicity, geography, or shared cultural traditions. But America is unique. It is unique not only because it was founded explicitly on a creed—a set of ideas enshrined in the Declaration of Independence—but because that creed was explicitly operationalized through the Constitution. The American Ideology contains both the philosophical and structural dimensions that define an ideology.
When we declare America to be a “nation of ideas,” this can easily be mistaken for reducing the nation to a mere abstraction. This is why the concept of ideology matters: it explains how America’s founding ideas were not left as theoretical aspirations but were actively put into practice through constitutional mechanisms, laws, and institutions. Unlike a philosophy, an ideology deliberately instantiates its beliefs and ideals through civil society, institutions, culture, and ultimately the “habits of the heart” of the people.
Too often, debates over what it means to be American force a false choice. On one side stand those who insist that America is “just an idea”—a nation reducible to a set of abstract philosophical principles, most commonly associated with John Locke’s formulation of natural rights: life, liberty, and property (‘we are all Lockeans’). In this view, America is a conceptual project, unmoored from any particular cultural, historical, or civic inheritance.
On the other side stand those who, recoiling from the thinness of such abstraction, seek to ground American identity in more tangible forms of national belonging—language, culture, tradition, and historical memory. Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, in The Case for Nationalism, argues that America must reclaim a sense of shared culture and continuity if it hopes to survive as a nation-state. "We have a culture that stems back centuries," Lowry writes, "and to pretend that it doesn't exist or that it can be easily changed by mass immigration or ideological browbeating is ahistorical."1
Each of these approaches, however, misunderstands the nature of the American project.
The idea that America is merely a collection of ideals overlooks the reality that ideals must be lived and embodied through institutions, traditions, and civic habits if they are to endure. Yet the effort to locate American identity solely in cultural or ethnic continuity risks severing the nation from its ideological foundation altogether—transforming a republic of principle into a tribe of ancestry.
The true genius of the American tradition lies elsewhere. It is neither merely abstract nor merely cultural. It is ideological—but ideology rightly understood: not only the possession of ideals, but the building of institutions and habits that carry those ideals forward.
Moreover, the American Ideology itself did not arise in a vacuum. It was formed through the lived experiences of early settlers who, carrying fragments of British and European cultural practices, adapted them to the unique conditions of the New World. These cultural inheritances—communal self-government, religious dissent, voluntary association, and an ethos of personal responsibility—shaped the ideological tensions that define the ideology, long before they were ever formally theorized.
Thus, American identity has always depended on a reciprocal relationship: the ideology gives purpose and coherence to the cultural practices, and the cultural practices sustain and renew the ideology. Without this dynamic, the ideals risk becoming brittle abstractions—or else degenerating into mere slogans, severed from the habits and commitments that make them real.
America is indeed an idea—but it is an idea incarnate. It has a set of ideals that are made real through a civil society thick with voluntary associations, religious communities, local governments, and cultural norms that embed ideological tenets into daily life. It is a nation that survives not because it denies the need for a lived culture, but because its culture is uniquely tasked with carrying an ideological project—a project that demands balancing universal principles with particular forms.
This is the bridge we must reclaim. Ideology is the link between abstract principle and living community. It rescues American identity from the false choice between sterile universalism and blood-and-soil nationalism. It reminds us that the American nation was, and must remain, an aspirational project—an attempt to live together in tension, not to resolve it.
1Rich Lowry, The Case for Nationalism: How It Made Us Powerful, United, and Free (New York: Broadside Books, 2019), 14
Comments