Crisis of ideology in political discourse

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Crisis of ideology in political discourse

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine

Summary

ideological crisis politics

The article analyzes the geopolitical situation at the end of the twentieth century associated with the problem of the end of history and ideology. It is noted that modern society is defined as "post-ideological", in which ideas and ideas have ceased to have significant significance in the political space. There is a crisis of traditional political ideologies in politics. It is noted that the foundation of the ideological crisis is the presence of a fragmented society, the obviousness of scepticism in ideological politics, cynicism and the complete lack of social trust in the "political establishment", the use of populist methods in politics.

Keywords: ideology, fragmented society, scepticism, cynicism, populism.

Introduction

Geopolitical situation at the end of the twentieth century was characterized by the beginning of a new post-Soviet era, which partly meant the end of history and ideology. The rise of the global economy offset the ideological battles between free-market capitalism, Soviet-style planned economies, and a variety of "third ways" that came in and out of fashion. Social evolution was supposed to have reached its peak; ideology has ceased to be a necessary element in arousing interest in change. As the American sociologist D.Bell noted in his book "The End of Ideology", ideas in the society of the post-ideological era are no longer "social levers" - ideology no longer motivates and mobilizes. The American researcher connects this phenomenon with the general satisfaction that prevailed in society, noting that "it is difficult to imagine a better future": due to the high overall satiety (achieved by significant production growth rates and perceived as satisfaction with goods and services), people are so satisfied with their lives that they have the intention to constantly experience the infinite present. After World War II, rising living standards led to contentment among the citizens of Western societies. An ideology that offers a brighter future at the expense of the present turns out to be obsolete because a better future is unimaginable. "The future is now!" - such a universal present is one of the key features of the postmodern state and is based on a simplified temporality in which the future is no different from the present. As a result, what ideology relies on - the distance between reality and the future - has disappeared. According to D.Bell, due to the elimination of geopolitical biopolarity and the triumphant march of democracy and liberalism, ideologies have lost the ability to motivate people. Such an end of history, or postmodernity, means that political ideas have lost their content, false consciousness has been recognized as non-existent, ideology has become obsolete, and criticism of ideology is unnecessary. The "epoch of postideology" has come.

The purpose of this study is a theoretical analysis of the crisis of ideology in political discourse, focusing on the factors that influenced the formation of a post- ideological society.

Analysis of recent research and publications. The problem of the ideological crisis is consecrated in a number of foreign studies by D.Bell, J.Schwartzmantel, S.Groning, P.Sloterdijk, S.Zizek, E.Shils, R.Aron and in domestic publications by L.Gubersky, V.Korableva, V.Kremen, V.Dodonova, M.Mikhalchenko,

V.Andrushchenko, Z.Samchuk, S.Krymsky, I.Boychenko and is the subject of scientific discussions.

The methodological basis of the research to achieve the goal is theoretical methods: analysis, comparison, systemic, critical.

Presenting main material

Analysis of the current situation requires focusing on several important points. Increasingly, the crisis of traditional ideologies is called as a characteristic feature of modern society. In other words, the current society is defined as "post-ideological", that is, one in which all those notions and ideas that worried everyone - both politically active citizens and those whose interest in politics is practically minimal -have ceased to have any significance.

All traditional political ideologies have been called into question due to key aspects of the development of society. In other words, due to the current state of society, it has become inappropriate and even, to some extent, impossible to formulate general theories of society designed to analyse social reality and its changes. Among the characteristics of modern society, which directly relates to the problem of the crisis of ideologies, fragmentation stands out. A fragmented society is understood as a society in which the concept of the collective, namely political formations (as a class and a nation) have lost their significance for structuring political and social activity. In the context of a fragmented, individualized society that rejects any attempt to discuss large-scale questions about how it should be organized, the actualization of ideological thinking remains a formidable task. As a result, there is a decline in the attractiveness of traditional ideologies or even the threat of destroying the possibility of traditional ideological politics. In other words, high fragmentation of society is capable of destroying the social foundations of political ideologization of thinking and activity. The situation in modern society is such that the desire to unite and create a better society or one on the way to this better, of course, has not yet lost its strength, but it is very difficult to achieve this in conditions of fragmentation.

With the dynamic development of capitalism and because consumer values have become much more important, people have become less eager for unity and the concept of common citizenship, and the values of solidarity are disappearing under the influence of a "culture of contentment".

Another point that allows us to get closer to understanding the ideological crisis is related to the concept of scepticism. The British political scientist J.Schwartzmantel states that scepticism is caused by those perversions that reigned in the ideological politics of the twentieth century and in some cases contained the desire to destroy all ideological differences and forcibly include everything in the

"Procrustean bed" (a harsh, forcibly implemented standard, often devoid of practical content) of one large-scale political sphere: class politics is "above all", the nation is the highest political community, the main goal is to limit the role of the state - all these are examples of such a position. Accordingly, the significant heterogeneity of modern society, as well as knowledge about the dangers of totalitarian perversions of politics, as a result, provoked a negative reaction to ideological politics.

Another aspect of the ideological crisis is "cynicism", which is associated with mistrust, doubt and scepticism. In most studies, cynicism is defined as a symptom of a lack of social trust: individuals believe or believe that others are evil and dishonorable. Cynicism - as a special form of mistrust undermines the community, civic obligations.

Modern cynicism is a product of mass culture, and is characterized by the fact that individuals, accepting political messages, ideas, values, norms, tend to distrust rather than trust. In other words, the public is sceptical about what politicians say, they do not believe in ideological truths.

It was cynicism that became one of the newest features of post-ideological society. If by ideology we understand a set of ideas that acquire material force, then to be cynical means to recognize the existence of ideology, but not to submit to its material influence. A cynical attitude is attractive because it creates a sense of security and insubordination to the overwhelming power of ideology, while, however, its existence is undeniably recognized. The subjects of the post-ideological era, notes the German thinker S.Groning, tend to give everything some insignificance in order to avoid obligations to society, control over which is carried out with the help of the rhetoric of identity micropolitics, which draws attention to the endless injustice of the world. Cynicism, manifested in irony and ironic withdrawal, justifies the withdrawal from political activity.

It should be noted that in his work the German philosopher P.Sloterdijk "Criticism of the Cynic Reason" singles out cynicism as a special form of "false consciousness", believing that it was cynicism that has become a true symbol of modernity, noting that "our modernity is no longer capable of flying" [1]. The philosopher suggests that cynicism may be an explanation for why ideology fails to be used in the modern world. Cynicism, which is sometimes considered a special feature of "Generation X", turns out to be a kind of distortion of false consciousness. Another modern thinker, the Slovenian culturologist S.Zizek, in his work "The Sublime Object of Ideology", writes that cynicism is a false consciousness. The thinker argues that the Marxist definition of ideology is hardly applicable in the modern social world. Accordingly, he defines one of the goals of his work as "a new understanding of ideology", "grabbing" modern phenomena of ideology (cynicism, "totalitarianism", the instability of democracy) without falling victim to certain kinds of "postmodernist" traps (for example, the illusion that we are in "post-ideological" conditions)" [2].

Classical ideologies united citizens, streamlined the political struggle, made it meaningful, and encouraged people to become politically active. Political ideals inspired and mobilized people to transform the real world. Without an ideology, citizens lack the belief that life can be changed for the better. The ever-increasing "portion" of cynicism repels citizens from participating in political activities, there is a "political demobilization" of citizens.

In modern society, the focus is on the means of maintaining group identity, and this, in turn, can threaten to lose the meaning of taking an active part in the life of the whole society and in those large-scale projects that represent political ideologies. Accordingly, this can also be counted among those moments that indicate the transition to a "post-ideological society".

The ideological crisis is based on the absence of a theoretical foundation for the legitimization of the modern political regime. This is indicated by the symptoms of populism, which are increasingly used as a characteristic of contemporary politics.

The concept of populism has become widespread in the conditions of the modern mass information and post-industrial society. Some modern researchers tend to define it even as a fragmentary ideology, which "being limited by the logic of its own use, nevertheless forms a certain set of ideas that interact with the mental structures of traditional "holistic" ideologies" [3].

Populism has a reputation as a political phenomenon hostile to any theorizing. But, despite this, it is advisable to consider it, since it allows a deeper understanding of the current situation that has developed in the field of ideological politics.

As you know, the very concept of "populism" is very connected with the people "with a claim to an authentic reflection and presentation of the interests of the "people", as well as an appeal to the unconditional normativity of its "will" as a mandatory basis for making political decisions" [3]. But populists revel too much in the idea of "the people" to create a sustainable ideological tradition. The plasticity of the concept of "people" helps populist politicians to adapt to changing political conditions. However, its excessive abstractness hinders the development of populism as an independent ideology. Any meaningful ideology must be able to translate its conceptual constructions into the language of the current political context. The appeal to the people in general, characteristic of populism, answers the question: who, what and how will receive as a result of the adoption of certain political decisions? - is basically impossible. Being quite recognizable by its rhetorical constructions, populism does not have "a mechanism for transforming its own ideological principles into points of a specific political project" [3]. Populism as such insists only that the people should get what they want, when they want it, despite the fact that "others" want something else.

Of course, ideologies do not have to be applied in nature, but in order to successfully exist and turn into a stable political tradition, they need to cope well with the dialectical interaction of practical experience and theoretical understanding. However, the populists never even tried to connect theory with practice. In practice, populism tends to "parasite" on more advanced complex ideologies. And we are not talking here about the reproduction of other people's political recipes - in a situation where the set of answers to the key questions of our time is rather limited, there is nothing unique in such reproduction. The fact is that populism does not borrow the positions of other ideologies, but "adds" itself to other ideological concepts. In this context, populism can be likened to a virus that is so primitive that it does not have its own cellular structure, but, due to its primitiveness, is able to take root in a foreign cellular environment.

The populist does not talk about the program, he acts without assuming political responsibility, he demands the direct trust of citizens in himself. The populist

appeals to emotions and thus tries to manipulate the choice of citizens beyond the discussion of plans and programs of common goals. The more actively politics resorts to populist methods, the more acutely there is a lack of a political alternative, which, as a result, leads to a decrease in the struggle of ideas and visions among politicians and political organizations. It is precisely because of this that communication between a politician and a citizen is replaced by political advertising, political shows. Political information of this nature is sent by citizens to the level of background noise, while they prefer information that causes important emotional impulses. Political and ideological information remains "punished", it is withdrawn from public communication, giving way to exclusively suggestive and spectacular messages. In addition, since the political system attracts only "minimal conscious attention", politicians have every opportunity to present their policies in fairly general categories of freedom, justice, equality, effective economic development, social security, the fight against crime and corruption, etc. It also disorientates citizens, deprives them of motivation. As a result, citizens as active subjects of political life are transformed into the public, which is only a passive participant or even become like slaves and foreigners in the polis democracy aneu logou (mute), losing the ability to speak and communicate.

The inability to exist as an independent complex ideology forces populism to use not only specific developments, but also the conceptual core of other ideologies. Its growing presence in modern politics allows us to talk about the symptoms of the crisis of ideologies in political discourse.

Conclusion

Thus, modernity demonstrates the content characteristics of the ideological crisis. At the same time, the considered arguments do not refute the necessity of ideology in the political space. As many modern researchers rightly point out, the concept of ideology remains a useful and important concept in the intellectual vocabulary of social and political analysis, one of the main issues of modern political practice.

References

[1] Слотердайк, П. (2009). Критика цинического разума (А. Перцева, пер. с нем.). Екатеринбург: У-Фактория, Москва: АСТ.Москва.

[2] Жижек С. (1999). Возвышенный объект идеологии. Извлечено из http://yanko.lib.ru/ booksZphilosophZjijek-vozv_o_ideologii-8l.pdf.

[3] Мусихин, Г.И. (2009). Популизм: структурная характеристика политики или «ущербная идеология?» Полития, 4 (55), 40-53.

Размещено на Allbest.ru