The Nature of Political Theory

72 The Nature of Political Theory

of interpretation. An ideology is therefore viewed as human ‘thought-behaviour’
embodied in ordinary spoken and written language. Consequently, ideologies are
defined as ‘those systems of political thinking, loose or rigid, deliberate or unin-
tended, through which individuals and groups construct an understanding of the
political world they, or those who preoccupy their thoughts, inhabit, and then act on
that understanding’ (Freeden 1996: 3 and 125). They are political maps for navigation
in the political realm containing core, adjacent, and peripheral conceptual elements.
For Freeden this ‘thought-behaviour invariably includes, but is not identical with
the reflections and conjectures of political philosophers’ (Freeden 1996: 2). What then
is the relation of political philosophy and ideology? Freeden essentially sees political
theory as a capacious category containing political philosophy and ideology as sub-
categories. He is basically trying to recapture the importance of ideological analysis
for political theory. He thus separates out the history of political theory, political
philosophy, and ideology. The easiest way of looking at the relation of these terms
is to articulate, briefly, Freeden’s view of the advantages of morphological study of
ideology. Itcombinesadiachronicapproach(whichtracesineffectthehistoricaldevel-
opment of language and records the various changes), with asynchronicapproach
(which examines language as it actually is at a point in time with no reference to
historical argument). Morphology balances both dimensions, superimposing a ‘dia-
chronic on synchronic analysis and multiple synchrony on the examination of a
single system’. (Freeden 1996: 5). This provides a handle for understanding his view
of political philosophy and the history of political theory. Political philosophy has ten-
ded (to date) to be overly focused on the synchronic dimension, whereas the history
of political theory has been predominantly diachronic. Ideology, among other things,
balances both dimensions.
One major problem for Freeden is that Anglo-American political philosophy, in
the twentieth century, has quite definitely tried to open up a chasm between itself
and political ideology. This is thenegative segregationissue discussed above. Philo-
sophy is characterized as wholly synchronic, reflective, self-critical, whereas ideology
is caricatured as crude, unreflective, and irrational. Freeden takes the primary
functions of political philosophy as justifying, clarifying the consistency, truth and
logicality of political theories, and evaluating ethical prescriptions. However, this role
should not be performed to the exclusion of ideological study. Political philosophy
and ideology arenotmutually exclusive. Both are forms of political thinking shaped
from political concepts and their interrelationships. But they are not synonymous
and should be segregated positively (see Freeden 1996: 42). The claim that the only
function of political theory is correct or truthful conceptual usage,quasynchronic
analysis, is seen by Freeden as simply wrong headed. He is also keen to stress the his-
torical and sociological realities within which political ideas are constructed. Yet, he
also moves away from a great thinker’s approach. The real world of political action and
‘thought behaviour’ does not often bear much relation to the canon of great thinkers,
except at several removes. Overall, Freeden puts in a balanced plea for theoretical
ecumenism. No dimension of political theory should claim dominance. There should
be ‘mutual fertilization’ and tolerance (Freeden 1996: 110).