The debate
The debate
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13569310600700727
复制
发表时间：
2006-06
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
M. Freeden
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Freeden
1.意识形态在多大程度上描绘了一种共识结构，反映了一种可能采用宪法形式的文化群体？与此相反，必须将意识形态作为长期冲突的产物加以研究，因为它提供了越来越多的观点，所有这些观点都可能受到质疑。与此相关的问题是，宪法等特定的制度安排是否提供了意识形态的凝聚力，并将民主意识形态与革命意识形态区分开来。事实上，民主文化的存在--对意识形态范围的一种限制--本身就可能是多种意识形态出现的意识形态和宪法环境。2.意识形态的边界是由参与者或观察者决定的吗？这些边界又是如何成为话语斗争的产物，以合法或非法某些想法配置或想法路径？3.意识形态分析和概念分析之间有什么重叠之处？看待这个问题的一种方式是，将“概念”描述为探索概念之间的概念斗争，这些概念建立了不同的意义语义场，意识形态就是从这些语义场中产生的。4.一种特定意识形态占据优势地位，并依赖于对语言的挪用的关键点，其原因何在？5.意识形态是否需要大众诉求？它们与煽动有什么关系？6.政府和议会等机构在传播意识形态方面的相对权重是多少，传播意识形态的方法在形成意识形态方面有多重要？7.在解释意识形态的演变时，路径依赖是一个有用的概念，还是一个过于目的论的方法，一个削弱了能动性和想象力的作用的方法？8.危机在意识形态的形成中是否有特殊的作用，因为对未来的恐惧是寻求新解决方案的催化剂？9.意识形态主要是与前意识形态状况相关的大规模意识变化的产物，还是在文化和意识形态的组合中更普遍地可辨别？Journal of Political Ideologies（June 2006），11（2），183-184
1. What is the extent to which ideologies delineate a consensual structure, reflecting a cultural grouping that may adopt constitutional forms? As against that, ideologies have to be investigated as the products of conflict over time, offering an increasing plurality of viewpoints, all of which may be contested. Connected to that was the question whether particular institutional arrangements, such as constitutions, offer ideological cohesion and delimit democratic ideologies from revolutionary ones. Indeed, the existence of a democratic culture—a constraint on ideological ranges—could itself be the ideational and constitutional environment in which a multiplicity of ideologies emerged. 2. Were the boundaries of an ideology determined by participants or observers, and how were those boundaries the products of discursive struggles to legitimate or outlaw certain idea configurations or idea paths? 3. What was the overlap between ideology analysis and Begriffsgeschichte? One way of looking at that was to present Begriffsgeschichte as exploring the conceptual struggle among concepts that built up different semantic fields of meaning from which ideologies emerged. 4. What were the reasons for the ascendancy of a particular ideology and its dependence on crucial points of appropriation of language? 5. Did ideologies require mass appeal and how did they relate to demagoguery? 6. What was the relative weight of institutions such as governments and parliaments in disseminating ideologies, and how important was the method of communicating an ideology in shaping it? 7. Was path dependence a useful notion in explaining the evolution of ideologies or was that too teleological an approach and one that diminished the role of agency and imagination? 8. Do crises have a special role in the formation of ideologies, because fear concerning the future is a catalyst in searching for new solutions? 9. Are ideologies mainly the product of large scale conscious change in relation to pre-ideological situations or are they discernible more generally in cultural and ideational combinations? Journal of Political Ideologies (June 2006), 11(2), 183–184