Abstract

The word "ideology" is one of the most elusive, ambiguous, and equivocal terms in modern literature. Since it was Karl Marx who adapted and popularized this term, without troubling to define or articulate it, the problem of "ideology" can be largely attributed to his usage. The clarification and definition of his casual and careless treatment of this troublesome concept is, therefore, a worthy and difficult enterprise. ;Since "ideology" is a compound term, the first step to define it is to analyze its parts, "idea" and "logos." Although this preliminary analysis seems to be the most obvious starting point toward the clarification and definition of Marx's concept of "ideology," no one, to my knowledge, has done this before. In regards to "idea" there are, in fact, several passages in Marx's writing which show the linguistic roots of his "ideology" as a criticism of philosophic idealism and political conservatism. Regarding the "logos" of "ideology" I suggest a different meaning: not the "study of" but "expression of." After one reunites "idea" and "logos" and defines "ideology" in its entirety, the term's pejorative and political connotations come into light. ;Consequently, since Marx's "ideology" is a pejorative conception, it should be contrasted with what he considered to represent "truth," i.e. "science." That is because to claim that certain things are false would demand an explanation as to what is true. ;The most important components of his "science," however, are the "materialist conception" and "praxis," which are basically incompatible with each other. Then the question becomes whether or not this incompatibility would undermine our definition of "ideology." ;My answer is that it does not. But even if it did, we should choose the "materialist conception" at the expense of laying aside "praxis." I contend that since all purposeful "acts" are basically subjective, and since some "ideologists" are "practitioners" of the ruling class, "praxis" is not as effective to oppose the pejorative definition of "ideology" as the "materialist conception." The latter, on the other hand, candidly opposes "subjectivity" and "illusion," the elements so inherent in "ideology."