Ozair Khan

Maslow has constructed a hierarchy of needs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

This can be simplified without essential reduction into two organic needs:

1. Survival (binary, yes or no)

2. Prosperity (no absolute limit in either quantity or quality)

You may wonder where ideology fits into this? An ideology makes promises which can be either true or false. I would speculate that all promises have an economic base. When a group advocates an ideology, I am certain that the economics of acting in accordance with the ideology will be emphasized. The individual acts for personal benefit even though it may be a spiritual one rather than physical.

I mention that the ideology may be either true or false. A group may specify benefits that accrue to the group which are entirely different from those it promises the individual, and belonging to the group may be necessary for the individual to benefit. In fact, the group may have no ultimate interest in the individual, only that the action of the individual increases the survival chances and prosperity of the group.

Groups always have individuals who benefit from the actions of its members. These group beneficiaries may have an agenda that is nothing like the agenda it promises its members in the form of an ideology. Of course, this higher level agenda may itself be based on a different ideology, dictated from a group above.

I hope this makes some sense?

Hi Ozair,

The first thing that comes to my mind is from the leadership-management world. Have you heard of 'Groupthink?' While this isn't directly related to ideology, it certainly has a documented history in business on how this phenomenon influences group thinking and action.

The other thought I had which might be helpful is from the domain of sociology. Social Constructivism deals with how individuals form beliefs/ideologies. Social Constructionism deals with the same process in groups. The classic text for this is Berger and Luckman's The Social Construction of Reality.

What you have said about the interplay and crossover between the individual who is part of the group is fair, and worthy of a brief mention, I think. However I would be more inclined to focus on any research that looks more at groups. (I'm hoping the 'groupthink' lead might help there). Although I do note it is group action (not group think) you are focussing on.

If you were to look at a tightly defined group like the Westborough Baptist Church, for example, and how their particular ideology leads to peculiar, specific actions, that might be a helpful case in point that proves relevant.

Good luck with your research. It sounds fascinating! If you'd be happy to send me the paper when done, I'd love to read it.

Kind Regards,

Andrew

A thought provoking question. You ask "how ideologies influence group action". But what is the origin of the ideology? If emergent, in the anthropological sense, the actions of individual contributions are most meaningful, if (pre)determined its impacts on individuals become so.

As a reader of Adorno's Negative Dialectics, I would suggest context (that which supports or gives rise to the concept), matters. Does the ideology represent the emergent consequence of a/the group's collective action? Or does the group form around an ideology? An organisation might (pre)determine an ideological position, which which it requires compliance from those recruited to its membership, or an ideology might emerge from the collective practices of a group.

Ideology, can be interpreted (from a negative dialectic perspective) as a drive to remove perceptions of negativity. It therefore acts to exclude the actions of some individuals. This may or may not be an issue to the study? Is a potential focus the ideology itself, its members, or those excluded? The answer to your question will lie in the context of your study and your own research question(s).

The way ideology determines the group dynamic is explained well by Enrique Pichon-Rivière's "Operative Group" theory. Most key texts are in Spanish, but there are clear explanations of the very useful set of concepts. The "natural leader" as a product of group interaction and "speaker" (vocero) for the group task and project gives a very easy to use framework to understand the way an ideology as part of a structured discourse is assimilated by individuals and how the group operates as a unit to define effective actions that derive in a social impact.

Ozair Khan ... further to my earlier response, I have just come across a related paper in my own studies (re Utopia) that may be of interest

Freeden, M., 2006. Ideology and political theory. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(1), pp.3-22. : https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310500395834

As a matter of coincidence, I submitted a paper yesterday on ideological thinking and individual groups in local Christian education, and this morning I had a Facebook conversation on conspirituality, and I made this point with the local audience:

"...much of this work is already being done by historians, like myself, across the country. Social media is only marginally credible, and that credibility lies in groups like the Australian Association for the Study of Religion, Evangelical Historian Association, Australia Aotearoa NZ Public History Network, and the Australian & New Zealand History of Education Society."

The point is that many of us are currently exploring links between ideology and individual/group action.

My contribution is understanding ideology as horizon worldviews. See https://drnevillebuch.com/synopsis-for-book-project-horizon-worldviews-the-makings-of-a-broad-society-in-queensland-1911-2001-a-philosophic-history/

The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer either change in society, or adherence to a set of ideals where conformity already exists, through a normative thought process. Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Book%3A_Sociology_(Boundless)/04%3A_The_Role_of_Socialization/4.05%3A__Agents_of_Socialization/4.5K%3A_Ideology

Ultimately, ideology determines how we make sense of things. It provides an ordered view of the world, our place in it, and our relationship to others. As such, it is deeply important to the human experience, and typically something that people cling to and defend, whether or not they are conscious of doing so https://www.thoughtco.com/ideology-definition-3026356

Hello Khan

Have a look at this paper.

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/5/1/21/pdf

I would recommend Durkheim and to answer this question, think about A. Gitler, as an example. Although his ideology was in many concepts wrong, even utopic, it has influenced many people and politic leaders. Also , the idea of Russian revolution in 1917, for it people would die or kill, destroy and create, suffer and exist. Veresaev has explained all this moments in his novels.

Actually, people tend to listen to what they want to hear but not always do what they want. The ideology, in fact , may represent a spirit and a meaning of life.

I would look into group think if nothing else.

Hi, have you explored the literature on social imaginaries? Some leads: Charles Taylor, Cornelius Castoriadis, Paul Ricoeur.

All three are important but Ricoeur specifically wrote on ideology. See 'Lectures on Ideology and Utopia' by Ricoeur. My masters thesis was concerned with creative action theories within the social imaginaries field. You might find it interesting.

Hi, there's an interesting paper for ideology in management studies that may also provide another perspective to your question Please refer to "Ideology in Management Studies - Seeck - 2020 - International Journal of Management Reviews - Wiley Online Library" for more information. The URL is Article Ideology in Management Studies

I want to thank all of you for your insightful answers!

Also I think more and more so, research has begun to look at ideology as not just an individual-level orientation, but as extrapolating this to the small group, and then to larger groups. For example, there’s research on how firm ideology affects corporate outcomes, such as CSR, M&As, etc. See https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/smj.2550 and https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0170840621989006 for some examples.

Is an interesting area of research. Individual ideology matters actually, but you should also be mindful that culture which is generally for a group of people actually influence individual thinking or ideologically formation. So you need to look at larger level beyond individual. However you can look at social formation of 'SELF' through socialization process

A small distinction I would like to add. World view versus ideology. World view is developed independently from experience and others. Ideology is a packaged world view that is installed in a population.

Kurt Lewin's The Dynamics of Group Action is still valid.

Also see Social Movements: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/social-movements/

Teun A. van Dijk's book: Ideology (1998) - published by Sage

Or, more up to date, Gary Alan Fine, The Hinge (2021). Instead of looking only at macro-level structures (political movements, social institutions, etc.) or micro-level (individual), we should consider the meso-level for the development of civic cultures that create interaction order (how behavior is stabilized, given a set of local norms and expectations), group culture, circuits of action (the routinization of behavior patterns), and tiny publics (those communities in which belonging leads to participation in civil society). In these tiny publics convictions are shared and ideologies are born.