Beberapa idea asas yang menyokong pandangan awal saya kenapa agama (semua agama, bukan hanya Islam) itu 'ideologi' dan kenapa pula beberapa mazhab berfikir dalam bidang filsafat, sains tulen dan sains sosial, serta teori-teori seni, budaya dan sastera boleh dianggap bersifat 'ideologi'.
Jadi, tidaklah tepat/benar untuk melihat persoalan ideologi ini sebagai persoalan idea-idea atau cabang berfikir tentang politik, kekuasaan, kenegaraan dan ekonomi semata-mata.
(1) the unifying system of beliefs, attitudes, and values expressed in the superstructure of a culture. The body of thought and ideas that guides a society and perpetuates the status quo of the bourgeoisie.
(2) Literally the study of ideas, the collective knowledge, understandings, opinions, values, preconceptions, experiences and/or memories that informs a culture and its individual people. Ideology is often aligned with political beliefs, but is much broader than that, relating to any social or cultural beliefs, and these beliefs are revealed in literary or other texts.
(3) "Ideology" means to favor one point of view above all others and to adhere to this point of view. The ideologue sees the world from a single point of view, can thus "explain" it and attempt to "change" it.
(4) A comprehensive world view pertaining to formal and informal thought, philosophy, and cultural presuppositions usually understood as associated with specific positions within political, social, and economic hierarchies. Many schools of modern literary criticism contend that the ideological context of both reader and author always affects the meanings assigned to or encoded in the work.
Sejarah asas kata 'ideology':
Destutt de Tracy was born in Paris on July 20, 1754 and died in Paris on March 10, 1836. He was a philosophe, one of the founders in the 1790s of the classical liberal republican group known as the Idéologues (which included Cabanis, Condorcet, Constant, Daunou, Say, Madame de Staël), a politician under several regimes spanning the Revolution and the Restoration, and an influential author.
When the Estates General were called to meet in 1789 he, although a member of an aristocratic family which had been ennobled twice (hence his name), joined the Third Estate and renounced his title. He was later elected to the Constituent Assembly and served in the army in 1792 under the Marquis de Lafayette.
During the Terror he was imprisoned and only escaped execution because Robespierre beat him to the scaffold. It was during his period of imprisonment that he read the works of Condillac and Locke and began working on his theory of idéologie.
He was made a member of the Institut National in 1796 (he was part of the Section of the Analysis of Sensations and Ideas in the Class of Moral and Political Sciences, which was later suppressed by Napoleon in 1803) and later appointed to the French Academy (1808). During the Directory Tracy was active in educational reform, especially in creating a national system of education. His membership of the Senate during the Consulate and Empire gave him many opportunities to express his "ideological" opposition to Napoleon's illiberal regime, which culminated in 1814 with Tracy's call for the removal of the Emperor.
Tracy coined the term "ideology" shortly after his appointment to the Institute National in 1796 to refer to his "science of ideas" which attempted to create a secure foundation for all the moral and political sciences by closely examining the sensations and the ideas about those sensations which arose in human beings as they interacted with their physical environment. His deductive methodology for the social sciences has much in common with the Austrian school of economics which emerged after 1870.
For Tracy, "Ideology" was a liberal social and economic philosophy which provided the basis for a strong defense of private property, individual liberty, the free market, and constitutional limits to the power of the state (preferably in a republican form modeled on that of the USA).
For Napoleon, "ideology" was a term of abuse which he directed against his liberal opponents in the Institut National and it was this negative sense of the term which Marx had in mind in his writings on Ideology (he called Tracy a "fischblütige Bourgeoisdoktrinär"—a fish-blooded bourgeois doctrinaire).
Perdebatan: Apakah ideologi itu idea-idea kumpulan dominan sahaja?
‘To study ideology,’ writes John B. Thompson, ‘… is to study the ways in which meaning (or signification) serves to sustain relations of domination.’
This is probably the single most widely accepted definition of ideology; and the process of legitimation would seem to involve at least six different strategies.
A dominant power may legitimate itself by  promoting beliefs and values congenial to it;  naturalizing and  universalizing such beliefs so as to render them self-evident and apparently inevitable;  denigrating ideas which might challenge it;  excluding rival forms of thought, perhaps by some unspoken but systematic logic; and  obscuring social reality in ways convenient to itself.
Such ‘mystification,’ as it is commonly known, frequently takes the form of masking or suppressing social conflicts, from which arises the conception of ideology as an imaginary resolution of real contradictions.
In any actual ideological formation, all six of these strategies are likely to interact in complex ways.
There are, however, at least two major difficulties with this otherwise persuasive definition of ideology. For one thing, not every body of belief which people commonly term ideological is associated with a dominant political power.
The political left, in particular, tends almost instinctively to think of such dominant modes when it considers the topic of ideology; but what then do we call the beliefs of the Levellers, Diggers, Narodniks and Suffragettes, which were certainly not the governing value systems of their day?
Are socialism and feminism ideologies, and if not why not? Are they non-ideological when in political opposition but ideological when they come to power?
If what the Diggers and Suffragettes believed is “ideological,’ as a good deal of common usage would suggest, then by no means all ideologies are oppressive and spuriously legitimating.
Indeed the right-wing political theorist Kenneth Minogue holds, astoundingly, that all ideologies are politically oppositional, sterile totalizing schemes as opposed to the ruling practical wisdom: ‘Ideologies can be specified in terms of a shared hostility to modernity: to liberalism in politics, individualism in moral practice, and the market in economics.’
On this view, supporters of socialism are ideological whereas defenders of capitalism are not. The extent to which one is prepared to use the term ideology of one’s own political views is a reliable index of the nature of one’s political ideology.
Generally speaking, conservatives like Minogue are nervous of the concept in their own case, since to dub their own beliefs ideological would be to risk turning them into objects of contestation.
Takrif umum yang lebih bebas dan longgar daripada persoalan kuasa dominan (yang juga makna kuasa baru muncul yang melawan dominasi puak kuat).
The political philosopher Martin Seliger argues for just such a formulation, defining ideology as ‘sets of ideas by which men [sic] posit, explain and justify ends and means of organised social action, and specifically political action, irrespective of whether such action aims to preserve, amend, uproot or rebuild a given social order.’
Ideology today is generally taken to mean not a science of ideas, but the ideas themselves, and moreover ideas of a particular kind. Ideologies are ideas whose purpose is not epistemic, but political. Thus an ideology exists to confirm a certain political viewpoint, serve the interests of certain people, or to perform a functional role in relation to social, economic, political and legal institutions. (Christine Sypnowich, 2001, 'Law and Ideology', Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Daniel Bell dubbed ideology ‘an action-oriented system of beliefs,’ and the fact that ideology is action-oriented indicates its role is not to render reality transparent, but to motivate people to do or not do certain things. Such a role may involve a process of justification that requires the obfuscation of reality.
Nonetheless, Bell and other liberal sociologists do not assume any particular relation between ideology and the status quo; some ideologies serve the status quo, others call for its reform or overthrow.
Beberapa pengkelasan 'ideologi' (menurut saya):