Most social scientists agree on the the crucial role of the ideological factor in Soviet history. It does not mean however that the phenomenon of Soviet ideology has been investigated and understood, by either western or Soviet sociologists.
An ideology may be evaluated in either positive or negative terms. In positive terms an ideology may be conceived as the expression of the world view of a class. In this sense one can talk of `ideologies' in the plural, as the opinions, theories and attitudes formed within a class in order to defend and promote its interests. On the other hand, ideology may be conceived in eminently negative and critical terms as a form of false consciousness or deception in society which somehow distorts men's understanding of social reality (see, for example, Larrain 1986).
Until recently, most discussions of ideology in the Soviet Union concentrated on the role of Marxist-Leninism, which was considered in many ways as the only true ideology. It was a matter of fact that its role was assumed to be positive and constructive. This position itself, of course, was not seen as ideological. However, Western sovietologists have usually tried to show that Soviet ideology is not actually based on the world view of the working class. Ideology in this context is often seen negatively as propaganda. Given these simplistic assumptions, complex sociological questions are not posed, and it is difficult to apply theoretical ideas to the Soviet reality and the questions `what is ideology?', `what are its functions?', `what are the mechanisms of its functioning?' and so forth.
The purpose of my research is to develop an approach through which these questions can be answered, and to consider the specifics of Soviet ideology through its influence on individuals. Here I suggest some basic theoretical principles of this approach.
As it was shown above there is no theoretical agreement about the definition of the term `ideology' in contemporary sociology.1 I shall consider ideology from a critical viewpoint as a system of consciousness which is necessary for the functioning of the society, and as those complexes of ideas which direct activity towards the maintenance of the existing order. In this sense ideology can be considered on different levels.
1. The basic function of ideology seems to be to produce and reproduce modes of thought of particular societies. To grasp such patterns of thought and conduct we have to understand the interaction between the society and individuals, who are moulded by the structure but who also take part in its construction, reacting to the given social structure, maintaining it, modifying it or even reshaping it.
The first direction of this interplay, how do structures form the individuals, their thinking, and their specific features, can be seen in the imposition of interpretations, stereotyped meanings and terms (Berger and Luckmann 1984: 173).
Mannheim argues that every individual is in a twofold sense predetermined by the fact of growing up in a society: on the one hand the individual arrives in a ready-made situation, and on the other finds in that situation predetermined patterns of thought and conduct (Mannheim 1936: 2-3). Strictly speaking it is incorrect to say that the single individual `thinks'. Rather it is more correct to insist that he participates in `thinking further' what other men have thought before him. It is true that only the individual is capable of thinking. But actually he speaks the language of his group, he thinks in the manner in which his group thinks, and he uses the meanings they use.2 Similarly, Wright Mills suggested that men are aware of much more than they have personally experienced. Moreover, their own experience is always indirect. Everyone lives in a world of meanings received from others. In their everyday life they do not experience a world of solid facts; their experience itself is selected by stereotyped meanings and shaped by ready-made interpretations. These interpretations decisively influence such consciousness as men have of their existence. They provide the clues to what men see, how they respond to it, how they feel about it, and how they respond to these feelings.
Mills supposes that it is `cultural apparatus' that forms these interpretations. The cultural apparatus consists of an elaborate set of institutions of the society: of schools and theatres, newspapers, museums, radio, magazines and so on. Inside this apparatus, standing between men and events, are the images, meanings, slogans that define the worlds in which men live. Taken as a whole, the cultural apparatus is the lens of mankind through which men see; the medium by which they report what they see (C. Wright Mills 1963). This seems to be the basis of understanding of ideology and should be taken into account.
2. At the next stage of analysis, one should estimate to what extent each society tends to offer a selective, closed world-view, and thus to what extent the second direction of feedback or interaction mentioned above (i.e. the extent of the agency of individuals) is realised.
For a long period of Soviet history the range of competing ideas and images was limited, the permitted limits of which were seldom known. By trial and error they could be found out but attempts to do so were judged officially, sometimes bloodily. Of course, any establishment of culture means the establishment of definitions of reality, values and tastes. But in the Soviet case these definitions were subject to official management and, if needed, were backed up by coercion. Debates were limited. Only certain views were allowed. And more than that, the terms of debate, the terms in which the world may be seen \*- these terms were determined, inculcated, enforced. But although it is widely assumed that indoctrination and the manipulation of mass consciousness took place in Soviet society, the mechanisms of these processes are seldom discussed.
In a way, Brzezinski notes the necessity of specific features of the masses while writing that the "regime could endure as long as the majority of the population remained politically neutral and passive" (Brzezinski 1967: 66). He takes as an epigraph the phrase of Andre Gide: "If the mind is obligated to obey the word of command, it can at any rate feel that it is not free. But if it has been so manipulated beforehand that it obeys without even waiting for the word of command, it loses even the consciousness of enslavement" (ibid: 65). However, he is not concerned with the channels of such manipulation and their influence on both individuals and the masses.
Most of the works of Brzezinski, Harper, Fainsod, Hazard, Friedrich and other specialists in Soviet studies deal with Soviet society as totalitarian, i.e. characterised by (1) an official ideology, (2) a single mass party, (3) a technologically conditioned near complete monopoly of all means of effective armed combat and effective mass communication, (4) a system of terroristic police control (ibid: 46). This definition does not allow for possible changes and accordingly these works have no analysis of the participation of the individual in, and his influence on, society, even though it is obvious that the idea of the Soviet-type totalitarianism has failed and individual participation seems to be especially important, being one of the reasons for recent changes in the Soviet Union.
3. The third level of analysis of ideology is to consider the very mechanisms of influence, which can be traced in all the institutions of society. Being the fundamental means for conserving the social order, the institutions of society are the channels through which ideology is inculcated, conserved and transmitted. The institution of language as it has been mentioned above is considered to be basic because of its universality, its relationship with the unconscious, and the part it plays in the crucial role of fulfilling these functions.
The institutions connected with the process of socialisation are also of great importance: the family and educational institutions which are responsible for the formation of personal features specific for the given society. Some of these institutions and those which are traditionally considered as ideological, i.e. connected with propaganda, mass media, politics, will be analysed from the standpoint of their influence on individuals.
Labour education includes both familiarising youth with technology and inculcating appropriate attitudes towards work. It is common also for secondary school pupils to give unpaid labour to local factories and construction sites or, in rural areas, to collective farms. Moral education deals with the transmission of general moral values as well as desired attitudes towards such things as the Soviet motherland, military service, socialist property or the threat posed by world imperialism (Barghoorn and Remington 1989: 155). But a more essential feature, to my mind, of the Soviet morality (and accordingly of the moral education) is its duality. Declaring the elements of humanism, collectivism, internationalism, patriotism and atheism, as well as values associated with a communist attitude towards labour, it supposes in reality that ordinary citizens must be obedient to their ruler's demands and, moreover, display both enthusiasm and initiative in complying with their leader's instructions. But for individuals this means passivity.
Up to recent times the basically manipulative conception of education was used as "the definite, the purposeful and systematic influencing of the mind of the person being educated in order to imbue him with the qualities desired by the educator" (Hazard 1964: 39). In addition, the methods of selection and training, the methods of instilling common schemes of thought, perception, appreciation and action, and the means of inculcation should be analysed. By this I mean the politicised and ideologicalised, rather than intellectual, character of knowledge, and the encouragement of unanimity and conformity by giving credit both for knowledge and behaviour (i.e. by rewarding contributions to the group rather than individual results in learning).
I believe that the separation of these three levels of analysis, taking into account the major institutions of Soviet society, will provide an understanding of Soviet ideology as a system and allow us to monitor and regulate change in the Soviet Union. This forms the basis of work now in progress.