Concept of time in the genesis of political ideology

Abstract

The «deideologization» of modern politics can be regarded as a symptom of a crisis not of politics but rather of a traditional understanding of politics. The modern political class uses various ideological constructions as an instrument, which apparently are not politicized, but in essence they quite successfully solve the tasks of political management of the public consciousness. In modern scientific discourse, there is a return to the broad context of the use of the notion of «ideology», «ideologeme». Primarily, this concerns the semiotic interpretation of the ideology of U. Eco, R. Bart, J. Kristeva. The dichotomy of falsity — the truth of ideological consciousnesspassesthroughthe wholehistory of the study of the problem. For example, S. Zizek, who continued the Lacanian discourse of the unconscious, characterizes ideology as a «social symptom», meaning fantasm, which, being in part non-knowledge, not only distorts reality, but also structures it. The task of the article is to examine, in the context of a broad understanding of ideology and taking into account the significance of social unconsciousness in it: 1) the constructiveness of the influence of social time on the genesis and constitution of political ideology; 2) the chronotopical aspect of the political management of public consciousness under the conditions of mental transformations in the postmodern era. The following logical reconstruction of the genesis of political ideology is proposed: 1) samplingof primitive thinking and autonomization of myth from ritual; 2) teleological turn of thinking during the «axial revolution»; 3) the sacralization of the «future» in Christianity and 4) the legitimization of personal interest by Protestantism. It is argued that the moment when sacredly understood interest is assimilated by political practice and used as a basis for legitimizing political goals («bright future») is the moment of birth of the actual political ideology. In parallel with the sacralization and political assimilation of interest, the process of scientizing thought took place. The «sacralization» of the future, only liberated from the religious shell, is consistent with the enlightened ideology of progress. Scientific rationalization of thinking gradually devalues Christianity, and the modernized «chronos» of progress supersedes the «topos» of the «City of God.» The idea is that the alliance «power-technology-communication» that was formed in the postmodern epoch designated a mental turn, the marking of which was the reduction of the «past — present — future» concept to the «present» concept. In our opinion, in postmodern discourse,itis not so much a «deideologization» of consciousness as its «de-logization» Intertextuality, the deconstruction of the text, the discursive pluralism of postmodern discourse became demanded precisely because of the crisis of the «Logos» as a «supporting structure» of social consciousness. According to S. S. Averintsev, «we live in an era when all the words are spoken.» Paraphrasing the author, let’s say: we live in an era when all the words are spoken, but have not yet figured out how to join in the meaning.