In this 2019 book, Christopher Adair-Toteff writes a chapter on the late sociologist Edward Shils and his views on ideology:
* Shils insisted that ideologies came about in the nineteen and twentieth centuries, and he offers several reasons for this. First, politics was traditionally the province of the few; most people did not have the leisure to participate nor had the desire to do so. Furthermore, the political struggles of the Greeks and the Romans were over interests and not ideologies (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 48–9). However, the Reformation and its belief in the individual’s right to freedom of conscience helped foster independence of thought. Furthermore, the invention of the printing press ensured that more people could be exposed to more ideas (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 49). Finally, the withering away of tradition and the loss of influence of religion meant that the two pillars of support that people relied on for support in the difficult struggles of life were weakened. Accordingly, the individuals ‘who find life as it is lived too hard’ are easily tempted by ideology (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 54). As Shils pointed out, ideology is a substitute for religion and its adherents have a type of faith ([1958b] 1972a: 42–3). Adherents of an ideology are convinced that they, and they alone, ‘have the truth about the right ordering of life’ (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 42). They see the world as corrupt and they regard it as being divided into the forces of good and the forces of evil. The current order is unjust and the authorities are diabolical in nature, thus there can be no compromise, political or otherwise (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 43, 51). It is an ‘us against them’ mentality; ideological politics is the politics of friend against foe, clearly referring to Carl Schmitt’s famous distinction in Der Begriff des Politischen (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 44). But, another reason for the rise in ideology was the rise of the intellectuals. They come in different forms with different inclinations; Shils singles out a number of different types. One is the adherent to ‘scientism’ who mistrusts tradition (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 56). A second type is the Romantic who rejects the current order because it is impure and riddled with compromises (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 57). Third is the populist who disregards the knowledge of the elites and believes in the wisdom of the lower classes (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 58). These are the intellectuals who are drawn to ideology. However, Shils is convinced that there is an alternative to ideology and that is his notion of civility. As he puts it here, it is the ‘virtue of the citizen’ who believes in the common good ([1958b] 1972a: 60). Civil society is in many ways the opposite of ideology; whereas the adherent to ideology rejects tradition, order, authority, and embraces its opposites. In contrast, the member of civil society is someone who is reasonable, responsible, and prudent and is most agreeable to compromise (Shils, [1958b] 1972a: 57). Shils admits that the development of civil society will take time and effort and he allows that there is some inclination towards ideology because it is part of human society. Nonetheless, he is convinced that modernity, which gave rise to ideology, will provide much of the impetus for its decline.
* Shils did not believe that humans could ever rid themselves of the desire for ideologies; their shorthand means for simplistic thinking are too appealing. Nonetheless, he thought their influence was pernicious and he opposed them to his notion of ‘civility’ (Shils, 2006a: 92). He also seemed to believe that they lulled individuals into thinking that they belonged to some type of community. Again, he contrasted that with his concept of civility.
