Theoretical Note
Series: Foundational Theories
Topic: Redefining the Ideological Axis
Author: K. Kamachi
Date: June 13, 2025
What Does “Strength of Ideology” Mean?
Rethinking Definition Between Belief and Fear
▶ Starting Point: A Provocative Question
A respected colleague once asked:
“Has America, after Trump’s reelection, become an authoritarian state like China?”
At first glance, this question might seem exaggerated. Yet it forced us to revisit one of the core concepts in our framework for analyzing states: the strength of ideology.
The concern behind the question is clear:
- The government now interferes with private enterprise
- Dissent is being suppressed, and state intentions dominate society
- Therefore, is the U.S. no longer the free, democratic country it once was?
While intuitive, this interpretation overlooks a deeper distinction—one that compels us to reconsider how we define the strength of ideology itself.
▶ Background: What We Meant by “Strength of Ideology” (Y-Axis)
Until now, we had used “strength of ideology” as a vertical axis in a two-dimensional model.
It was generally defined as:
“The degree to which a state’s declared values or goals are internalized by society and serve as normative frameworks for action.”
This definition implicitly assumed a connection between ideological strength and sincere belief.
But the question above introduces a serious challenge to that assumption.
▶ The Tension: Is China’s Ideology Truly “Believed”?
In China, the ideology of national development, unity, and party leadership exerts undeniable influence on society.
But do people believe in it?
The reality is more complex:
- Some sincerely support it and identify with national goals.
- Others comply reluctantly, fearing consequences of dissent.
- Still others follow outwardly while remaining inwardly disengaged.
Thus, even if people do not believe, they may still act in accordance with the state’s ideological expectations.
In that case, can we still say ideology is “weak”?
If it shapes behavior, does that not mean it’s functionally strong, regardless of belief?
▶ A Proposed Redefinition: Ideology as a Functional Force
This line of thought led us to redefine the axis more precisely.
Rather than measure ideology by belief, we propose measuring it by function.
Redefinition (Proposed):
The strength of ideology refers to the extent to which a state’s declared values function as effective constraints on social behavior.
Whether this constraint is produced by belief, fear, or habituation is secondary.
As long as the ideology governs choices and directs conduct across a society, it is to be considered strong.
This shifts the axis from a moral-psychological definition to a behavioral-functional one.
▶ Application: Comparing China and the U.S.
| Criterion | China | United States (Trump-era) |
|---|---|---|
| Ideological presence | Clear and forceful (national rejuvenation, unity) | Vague, eroding (freedom, market, pluralism) |
| Constraint on behavior | High (belief + fear) | Weak (fragmentation, cynicism, distrust) |
| Cohesion of society | Maintained through ideological discipline | Declining amid ideological disintegration |
→ China’s ideology is strong because it functions as a constraint—even if not always voluntarily.
→ America’s ideology is weakening because it no longer organizes collective action or normative expectations.
Thus, America has not become “like China.”
It has not replaced one ideology with another—it has lost its ideological center altogether.
▶ Implication: What About the “Quality” of Ideology?
This redefinition raises a new challenge:
What about the quality of ideology—whether it is based on fear or shared conviction?
While the axis now measures only functionality, we must still acknowledge that fear-based compliance and value-driven belief are fundamentally different in political and ethical terms.
Hence, future theoretical refinement may require:
- Supplementary indicators for the source of ideological force (e.g., legitimacy, moral content, affective attachment)
- Or commentary annotations to distinguish belief-driven from coercion-driven ideological regimes.
▶ Concluding Reflection
This note emerged in response to a seemingly political question—but in answering it, we were compelled to reexamine the very tools we use to understand political order.
A theory evolves only when challenged by the world it seeks to explain.
In this case, the challenge helped refine one of our most central concepts.
It reminded us that ideology, whether believed or feared, lives not in the mind alone—but in the shape of behavior and the boundaries of possibility.
