1. Reflecting on the different systems of government and how they shape the role of citizens is an interesting exercise. In a federal system, such as the one we have in the United States, I’ve always appreciated the way power is shared between the central government and individual states. As a citizen, this dual structure gives me the opportunity to influence both national policies, through voting for federal representatives like the president and members of Congress, and state-specific policies by electing local governors and legislators. This division makes me feel more connected to the governance at different levels, and I can see the direct impact my votes have on issues that affect my state and community. On the other hand, thinking about a confederation system, where the central government has limited power and states hold most of the authority, the role of citizens seems more focused on state governance. I imagine that, in such a system, my interaction with the central government would be minimal, and most of my concerns would be addressed at the state or regional level. This is quite different from what I experience in the federal system, where the federal government plays a significant role in many aspects of daily life. In a unitary system, like in France, where power is concentrated in the central government, citizens primarily engage with national-level governance, with local governments functioning as administrative branches. I think I would feel less connected to local government under such a system because most decisions would be made centrally, leaving less autonomy for local adaptation.
2. The division of power in a federal system ensures a balance that prevents one level of government from becoming too dominant. I appreciate this, especially when I see collaboration between state and federal governments on issues like healthcare or education. Each level has distinct responsibilities, but they also must work together. This balance of power is essential because it allows states to have control over issues that are specific to their regions while still being part of a unified national framework. For instance, education is mostly a state responsibility, but federal guidelines and funding often play a crucial role in shaping policies.
3. The federal government’s influence on state and local governments was particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. I remember how federal guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shaped New York’s public health response. The federal government provided critical resources such as medical supplies, ventilators, and financial support through programs like the CARES Act. This federal assistance was key in helping New York manage the overwhelming pressure on its healthcare system. However, I also noticed that New York state took a leading role in implementing stricter lockdowns and public health measures compared to the broader federal guidelines. This dynamic between state and federal authority during the pandemic showed me the strength of a federal system. While federal support was crucial, New York’s government was able to adapt its response to meet the needs of its population. It highlighted how states can take initiative while still benefiting from federal resources and guidance, striking a balance between local autonomy and national unity in times of crisis.

1. The concept of a faction as described in Federalist Paper #10 closely resembles the idea of social classes that we have discussed earlier. Factions, much like social classes, consist of groups of people united by shared interests or economic status, which may conflict with the interests of other groups. Just as factions can represent a particular group’s desire to gain political power or push their own agenda, social classes can lead to differing goals and priorities, particularly between the wealthy elite and the working class. Both concepts highlight the tensions that can arise when certain groups seek to protect their interests at the expense of others, which was a central concern for the framers of the Constitution.
2. According to Federalist #10, the source of wealth (or private property) comes from the “diversity in the faculties of men.” In this context, “faculties” refers to the natural abilities, talents, and opportunities that individuals possess, which enable them to acquire and manage property. This difference in faculties explains why some people possess wealth by owning private property, while others remain poor. Essentially, the framers believed that certain individuals, due to their skills or circumstances, are better equipped to accumulate wealth, while others, lacking these faculties, do not have the same opportunities for success. This explanation highlights a key philosophical perspective on social and economic inequality, suggesting that property rights originate from individual capacities, rather than external factors like luck or societal structure​.
3. Whether one agrees with the explanation of wealth and poverty in Federalist #10 depends on their perspective on social and economic factors. James Madison’s argument—that differences in wealth arise primarily from individual faculties such as talents, abilities, and opportunities—does highlight an important aspect of wealth creation. People who have certain skills, education, or resources often have greater chances of acquiring wealth, and personal drive or innovation can lead to financial success. However, this explanation can be seen as incomplete because it downplays the role of structural factors that contribute to wealth inequality. For instance, access to education, inherited wealth, social connections, systemic discrimination, and unequal economic opportunities also play a significant role in why some people remain poor while others accumulate wealth. The system into which people are born can either provide opportunities or create barriers, making it difficult for some to advance regardless of their talents or hard work. So, while Madison’s argument highlights individual faculties as important, I believe a more complete understanding of wealth and poverty must also take into account the broader social, economic, and historical factors that influence who have access to opportunities for wealth and who does not. In modern society, we see that economic mobility is not solely determined by personal ability, but also by systemic factors like class, race, and geographical location.
4. According to Federalist #10, written by James Madison, the primary mission or “first object” of the U.S. government is to protect the diverse and unequal faculties of acquiring property. Madison argues that the inequality in wealth stems from the diversity in individuals’ abilities and that it is the role of government to safeguard these differences. This means ensuring that those who have the talent or ability to acquire wealth are not hampered in their pursuit by others who may not have the same abilities. This explanation of government’s core mission might surprise some today because many people view the role of government as more focused on ensuring equality, protecting rights, and providing services to all citizens, rather than prioritizing the protection of wealth accumulation for certain groups. The modern discourse often highlights the role of government in addressing inequalities, whereas Madison’s perspective emphasizes maintaining and protecting inequalities based on faculties, particularly in terms of property and wealth.
5. It’s not surprising that Federalist #10 is not in favor of a pure democracy and instead supports a republican (representative) form of government. The author, James Madison, was part of the wealthier, land-owning elite, and his concerns reflect the fears of this social class. Madison and other framers of the Constitution were worried that in a pure democracy, the majority—composed mainly of the poorer classes—could use their political power to enact policies that would threaten the property and wealth of the elite minority. In a pure democracy, the will of the majority could potentially overpower the interests of the wealthy minority. Madison feared that factions representing the poorer, less-wealthy citizens would push for wealth redistribution, higher taxes on the rich, or laws that undermined property rights. This would be against the interests of the wealthy landowners, who sought to protect their economic standing and influence. A republican form of government, in contrast, provides a buffer between the masses and direct decision-making. By electing representatives, Madison believed the government could temper the impulses of the majority and protect the rights of property owners, ensuring that decisions would be made with more deliberation and less emotional response. This form of government ensures that those who hold property and wealth (like the framers) are not at the mercy of the majority, thus preserving the social and economic hierarchy of the time. In summary, Madison’s preference for a representative government over a pure democracy is rooted in the protection of the interests of the upper class. He feared that direct democracy would allow the poorer majority to pass laws that would harm the wealthy, disrupting the social and economic order.

1. Based on the information from the readings, the U.S. Constitution was primarily written by members of the affluent class, including wealthy merchants, landowners, and slaveholders. These individuals had vested interests in protecting their wealth and maintaining social order. The framers, such as those referenced in the readings, were particularly concerned with containing the “turbulence and follies of democracy” and preventing the less wealthy from disrupting the status quo. Their goal was to create a government that would protect property rights and support the economic interests of the elite.
   In contrast, large segments of society were excluded from the constitutional process. This included propertyless white males, Native Americans, enslaved individuals, indentured servants, and women. These groups, who made up most of the population, had no voice in the debates and decisions that shaped the Constitution. The disenfranchisement of these groups reflects the deep class divides that existed in early American society, with the wealthy few controlling the political and economic structures while the majority were left without representation.
2. The social class structure of early United States society shares similarities with today’s class structure, but there are also significant differences. In both eras, wealth and property ownership played key roles in determining social standing, with a small, affluent class exercising a disproportionate amount of power and influence. However, there are notable distinctions between the two periods.
   Similarities:
   Concentration of Wealth and Power: Just as in early U.S. society, today’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population. In both periods, this elite class wields substantial influence over political, economic, and social decisions. For example, in the 18th century, wealthy landowners, merchants, and slaveholders shaped the Constitution to protect their interests, much like how modern corporations and billionaires exert influence over political processes through lobbying and campaign contributions.
   Exclusion of Marginalized Groups: In both eras, there are clear distinctions between those who have access to resources and power and those who do not. In early U.S. society, women, enslaved people, Native Americans, and propertyless men were excluded from political participation. While there have been significant legal and societal advancements since then, structural inequalities based on race, gender, and class still exist today. Marginalized groups often face systemic barriers to achieving economic mobility and political representation, although they have more rights and avenues for participation than in the past.
   Differences:
   Expanded Political Participation: One of the most notable differences is the expansion of political rights. In early U.S. society, only white male property owners had the right to vote or hold office. Today, suffrage has been expanded to include all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or property ownership. However, despite these legal advancements, economic disparities still limit the political influence of lower-income individuals compared to the wealthy.
   Economic Mobility: While class distinctions remain, the modern economy allows for greater opportunities for upward mobility than during the early United States. In the 18th century, one’s social status was often determined by birth and inherited wealth, and economic mobility was limited. Today, while economic mobility is still challenging for many due to systemic inequalities, there are more pathways for individuals to rise in social class through education, entrepreneurship, or employment in high-demand industries.
   In conclusion, while the basic structure of social classes, where a wealthy minority holds significant power over the majority, remains similar, today’s society has seen important changes in political inclusion and economic opportunity. However, deep economic disparities persist, showing that some elements of the early U.S. social class structure remain relevant today.
3. The framers of the Constitution were primarily from the wealthier, land-owning, and business classes, and their fear of democracy stemmed largely from concerns about protecting their social and economic interests. They viewed democracy as a system that could potentially empower the lower classes—small farmers, laborers, and the poor majority—whom they believed might use their political power to redistribute wealth, challenge property rights, and disrupt the existing social order.
   Fear of Economic Redistribution:
   The upper class, who had substantial wealth, land, and resources, feared that a fully democratic system would allow the poorer majority to enact laws that could threaten property ownership or redistribute wealth. For example, they were concerned that if the lower classes had too much influence, they might support higher taxes on the wealthy or policies that would undermine their economic dominance. This fear of economic instability and wealth redistribution is central to their opposition to direct democracy, as the affluent class wanted to maintain control over economic resources.
   Maintaining Social Hierarchy:
   The wealthy framers were also deeply invested in maintaining the social hierarchy that placed them at the top. They believed that the lower classes lacked the education and judgment needed to govern effectively. This paternalistic view led them to design a system that limited direct democratic influence, such as creating a Senate and Electoral College to filter the decisions made by the masses. Their intent was to prevent what they saw as the “chaos” of mob rule or the possibility of majoritarian tyranny, where the majority could impose its will without considering the interests of property owners and the elite.
   Examples from History:
   The framers were influenced by historical examples, such as the instability they witnessed in post-Revolutionary America, particularly Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787), where economically struggling farmers rebelled against state governments for tax relief and debt forgiveness. This event solidified the fears among the elite that a democratic system allowing widespread participation could lead to uprisings and challenges to the social and economic status quo.
   In summary, the people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of democracy because they feared it would empower the lower classes to challenge their wealth, property rights, and social dominance. To them, democracy threatened the stability of the economic and social systems from which they benefited, so they crafted a constitution that limited direct popular influence to protect their interests.

1. Which statistic on wealth inequality in the US (discussed on p. 29) made the biggest impression on you? Explain why?
   A statistic on wealth inequality that often makes a strong impression is the fact that the top 1% of Americans hold a disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth—around 40% or more, depending on the source. This statistic is striking because it highlights the vast disparity between the wealthiest individuals and the rest of the population, illustrating how wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small elite.
   The reason this stands out is that such inequality can have far-reaching consequences for economic mobility, political influence, and access to resources like education and healthcare. It shows how difficult it can be for lower and middle-class individuals to move up the economic ladder when such a large share of wealth is controlled by a tiny fraction of the population.
2. What could be some of the implications of living in a society that has such huge wealth inequalities? Do you see this dynamic getting played out in everyday life in our society? How so? Example?
   Living in a society with huge wealth inequalities can lead to several significant implications. First, it often results in limited social mobility, where people from lower-income backgrounds struggle to access opportunities such as quality education, healthcare, and stable housing. This perpetuates cycles of poverty and makes it harder for individuals to improve their economic standing. It also leads to political inequality, where the wealthy have more influence over policies and elections, often shaping decisions that benefit their interests while neglecting the needs of the broader population.
   We see this dynamic played out in everyday life. For example, in many cities, there are stark differences between affluent neighborhoods and low-income areas in terms of infrastructure, school quality, and public services. Wealthier areas tend to have better-funded schools, cleaner streets, and more access to healthcare facilities, while poorer neighborhoods often face underfunded schools, limited healthcare access, and higher crime rates.
   One clear example is the housing market. In many cities, skyrocketing real estate prices have pushed low- and middle-income families out of their homes, contributing to gentrification and homelessness. Meanwhile, wealthier individuals or corporations invest in properties, further widening the economic divide. This demonstrates how wealth inequality can manifest in everyday experiences and exacerbate social divides.

M-C-M

The M-C-M’ diagram is a fundamental concept in understanding how capitalists maintain and increase their wealth. In this formula:

• M stands for money.
• C stands for commodities (goods, labor, or materials).
• M’ represents the increased amount of money after the sale of commodities, where the goal is to end up with more money than you started with.

Here’s how it works:

A capitalist begins with M (money) and uses it to purchase C (commodities), such as raw materials, machinery, and labor. These commodities are used in the production process to create goods or services. Once the commodities have been produced, the capitalist sells them for a higher amount of M’ (money), generating profit. The difference between the initial M and the final M’ is the surplus value, which results from paying workers less than the value of what they produce.

The key idea here is that the capitalist’s wealth grows by continually reinvesting M into C (commodities) and extracting surplus value from labor. This cycle of investment and production increases their wealth as long as they continue to generate M’, or more money than they originally invested.

In summary, the capitalist maintains and increases wealth by reinvesting capital, paying workers less than the value they produce, and extracting surplus value through the sale of commodities for a profit, which leads to an ever-expanding accumulation of wealth.

Capital & Labour Power

1. Two key concepts in this video are the means of production and labor. In your comment, explain how you understand the means of production and labor. Give an example of each.
   The means of production refer to the physical resources and tools needed to produce goods, like factories, machines, or land. Labor refers to the human effort and work involved in creating products. For example, in a car manufacturing plant, the factory and assembly line machinery are the means of production, while the workers assembling the cars represent labor.
2. Another important concept in understanding social class is value. Based on the ideas presented in Video 5.1, what is value? What give “value” to value, what makes something valuable?
   In the context of social class and economic production, value refers to the worth of a product or service, often determined by the labor put into its production. According to the ideas presented in Video 5.1, value is created through the combination of labor and the means of production. What gives “value” to something is largely the amount of labor required to produce it, as well as the utility or desirability of the product to others in society. For example, a handcrafted piece of furniture may be considered valuable because it took significant time, skill, and effort to make, and it serves a functional purpose. Additionally, scarcity or the demand for an item can increase its perceived value. Thus, value is shaped by both the labor involved and the social or economic demand for the product.
3. How are labor and value related? What’s the relationship/connection between the two?
   Labor and value are closely related because labor is a key factor in creating the value of a product or service. In many economic theories, especially in Marxist thought, the value of a good is directly tied to the amount of labor required to produce it. The more labor-intensive or skillful the production process, the greater the value of the product.
   The relationship between labor and value can be understood through the labor theory of value, which suggests that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time invested in its production. In other words, products that take more effort, time, or expertise to produce are often seen as more valuable. However, value is also influenced by factors like demand, scarcity, and the market’s willingness to pay for a product, meaning that labor is one important component but not the sole determinant of value.
4. How do you understand the difference between labor and labor power? Hint: this is a key difference, give it your best shot based on what the video says about it, and your own ideas. We’ll clarify and develop it in our discussions, and in my video comments.
   The difference between labor and labor power lies in the distinction between the actual work done and the potential to work. Labor refers to the physical and mental effort that workers put into producing goods or services. It’s the act of working itself—like building a house, writing a book, or assembling a product.
   Labor power, on the other hand, refers to the capacity or ability of a worker to perform labor. It’s the worker’s potential to work, which they sell to an employer in exchange for wages. The employer buys the worker’s labor power (the ability to work) and then puts it to use to generate products and, ultimately, profit.
   The key difference is that labor is the actual act of working, while labor power is the potential or capability to do that work, which can be bought and sold in a capitalist economy.
5. Surplus Value: what is it? Why is it important to know about, in our study of social classes? Think about an example of surplus value?
   Surplus value refers to the difference between the value produced by a worker’s labor and the wages the worker is paid. In other words, it’s the extra value or profit that the employer gains from the worker’s labor beyond what the worker is compensated for. This concept is central to Marxist economic theory, which argues that surplus value is the source of profit in capitalist systems and is generated by exploiting workers—paying them less than the value they create.
   Understanding surplus value is crucial in studying social classes because it highlights the economic exploitation that occurs between different classes, particularly between the working class (proletariat) and the capitalist class (bourgeoisie). The capitalist class profits from surplus value, while the working class often receives only a fraction of the value they produce.
   An example of surplus value could be a factory worker who is paid $10 an hour to make shoes, but each pair of shoes they produce is sold for significantly more than what it costs to pay the worker and cover material expenses. The difference, or surplus value, goes to the employer, contributing to their profit, while the worker earns a fixed wage. This system helps maintain class divisions and economic inequality.

1. What is the distinction that Reading 4.3 makes between owners and employees? Give an example of each.
   Reading 4.3 distinguishes between owners and employees based on their relationship to the means of production. Owners, or capitalists, control the resources and businesses that generate profit, while employees, or workers, sell their labor to survive. For example, the owner of a factory profits from the production of goods, while the factory worker earns wages by performing tasks to create those goods. The two groups have different interests, with owners focused on maximizing profit and employees seeking better wages and conditions.
2. How do you understand the quote by Adam Smith on pg. 28? What is it saying about labor?
   Adam Smith’s quote “labor … is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only.” highlights that labor is the fundamental source of value in society. It suggests that all wealth is derived from the effort of labor, and the goods we buy or consume are essentially the result of human work. Smith emphasizes the idea that labor is the real price of everything—meaning that it’s not just about the monetary cost, but the amount of human effort and time invested in producing a good or service that gives it value.
3. What are your thoughts on the main argument of Reading 4.4 that class is NOT an identity?
   In Reading 4.4, the main idea is that class is not just a label or a personal trait like race or gender. Instead, class is about one’s role in the economy, based on whether they own production means (like factories) or work for someone who does. This position in the economy influences their opportunities and power, making class more about economic roles and less about personal identity.
4. How do you understand the argument Reading 4.4. makes when stating that “class structures are built around a close form of dependency”? What is this close form of dependency, and can you think of an example?
   In Reading 4.4, the argument about “class structures being built around a close form of dependency” refers to how workers depend on capitalists for jobs, while capitalists depend on workers to generate profits. This relationship is essential in capitalist society, as both groups rely on each other, but the power dynamics are unequal. For example, factory workers rely on their employer for wages to survive, while the employer needs the workers to produce goods that bring in profits. This creates a constant push and pull between the two groups.

Nan Wut Mone

Social Classes

1. Do you notice any similarities in the way social class is discussed in readings 4.1 and 4.2? Do you notice any differences in the way these two readings DIFFERENTIATE between social classes?
   In both readings, social class is discussed as a multifaceted concept influenced by income, education, and geography, emphasizing subjective social class (how people perceive themselves). Both highlight the complexity of class identification, beyond just financial measures, including cultural and demographic factors.
   The similarities include a focus on how income and education shape social class perceptions and the fluidity between categories like middle and working class. However, differences lie in the visual representation (NYC subway map) in reading 4.2, which uses geographic income data to distinguish class, while reading 4.1 provides a more statistical and analytical approach to the factors influencing class identification.
2. Pick the station closest to where you live. Using the concepts from Reading 4.1, what social class tends to live in your neighborhood? Are you surprised (or not) by the answer? Do you feel it is an accurate representation of the people living in your neighborhood?
   Using concepts from Reading 4.1, my neighborhood around Kings Highway (N & F) seems to be made up mostly of working-class residents, with some who might identify as upper class. This fits the reading’s emphasis on income and occupation as central to determining social class. I’ve noticed that while most people around here work regular jobs and identify with the working class, there are a few wealthier families. Overall, this mix of classes feels aligned with how income and education shape people’s perception of their social class.
3. Based on Reading 4.2, do you notice a general pattern about social classes in NYC? Based on Reading 4.2, a clear pattern emerges about social classes in NYC: wealthier areas are concentrated near subway stations in central and upscale neighborhoods, while working-class and lower-income communities tend to live in neighborhoods further from the city’s core. This creates a distinct geographic divide, where subway stops become markers of social and economic status. The map highlights how tightly social class is linked to geography, reflecting broader economic disparities across different parts of the city.

RSA & ISA

Nan Wut Mone

1. A Repressive State Apparatus (RSA), according to Althusser, refers to the institutions and structures that enforce the power of the state through direct control, often using force or the threat of force. These include institutions like the police, military, prisons, and the legal system, which maintain order by repressing those who challenge the established system. Althusser calls it “repressive” because these apparatuses primarily use coercion, or the threat of punishment, to ensure obedience and compliance with the laws and rules of the state. The word “repressive” highlights the fact that these institutions rely on force to control the population and keep people in line with the existing power structures. For example, if someone breaks the law, the police or the legal system will intervene to punish or detain the individual, making sure that the societal order is preserved. An example of an RSA is the police force. When people protest against government policies, the police might step in to disperse the crowd or arrest participants if the protest is deemed unlawful. The role of the police here is to repress behaviour that challenges the state’s authority, maintaining control through the possibility or use of force. This enforcement of law and order is how the state exercises its power to maintain the existing social system.

2. Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs), according to Althusser, are institutions that help keep the state in power by shaping people’s beliefs, values, and attitudes without using force. Examples of ISAs include schools, churches, the family, media, and cultural organisations. Unlike Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs), which control people through force, ISAs influence people by subtly shaping how they think and view the world. ISAs promote certain ideas and values that match the interests of those in power. These ideas are spread through daily practices, social activities, and institutions, making people accept them as “normal” without questioning them. Over time, people adopt these ideas, which helps maintain the existing social order. For instance, schools are a major ISA. Besides teaching subjects, schools teach values like discipline, respect for authority, and hard work. These lessons help students fit into the social and economic system, making them more likely to accept their place in society without needing direct control or force. In short, ISAs work by influencing people’s minds and behaviors in a way that feels natural and voluntary, helping to maintain the existing power structures.

3. The main difference between Repressive State Apparatuses (RSAs) and Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) is how they keep control in society. RSAs use force or the threat of force to maintain control. Examples are the police, military, courts, and prisons. These institutions make sure people follow the rules by punishing those who don’t. RSAs focus on directly enforcing the state’s power through physical means. ISAs, on the other hand, control people by shaping their beliefs, values, and attitudes. Examples include schools, churches, media, and family. ISAs work in a more subtle way, making people accept certain ideas and social norms as natural. They don’t use force but instead influence how people think, which helps keep society in line without obvious pressure. In short, RSAs use force, while ISAs use ideology to shape how people think and behave, making them follow the rules more willingly.

4. An example of ideology at work is the Pledge of Allegiance recited in U.S. schools. Many students say the pledge every day, declaring loyalty to the country and its values. This is an example of an Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) because it shapes how students think about patriotism, national identity, and respect for the government. It doesn’t use force, but by repeating the pledge, students start to believe these values are normal and part of who they are. This is a clear example of ideology being reinforced through a cultural practice.

Nan Wut Mone

What is Ideology?

1. (a) In my view, ideology is a set of beliefs and values that guide individuals and political groups in understanding government, society, and the role of institutions. Political ideologies shape perspectives on issues such as the size and role of government, individual freedoms, economic policies, and social values. In the U.S., the two dominant political ideologies are liberalism, which tends to support government intervention in social and economic matters, and conservatism, which typically advocates for limited government, free markets, and traditional social values. Ideology influences political behaviour, party affiliation, and policy preferences in American politics.

(b) An example of ideology in American politics can be seen in the debate over healthcare. Those with a liberal ideology often support government-provided or regulated healthcare, like the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), believing that access to healthcare is a right and that the government should ensure that everyone, regardless of income, has access to medical services. They argue that government intervention is necessary to address inequalities and protect public welfare. On the other hand, individuals with a conservative ideology typically favour a free-market approach to healthcare. They argue that government involvement leads to inefficiency and higher costs, and believe that private companies and competition should drive the healthcare system. Conservatives often advocate for policies that reduce government regulation and give individuals more control over their healthcare choices.

(c) Ideology is a way people see and understand the world, shaping how they think about government, society, and the economy. It provides a set of ideas and beliefs that influence how people feel about important issues like justice, freedom, equality, and power. Ideologies are not just abstract ideas but personal beliefs that guide how people vote, participate in politics, and interact with others. For example, someone who strongly believes in individualism might focus on personal responsibility and prefer less government involvement, while someone who values community well-being might support a larger government role to help people. Ideologies can change over time due to shifts in culture, economics, or history. They also exist on a spectrum, meaning people might not fit perfectly into one ideological category and can hold a mix of beliefs. For instance, a person may support conservative economic policies but have liberal views on social issues. Understanding ideology helps explain why people have different political opinions and actions, as it reflects their values and what they believe is best for society.

2. The main difference between conservatives and liberals is how they view the role of government, personal freedom, and social issues. Conservatives generally believe in a smaller government, free markets, and personal responsibility. They think the government should do less in regulating businesses and running social programs, focusing instead on individual effort and self-reliance. Conservatives also tend to support traditional values and are cautious about making big changes to social norms. They often prioritise things like national security and maintaining existing systems. Liberals, on the other hand, believe the government should play a bigger role in solving social and economic problems. They think the government should provide services like healthcare, education, and welfare to ensure everyone has equal opportunities. Liberals usually support policies that promote individual rights, diversity, and inclusion, often pushing for changes in areas like LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and environmental protection. A good example of this difference is the debate on taxes and social programs. Conservatives typically want lower taxes and less government spending, believing people and businesses should have more control over their money, which they think will help the economy grow. Liberals, however, often support higher taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs like Medicare and unemployment benefits to help those in need. This shows how the two sides differ in their views on how much the government should get involved in people’s lives and the economy. In short, the big difference between conservatives and liberals is about the size of the government, with conservatives wanting less intervention and liberals wanting more to help with social issues and equality.

3. Althusser’s definition of ideology can be understood as a system of ideas and beliefs that shape how people view themselves and their place in the world, often without them realising it. According to Althusser, ideology works by creating a sense of identity and belonging, and it operates through institutions like schools, churches, and the media to reinforce certain beliefs. Importantly, he argues that ideology doesn’t just exist in people’s minds but is deeply embedded in practices and rituals that people participate in, which then helps maintain the existing power structures in society. An example of this would be the way education works. Schools teach students not only academic knowledge but also certain values, like respect for authority, the importance of hard work, and following rules. This helps students develop an identity that fits within society’s expectations, making them more likely to accept and function within the current social system without questioning it. Thus, education serves as a tool through which ideology is reinforced, keeping people aligned with the existing power structure.