Ideological labels derive much of their meaning from society rather than individuals

Evidence

By focusing on a relatively small group of people, the meaning of ideological self-identifications could be examined on an individual by individual basis. Alternatively, we could take a larger, representative sample and assess the common, or shared meaning of ideological labels. Although individual variations in meaning are important, we have chosen the second route for several reasons. First, this follows the general approach of those studies noted earlier which have raised many of the problems we wish to address. Second, since ideological labels like “liberal” and “conservative” are in large part societally defined, there should be an important component to such identifications that is shared by many people. And finally, looking at the common meaning of such labels provides a basis for assessing their ability to aggregate individual patterns of belief and symbolism. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2008

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains the rationale for treating ideological self-identifications as societally-shared constructs with aggregate meaning.
• XREF: connects to: The label used for a system shapes whether people maintain or resist it. — Yanis Varoufakis, Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism, 453