Movements differ from parties by making ideology an organizing principle

Evidence

From the beginning, the movements lacking the “strength of inherited emotions” had to differ from the model of the already existing Russian despotism in two respects. They had to make propaganda which the established bureaucracy hardly needed, and did this by introducing an element of violence; and they found a substitute for the role of “inherited emotions” in the ideologies which Continental parties had already developed to a considerable extent. The difference in their use of ideology was that they not only added ideological justification to interest representation, but used ideologies as organizational principles. If the parties had been bodies for the organization of class interests, the movements became embodiments of ideologies. In other words, movements were “charged with philosophy” and claimed they had set into motion “the individualization of the moral universal within a collective.” — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 629

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the party-movement distinction: parties organize interests, movements embody ideologies.
• SEED: Angle: how exclusionary political movements weaponize ideology as organizational principle — could frame how anti-Muslim rhetoric moves from interest-representation to identity-embodiment.
• XREF: connects to: Ideological movements can mobilize global volunteers and territory far beyond material resources — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor: Unconditional…, 80; Leninism as an organizing form can be adopted apart from its Marxist content. — Vincent Bevins, If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and…, 80; Social movement frames are leadership-produced worldviews that give activists ideological context. — Donatella della Porta et al., Mobilizing Against the Odds: Solidarity…, 33