How to answer 24 mark core ideologies questions in Edexcel A-level politics

How to answer 24 mark core ideologies questions in Edexcel A-level politics

• Conservatism 

• Liberalism 

• Socialism 

Each question will often ask to what extent something is true. The main focus is on the level of agreement or unity within ideologies like conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Key areas of interest include 

• human nature, 

• the state, 

• society,

•  and the economy. 

• You might find questions such as to what extent do liberals agree about human nature or how conservatives view the state. Another example could be how socialists disagree about capitalism.

There are also broader questions related to the entire ideology. For instance, you could be asked how modern liberals view classical liberal ideas. This can involve discussion on the state, society, human nature, and the economy. Other examples include how the New Right compares to other conservative groups or how revolutionary socialists differ from social democrats.

Some questions will focus on specific topics tied to each ideology. For liberalism, this could include themes like liberty, individualism, and equality. For conservatism, key ideas might be tradition, pragmatism, and paternalism. In socialism, you might discuss class, equality, and collectiveness.

In your essays, it’s important to highlight different strands of each ideology along with key thinkers. To achieve higher marks, include insights from at least three important figures for liberalism, conservatism, and socialism. For example, in liberalism, key thinkers include John Locke, Mary Wollstonecraft, John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, and Betty Friedan. Each ideology also has more thinkers you can reference, like Adam Smith for liberalism and Disraeli for conservatism.

When discussing conservatism, note the various strands such as traditional conservatism, one-nation conservatism, and the New Right, which includes both neoliberal and neoconservative elements. Explore how these different groups relate and their areas of agreement. The same approach applies to liberalism, highlighting its diverse views.

Liberalism includes a focus on modern versus classical liberals. you can also discuss developmental individualism. The main discussion centers around the differences between classical and modern liberals. In socialism, you find earlier revolutionary thinkers like Karl Marx, Engels, and Rosa Luxemburg, alongside democratic socialists and social democrats, which can be confusing. There are also third-way thinkers to consider. Your essay should address both the different strands of these ideologies and their key thinkers. You might start with the strands and then highlight how certain thinkers fit into each one, or you could first show the disagreements among the thinkers and how that reflects the divisions within the ideology.

Differences and conflict within Socialism 

Differences and conflict within Liberalism

Differences and conflict within Conservatism 

Two possible structures

The Three paragraph essay

Example Essay using three paragraphs 

One way to structure these essays is to adopt the  agree-sandwich approach, or disagree-sandwich approach. i.e Two paragraphs support your direction are the ‘bread’ and one shows you know the alternative view- i.e. the ‘filling’. So begin with the one-line introduction then three paragraphs followed by a conclusion.

For your introduction, follow a structure similar to what you would use for a 30-mark UK politics essay. Begin with a sentence that defines key terms and sets the context. Next, present the main arguments on both sides of the debate. For instance, if the question is whether liberals agree on human nature, first outline the points of agreement followed by the points of disagreement. Finally, conclude with your overall argument. Your introduction must establish your line of argument!

To achieve high scores, you should do more than stating that there is disagreement or agreement, explain your reasoning in more detail.  For example, you could say that conservatives largely share views on economic issues. Conservatives may have different views on how much intervention is needed and why they hold these beliefs, but their shared support for capitalism and social hierarchy outweighs the disagreements regarding their broader ideology. To achieve high marks, start with a clear introduction, then present both sides of the argument. This approach will help organize your essay paragraphs.

Next, let's consider how to structure essays worth 24 marks. Since these essays allow less time—about 30 to 35 minutes—your responses will generally be shorter. 

Now, as you develop the main body of your essay, use relevant thinkers to support your points.  You must use two key thinkers but more is fine. For instance, if you state that conservatives agree on the necessity of a state, follow up with various strands of thought. You could reference traditional thinkers like Hobbes or Burke as well as contemporary perspectives from the new right.

Conclude all paragraphs with an evaluation that sums up your direction in relation to the overall question.

For example, when discussing how conservatives view the state,  While all conservatives advocate for a smaller state compared to socialists, they all agree that the state is essential for maintaining order and security in society. 

They view the state as a response to human needs. This is the initial point of agreement. The explanation includes various thinkers and their ideas. Starting with Thomas Hobbes, a traditional conservative, he argued that without a state, there would be chaos, and life in a natural state would be harsh and short. Hobbes highlighted that the main role of the state is to provide order and security. 

Even neoliberals, who advocate for free-market capitalism and minimal government, recognize the necessity of order and security. For instance, Robert Nozick believed a minimal state is essential for protecting economic freedom and individual rights. This connects different viewpoints and illustrates a common understanding.

In an essay on Socialism regarding human nature. Early socialists, both revolutionary and democratic, sought to abolish capitalism. They viewed human nature as essentially altruistic, but in a capitalist context, it was as greedy and selfish. Revolutionary socialists believe that dismantling capitalism in favor of a socialist system based on shared ownership is the only way to foster a more positive, cooperative human nature.

This section introduces the main ideas of the topic and uses Marx and Engels as examples to illustrate a specific viewpoint. They argued that capitalism creates a false consciousness in workers, which separates them from their true nature. According to Marx and Engels, a shift toward class consciousness and a socialist system could remove this false perception, revealing humanity's natural cooperative and caring instincts.

After presenting this initial viewpoint, the discussion shifts to highlight disagreements within socialist thought. It contrasts earlier socialist views with those of social democrats from the "third way," who viewed capitalism more positively. They believed that capitalism could be beneficial to society and did not see human nature under capitalism as negatively as Marx did. They argued that a false consciousness does not exist.

To further clarify this disagreement, Anthony Giddens, a third-way thinker, can be used. He noted that while globalization and free-market capitalism create challenges, the government can help support modern education and communities, allowing individuals to thrive.

In summary, there are significant differences between earlier and later socialists regarding human nature under capitalism and the impact of the economic system on it. However, despite these differences, all socialists agree on the idea that human nature can change and holds potential for improvement. This conclusion ties back to the overall argument of the essay, emphasizing that there is more common ground than opposition among socialists.

The conclusion should resemble the one used in 30-mark source questions or essays. It’s important to synthesize your argument clearly and inform the reader that you have answered the question. For example, when addressing the question about how united liberals are in their views of human nature, you could conclude that they largely agree.

In summary, your conclusion should justify your argument by highlighting that agreement outweighs disagreement and connect it back to the overall ideology. Mastering this skill can help you achieve high marks.

The Two 'Super' Paragraphs structure

This format may be better suited to the time constraints of a 24 mark. 30-minute question and one that promotes the persuasive language needed for AO3 evaluation. In 2023 Examiners Reports urged students to use more persuasive language, just as much as they do in the 30 more questions. 

1. A one-sentence introduction: that simply states your view of the extent of that agreement. (Since an extent question is a measurement question, there is no complete agreement or disagreement so use 'largely' 'mostly' or 'while' 'appear'

But do they agree more than they disagree? That's the question you are answering in any ideologies essay. So stating that they largely (mostly) disagree or largely agree is vital. Vital for your AO3 persuaded mark. 

Eg. While socialists appear to have significant differences over human nature they largely agree on it most important features.

For example if the question is: 'To what extent do classical liberals share similar views to modern liberals?' 

Into: Classical liberals largely disagree with modern liberals. That's it.

Now follow this direction in each paragraph. If you state that they largely disagree on something, start each paragraph with how they agree. ie begin with the weaker(in your opinion) argument. Then trash it, then come on to how they disagree. Always finish your paragraph with the same direction as what your opening statement says. 

Make three comparisons between at least two stands in each paragraph- this makes it a 'super paragraph' So if you're tackling liberalism, modern liberals and classical liberals at the start of the paragraph. In the middle and at the end, this will help with AO2 analysis, which in ideologies essays is judged by how you compare the strands. 

For the essay 'To what extent do classical liberals share similar views to modern liberals?' 

 Here's the first super paragraph:

1.  Begin with the argument that is unconvincing or weak.  'There are those who mistakenly claim that classical and modern liberals are united.' (signpost to the examiner what  your direction is ie this is not your view )

2. Now Compare two strands: (A02 compare) 'They may point to similarities between classical liberals and modern liberals over the role of the state '

3. Develop what one of these strands thinks using key terms. (A01 knowledge)  'Classical liberals believe in the mechanistic theory that government is made by people for people rather than by God. They accept checks and balances and government by consent.' 

4. Compare to another strand for AO2  'Similarly, modern liberals believe that an enabling state must still be consented to both strands do not agree with arbitrary rule.'

5. As always you need a sentence maximum 2 sentences on at least two key thinkers to get over the 9 out of 24. So use a key thinker to illustrate the point you've made. 'These views are expressed by John Rawls who felt that people would naturally consent to a state that would look after them, especially if we had no idea of our place in society in his so-called veil of ignorance'. 

6. Now challenge the weaker arguments: 'However, these similarities are relatively insignificant. The stronger argument is that there are greater differences over the state between modern liberals and classical liberals'. 

7. Now explain one stand: 'For example, classical liberals believe in negative freedom from the state, which implies a limited government that does not interfere with what humans do. 

8. Now compare: 'In contrast, modern liberals believe in positive freedom, which implies state help to promote human freedom through greater choice.' 

9. Now illustrate with a key thinker: 'These views are expressed by John Stuart Mill, who said that to bring a child into existence without a fair prospect is a moral crime. If the parent does not fulfill this obligation, the state ought to see it fulfilled.'  (Tip: a quote is a great way to show their view)

10. Finally summarise the paragraph for AO3.: 'Therefore, the argument that modern liberals in classical liberals are largely divided over the state is ultimately stronger because classical liberals fear state involvement while modern modern liberals do not.' 

If you argue that an ideology was largely united? OK, so you'd reverse the order 

Now write a second 'super' paragraph

1. Those who argue that liberals are in general agreement 2. may use the economy as evidence, however, this is not a convincing point of view. 

3. Classical liberals view property ownership as an absolute right of every individual. 

4. Similarly modern liberals  place a high value on the rights of private property, seeing them as existing alongside other individual freedoms.

5. This is illustrated by John Locke who placed great importance on property rights as a“natural right” to private property based on the individual's ownership of their labour.'labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer,

6. However these areas of agreement are less significant than differences between modern and classical liberals.

7. For example classical liberals see market forces of supply and demand, which act like a invisible hand, guiding the economy as the most efficient means of running the economy

8. Modern liberals argued that in reality, free markets create inequality therefore the state was entitled to ensure that wealth was used to benefit all in socially useful ways such as providing health care and pensions for the aged. Laissez-faire economics had not solved the problems of widespread poverty seen in industrialised societies by the late nineteenth century.

9. This is illustrated by John Rawls who argued that free market capitalism should be tempered by the state’s obligation to advance its poorest citizens. In an enabling state, a redistribution of wealth is needed to improve the lives of the poor.

10.Therefore the view that modern and classical liberals are divided over the economy is stronger because they differ over the role of the state and the function of markets.

Once you are done with writing two super paragraphs, you need a conclusion. Write a similar sort of conclusion to the ones you write in your 30 markers. You need to acknowledge both sides of the argument while making it. Really clear again which one is the strongest and you need to repeat the directions that you took at the end of your super chunky's. 

'Whilst the opposing view has merit. Ultimately, the stronger argument is that liberals largely disagree. Granted,  classical liberals and modern liberals agree on the necessity for a state and the value of a free market economy. However, the differences over the concept of the state are more profound since modern liberals take an opposing view of positive rights to classical liberals' view of negative rights and modern liberals see serious dangers in laissez-faire economics while neo-liberals do not. While there are indeed similarities between liberals' views of the state and the economy, most liberals differ significantly over the ability of the state and economy to ensure individual freedom and prosperity. Therefore, the differences are far more significant than the similarities.