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

 

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 

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 


 

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.

When discussing how liberals agree on economic issues, you can refer to an example that illustrates how to approach writing your introduction.

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. While it's ideal to have three main paragraphs between the introduction and conclusion, it's often more practical to write two paragraphs: one for agreement and one for disagreement, with two points for each. However, you could also have two paragraphs for agreement and one for disagreement or vice versa, depending on what best suits your topic.

In essays related to UK politics and government, using a simple structure with clear points is often recommended, but aligning points can be trickier with ideological questions. Flexibility is important, and it's usually effective to write two thorough paragraphs—one for agreement and one for disagreement. If you can manage three paragraphs with two for one side and one for the other, that’s also a good approach. On the Policy Explained website, you can find detailed essay plans that typically follow this two-paragraph structure, along with some that include three paragraphs. These resources can be helpful if you choose to access them.

You can approach the essay by organizing your thoughts into clear paragraphs. If your essay includes two detailed paragraphs—one discussing agreement and the other disagreement—you have flexibility. For example, you might consider removing a point from the disagreement section to create a three-paragraph essay with two paragraphs focusing on agreement and one on disagreement. Determine what structure suits your writing style and the time you have available.

A starting point could involve two detailed paragraphs or a three-paragraph format based on your essay topic. Here’s an example structure: the first paragraph can address how socialists share views on the economy, while the second examines their disagreements. Each paragraph should contain two key points. For agreement, you might note that all socialists seek to reduce societal inequality and believe in the potential for societal improvement. For disagreement, you can discuss differing views on equality of outcome and perspectives on capitalism.

Ensure that your points of agreement and disagreement connect smoothly. The paragraphs should flow together rather than split in half. Remember to include an introduction and a conclusion.

Now, as you develop the main body of your essay, use relevant thinkers to support your points. There is no single correct way to do this, but a helpful approach is to start with your agreement point. Clearly introduce it and provide an explanation. 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.

If you're making two points within a paragraph, apply this structure twice, introducing each point, explaining it, and then discussing the supporting thinkers. Conclude the paragraph with an evaluation that sums up your key points and assesses their significance in relation to the overall question.

For example, when discussing how conservatives view the state, your paragraph might be longer since it covers two points. While conservatives advocate for a smaller state compared to socialists, they all agree that the state is essential for maintaining order and security in society. This structure should provide a clear framework for answering the question effectively

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. This lays the groundwork for the first perspective.

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.

Next, I'll cover a disagreement among socialists regarding human nature and its connection to capitalism. Early socialists, both revolutionary and democratic, sought to abolish capitalism. They viewed human nature in a capitalist context 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, is discussed. 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.

Start by directly answering the question and then provide justification. While there are differences between classical and modern liberals regarding individualism and the role of the state, they share a key belief: humans are rational and driven by self-interest. They also agree on the equality of women and men. This shared understanding is crucial not only for their view of human nature but also for forming liberal political beliefs.

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.