Popular in Law

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Civil Procedure Law

Politics, Identity, and Class Certification on the U.S. Courts of Appeals

University of Pennsylvania Sean Farhang

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Law

Surrey’s Silence: Subpart F and the Swiss Subsidiary Tax that Never Was

Boston University Steven Dean

What is constitutional ideology?

View more insights in Professional - Law - Constitutional Law

View more figures from University of Oxford

View the page of Nick Barber

Read the Study

Next in Constitutional Law

Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions

Richard Albert | The University of Texas at Austin

Court-Packing in Context

Barry Cushman | University of Notre Dame

Constitutional ideologies shape discourse by determining the boundaries of what can be argued within institutions, influencing both the worldview of the state and individual identity, while offering a framework to analyze citizenship, authority, and the underlying ideological rules related to causality, values, and historical claims.

Image courtesy of interviewee. October 15, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video is a transcript of an interview with an author discussing their recently published paper on constitutional ideologies, titled "What is Constitutional Ideology?" The author expresses their intention to explore the limitations of viewing constitutional institutions solely through the lens of legal frameworks. They propose that there are significant non-legal constraints that shape decision-making within these institutions, leading to the concept of constitutional ideology as a set of guidelines that govern deliberation and decision-making processes.

The author identifies two main approaches to understanding ideology: one from political theorists who see it as a set of concepts or narratives (like Marxism or liberalism), and another from social psychologists who view it as rule-based practices that dictate how groups deliberate. They argue that these perspectives are complementary, with rules underpinning concepts that provide a worldview.

The discussion also emphasizes the importance of recognizing that ideologies can coexist within social groups, including within states, and that different institutions (like parliaments and courts) can have distinct constitutional ideologies. The author highlights the role of constitutions in facilitating constructive disagreement and accommodating various political ideologies within political structures.

Towards the end, the author reflects on how constitutional ideologies intersect with broader social and historical contexts, influencing collective narratives and identities within a state. They encourage further scholarly exploration of these themes and the potential conflicts that may arise between constitutional ideologies and legal commitments, particularly in relation to equality and social justice issues.

Overall, the paper serves as a toolkit for understanding the interplay between constitutional structures, ideologies, and societal norms, inviting further discussion and critique.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video regarding the concept of constitutional ideology:

1. **Definition of Constitutional Ideology**: The author defines constitutional ideology as a set of rules, both legal and social, that structure how constitutional institutions deliberate and make decisions. This contrasts with the traditional view where constitutional lawyers primarily focus on law as the driving force behind outcomes.

2. **Interplay Between Rules and Concepts**: The video highlights two broad theoretical approaches to ideology: the political theorist perspective, which views ideologies as sets of concepts that can be interpreted, and the social psychologist perspective, which views them as rule-based practices within groups. The author argues that these are complementary, suggesting that rules underpin concepts, informing how we understand ideologies in practice.

3. **Constitutional vs. Political Ideology**: The author differentiates between constitutional ideology – which facilitates constructive disagreement and dialogue within constitutional frameworks – and general political ideologies, which often aim to reach definitive conclusions. Constitutions should allow various ideologies to process dissent rather than exclude it, thereby strengthening the state.

4. **Impact of Constitutional Ideology on National Discourse**: The video discusses how constitutional ideologies shape the frameworks within which citizens and institutions understand key national narratives (such as the legacy of colonialism). This implies that philosophical debates about historical interpretations are tied to constitutional ideologies, influencing contemporary identity and governance.

5. **Variability Across Constitutional Institutions**: The author notes that different constitutional institutions (like courts or parliaments) might allow differing levels of engagement with certain types of arguments (e.g., religious arguments). This variability indicates that the application of constitutional ideology is convideo-dependent, influencing how ideas are debated and received within different institutional settings.

These points encapsulate the central themes of the discussion around constitutional ideologies and their multifaceted implications for law and society.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes extracted from the video:

1. **Purpose of the Interview**:
- "Reason for this interview is a paper that I've recently published on constitutional ideologies..."

2. **Main Theme**:
- "Most of the time, constitutional lawyers focus on law... But I found... that was a con, unsatisfying way of looking at constitutional institutions."

3. **Constitutional Ideology Definition**:
- "The idea is that constitutional ideology is that set of rules that structures the way in which institutions deliberate and make decisions, not necessarily legal, but they can be social."

4. **Identifying Ideologies**:
- "There's an awful lot written on how you go about identifying the existence of a social rule... a social rule in operation when breach of that rule triggers criticism in the group."

5. **Complementary Approaches**:
- "I began to realize that these were two sides of the same coin. They're complimentary. So the rules are the things that underpin the concepts."

6. **Multiplicity of Ideologies**:
- "If an ideology is a feature of a social group, then every social group has its own ideology. Yeah. And there could be multiple ideologies that we have to engage and navigate."

7. **Function of Constitutions**:
- "One of the functions of a constitutional ideology is to engage in the constitutional order so that the constitution can process disagreement and not exclude it."

8. **Exclusion of Disagreement**:
- "The richer constitutional ideology becomes the fewer political ideologies that can be advocated through the constitutional structures."

9. **Examples Comparing Nations**:
- "There is a significant difference, I think, between political ideology and constitutional ideology... for example, the way in which say, I know, the United Kingdom and Spain deal with the issue of succession."

10. **Causal Claims in Arguments**:
- "Many religious beliefs contain some quite broad claims about... what can cause things to happen... a religious person might argue... that it's possible to prove something through revelation."

11. **Interplay of Religion and Constitutional Ideology**:
- "...the extent to which you can run that type of argument often depends on the particular constitutional institution you are looking at."

12. **Historical Perspectives**:
- "...this historical debate is a debate about our national story and about the way in which public institutions and citizens should understand that national story."

13. **Constitutional Identity**:
- "Constitutional ideology and state ideology more generally is a way of framing what it means to be a member of those groups."

These quotes capture the essence of the video and highlight the key points discussed regarding constitutional ideologies, their identification, their functions, and the implications they hold for political discourse and society.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.740
Reason for this interview is a paper

2
00:00:01.740 --> 00:00:04.405
that I've recently published on constitutional ideologies

3
00:00:04.825 --> 00:00:06.525
that's in the International Journal

4
00:00:06.525 --> 00:00:08.205
of Constitutional Law called,

5
00:00:08.265 --> 00:00:09.885
and I thought this was a very snappy title,

6
00:00:10.235 --> 00:00:11.965
what is Constitutional ideology?

7
00:00:12.345 --> 00:00:15.085
So if any of the, viewers want to, to read that,

8
00:00:15.085 --> 00:00:17.765
it's open access and, Google is your friend,

9
00:00:18.345 --> 00:00:20.445
so you can, you can access it very easily

10
00:00:20.545 --> 00:00:21.565
and have a read for three.

11
00:00:21.675 --> 00:00:24.485
Most of the time, constitutional lawyers focus on law.

12
00:00:24.755 --> 00:00:26.165
It's, it's sort of in the job title.

13
00:00:26.665 --> 00:00:28.245
And we, we, we, we, we look at law

14
00:00:28.265 --> 00:00:31.045
as being a structure which regulates the way in which the,

15
00:00:31.065 --> 00:00:33.125
the state makes decisions in which constitutional

16
00:00:33.125 --> 00:00:34.205
institutions make decisions.

17
00:00:35.065 --> 00:00:37.285
But I found that was a, a increasingly found,

18
00:00:37.285 --> 00:00:39.125
that was a con, unsatisfying way

19
00:00:39.185 --> 00:00:40.965
of looking at constitutional institutions.

20
00:00:41.425 --> 00:00:43.245
So it didn't seem to me that law

21
00:00:43.485 --> 00:00:45.205
provided a complete explanation of

22
00:00:45.345 --> 00:00:47.405
how they produced the outcomes that they did.

23
00:00:47.455 --> 00:00:49.045
There seemed to be some constraints

24
00:00:49.475 --> 00:00:50.805
that weren't legal constraints,

25
00:00:50.805 --> 00:00:52.285
but nevertheless seemed very important.

26
00:00:52.905 --> 00:00:55.575
So that was the starting intuition

27
00:00:55.805 --> 00:00:58.695
that maybe there are some limitations, some guidelines,

28
00:00:58.695 --> 00:01:01.375
some structures on constitutional institutions

29
00:01:01.525 --> 00:01:02.655
that aren't found in law,

30
00:01:02.795 --> 00:01:05.015
but have perhaps found in other rules, in social rules.

31
00:01:05.315 --> 00:01:07.735
And that's where I, the idea of ideology comes in.

32
00:01:07.955 --> 00:01:10.495
The idea is that constitutional ideology is that set

33
00:01:10.495 --> 00:01:13.335
of rules that structures the way in which,

34
00:01:13.335 --> 00:01:15.055
institutions deliberate

35
00:01:15.355 --> 00:01:17.815
and make decisions, not necessarily legal,

36
00:01:18.035 --> 00:01:19.495
but they can be, social.

37
00:01:20.015 --> 00:01:23.135
I started to look into, I, the idea of ideology,

38
00:01:23.135 --> 00:01:24.535
and I quickly discovered that there seemed

39
00:01:24.535 --> 00:01:28.135
to be two broad groups of approaches to, ideology.

40
00:01:28.435 --> 00:01:30.695
So on the one hand, you have political theorists

41
00:01:31.035 --> 00:01:34.135
who treat ideologies as groups of concepts, of sets

42
00:01:34.135 --> 00:01:36.335
of concepts that they can study and interpret.

43
00:01:36.755 --> 00:01:38.815
So they'll talk about the ideology of Marxism

44
00:01:38.835 --> 00:01:40.335
or the ideology of liberalism,

45
00:01:40.555 --> 00:01:42.815
and that that's a sort of a very, a narrative almost,

46
00:01:42.815 --> 00:01:46.135
that it's, it's a story that they tell, the, the, the,

47
00:01:46.135 --> 00:01:47.975
the, the, the, the, the then subject to interpretation.

48
00:01:48.595 --> 00:01:50.575
On the other hand, there are social psychologists

49
00:01:50.575 --> 00:01:51.775
who look at related matters.

50
00:01:52.235 --> 00:01:54.615
And for social psychologists, ideology seems

51
00:01:54.615 --> 00:01:56.415
to be a rule-based practice.

52
00:01:56.795 --> 00:01:58.775
So for social psychologists, there are rules

53
00:01:58.775 --> 00:02:00.415
that structure deliberation In the groups.

54
00:02:00.755 --> 00:02:01.975
In groups, there are rules

55
00:02:01.975 --> 00:02:04.775
that exclude certain propositions from consideration.

56
00:02:04.905 --> 00:02:06.575
There are rules that require the group

57
00:02:06.675 --> 00:02:08.055
to consider certain propositions.

58
00:02:08.915 --> 00:02:12.575
And initially, I thought maybe these are two rival ways

59
00:02:12.795 --> 00:02:14.895
of understanding the ideology, ideology

60
00:02:14.895 --> 00:02:17.735
as concepts which are interpreted ideology

61
00:02:17.735 --> 00:02:18.935
as rules, which can be studied.

62
00:02:19.475 --> 00:02:20.495
But I began to realize

63
00:02:20.495 --> 00:02:22.095
that these were two sides of the same coin.

64
00:02:22.095 --> 00:02:24.935
They're complimentary. So the rules are the things

65
00:02:24.935 --> 00:02:26.255
that underpin the concepts.

66
00:02:26.795 --> 00:02:28.695
Social groups, including the state,

67
00:02:28.695 --> 00:02:31.855
including constitutional institutions, have a set of, of,

68
00:02:32.395 --> 00:02:34.615
of rules that structure how they de they debate.

69
00:02:34.995 --> 00:02:36.975
But when you look at those rules, you can see that that,

70
00:02:36.975 --> 00:02:39.775
that that concepts are extrapolated outta those rules.

71
00:02:39.775 --> 00:02:40.935
They sit on top of the rules.

72
00:02:41.685 --> 00:02:44.505
Um, and I think looking at ideologies, both in terms

73
00:02:44.505 --> 00:02:47.185
of rules and concepts is, is quite helpful.

74
00:02:47.885 --> 00:02:49.825
So first off, in terms of rules,

75
00:02:50.135 --> 00:02:52.465
that gives us quite a sharp way of identifying

76
00:02:52.465 --> 00:02:53.825
what those ideologies are.

77
00:02:54.365 --> 00:02:55.945
So there's an awful lot written on

78
00:02:55.945 --> 00:02:58.545
how you go about identifying the existence of a social rule.

79
00:02:58.615 --> 00:03:01.365
There's a social rule in operation when breach of

80
00:03:01.365 --> 00:03:03.605
that rule triggers criticism in the group.

81
00:03:03.825 --> 00:03:05.845
And moreover, that criticism is of a certain type.

82
00:03:05.845 --> 00:03:08.085
It's a criticism for breach of the rule.

83
00:03:08.345 --> 00:03:11.285
So that the, the social psychology literature gives us a

84
00:03:11.285 --> 00:03:13.405
really good way in to identifying

85
00:03:13.405 --> 00:03:14.525
and pinning down those rules.

86
00:03:15.705 --> 00:03:18.525
But the, political theory literature,

87
00:03:18.605 --> 00:03:20.645
I think brings out the way in which those rules then

88
00:03:21.005 --> 00:03:23.885
generate a set of concepts that provide a worldview, a way

89
00:03:23.885 --> 00:03:25.645
of looking at, reality.

90
00:03:26.025 --> 00:03:28.445
So think of ideologies then as constructing a lens

91
00:03:28.445 --> 00:03:31.045
that people then look through to see, to understand

92
00:03:31.045 --> 00:03:33.085
how the world is, to understand how they think the world,

93
00:03:33.305 --> 00:03:34.325
ought to be.

94
00:03:34.865 --> 00:03:37.165
And those concepts can't just be collapsed back into the

95
00:03:37.165 --> 00:03:39.165
rules because concepts can be used.

96
00:03:39.265 --> 00:03:40.845
The concepts can be used in situations

97
00:03:40.845 --> 00:03:42.405
where the rules don't necessarily apply.

98
00:03:42.705 --> 00:03:45.165
So you can use rules by the concepts, by analogy

99
00:03:45.355 --> 00:03:48.045
that have broader reach than the, than the specific rules.

100
00:03:48.045 --> 00:03:49.325
People assume that there's a single

101
00:03:49.365 --> 00:03:50.645
ideology you have to buy into.

102
00:03:50.755 --> 00:03:53.085
Everybody's only buys into one ideology.

103
00:03:53.545 --> 00:03:55.965
But if an ideology is a feature of a social group,

104
00:03:56.035 --> 00:03:59.085
then every social group has its own ideology.

105
00:03:59.435 --> 00:04:02.365
Yeah. And there could be multiple ideologies that we have

106
00:04:02.365 --> 00:04:03.405
to engage and navigate,

107
00:04:03.405 --> 00:04:05.845
and those inter ideologies can interact.

108
00:04:06.425 --> 00:04:08.085
So in the context of a state

109
00:04:08.085 --> 00:04:09.845
and the constitution, the constitution,

110
00:04:10.085 --> 00:04:12.645
constitutional ideologies for within the state, they're part

111
00:04:12.665 --> 00:04:15.285
of the state state's ideologies.

112
00:04:15.465 --> 00:04:17.925
But these are the ideologies that you find in operation,

113
00:04:17.945 --> 00:04:20.285
in particular, constitutional institutions.

114
00:04:20.625 --> 00:04:22.885
So we can talk of constitutional ideology as a whole

115
00:04:23.145 --> 00:04:24.645
as being those, rules

116
00:04:24.645 --> 00:04:26.925
that structure the deliberation of constitutional actors.

117
00:04:27.105 --> 00:04:29.565
But we could also talk about the constitutional ideology of

118
00:04:30.125 --> 00:04:32.085
a particular institution like parliament

119
00:04:32.505 --> 00:04:34.245
or the courts or the executive.

120
00:04:34.305 --> 00:04:35.605
And these could all be different.

121
00:04:36.665 --> 00:04:39.285
Um, state ideology, I think is, is broader seal.

122
00:04:39.305 --> 00:04:42.805
So state ideology also encompasses the way in which private

123
00:04:42.805 --> 00:04:44.325
groups interact in the state,

124
00:04:44.325 --> 00:04:46.525
because one of the tasks of the state is

125
00:04:46.525 --> 00:04:49.365
to structure the way in which private groups within

126
00:04:49.905 --> 00:04:51.805
the state, deliberate.

127
00:04:52.145 --> 00:04:54.165
So the state sets, rules

128
00:04:54.165 --> 00:04:56.925
that regulate the way in which say people within charities

129
00:04:57.195 --> 00:05:00.165
discuss and decide on activity or trade unions or companies.

130
00:05:00.545 --> 00:05:03.685
So the state speaks to the way in which it, its members have

131
00:05:03.685 --> 00:05:04.845
to deliberate within private groups.

132
00:05:05.105 --> 00:05:08.085
So state ideology is broader than constitutional

133
00:05:08.085 --> 00:05:09.365
ideology expands outwards.

134
00:05:09.645 --> 00:05:11.965
I don't want to pretend the constitutional ideology isn't a

135
00:05:11.965 --> 00:05:12.965
political ideology in a sense,

136
00:05:13.345 --> 00:05:17.485
but one of the purposes of a constitution is to, process

137
00:05:17.825 --> 00:05:19.205
and accommodate disagreement.

138
00:05:19.745 --> 00:05:22.165
So there are two broad, I think two big views of

139
00:05:22.165 --> 00:05:23.605
what a constitution is there to do.

140
00:05:24.025 --> 00:05:25.645
One view of the constitution is it's there

141
00:05:25.645 --> 00:05:27.445
to end disagreement.

142
00:05:27.835 --> 00:05:29.805
It's sort of memorializes our conclusions.

143
00:05:29.825 --> 00:05:32.165
It shuts down, disagreement.

144
00:05:32.385 --> 00:05:35.045
So those who support those who advocate for human rights,

145
00:05:35.045 --> 00:05:36.445
for example, would say it's very important

146
00:05:36.665 --> 00:05:38.405
to have human rights in the Constitution,

147
00:05:38.405 --> 00:05:41.245
because we want to shut out debate over those rights.

148
00:05:41.665 --> 00:05:43.245
So that's one thing constitutions do.

149
00:05:43.625 --> 00:05:46.045
But a second thing constitutions do is they provide

150
00:05:46.365 --> 00:05:48.845
structures in which people can disagree constructively.

151
00:05:49.545 --> 00:05:52.125
So constitutions don't say that,

152
00:05:52.125 --> 00:05:53.165
the disagreement is, is,

153
00:05:53.165 --> 00:05:54.485
is is being brought to a conclusion.

154
00:05:55.045 --> 00:05:57.005
Constitutions provide you with mechanisms where you can,

155
00:05:57.030 --> 00:05:58.205
can, you can fight your corner,

156
00:05:58.225 --> 00:06:00.285
you can argue your case within the structure.

157
00:06:01.145 --> 00:06:04.405
And one of the things that, one of the, the, the, the,

158
00:06:04.505 --> 00:06:06.295
the hazards, I think

159
00:06:06.295 --> 00:06:08.815
of constitutional ideology is it becomes too rich

160
00:06:08.965 --> 00:06:11.575
because the richer constitutional ideology becomes

161
00:06:12.155 --> 00:06:15.175
the fewer political ideologies that can be advocated

162
00:06:15.335 --> 00:06:16.895
through the constitutional structures.

163
00:06:17.195 --> 00:06:19.615
So the constitutional ideolog starts to shut things out

164
00:06:20.205 --> 00:06:21.655
from debating those institutions.

165
00:06:21.795 --> 00:06:23.215
Now, this might sometimes be a good thing.

166
00:06:23.215 --> 00:06:25.455
You might say, well, Nick, I don't want us to be able

167
00:06:25.455 --> 00:06:27.895
to argue over the merits of, water boarding.

168
00:06:28.055 --> 00:06:30.255
I want us to say that torture is always off the table,

169
00:06:30.715 --> 00:06:31.935
but there are other issues where it can

170
00:06:31.935 --> 00:06:33.215
become, can become a problem.

171
00:06:34.335 --> 00:06:37.375
So, contrast, for example, the way in which say, I know,

172
00:06:37.375 --> 00:06:38.935
the United Kingdom and Spain deal

173
00:06:38.935 --> 00:06:40.255
with the issue of succession.

174
00:06:41.235 --> 00:06:43.495
So in Spain, as I'm sure you're aware,

175
00:06:43.565 --> 00:06:46.935
there's a huge constitutional problem over the question

176
00:06:46.935 --> 00:06:49.055
of whether or not in, in, in, in, in Barcelona,

177
00:06:49.365 --> 00:06:51.975
it's possible to advocate succession within Spanish

178
00:06:52.375 --> 00:06:54.795
constitutional structures in the United Kingdom.

179
00:06:54.895 --> 00:06:56.555
In contrast, there's no question.

180
00:06:56.655 --> 00:06:58.435
But if you are a Welsh nationalist

181
00:06:58.435 --> 00:07:01.595
or a Scottish nationalist, you can argue for succession in,

182
00:07:01.655 --> 00:07:03.595
in parliament and in the constitutional structures.

183
00:07:04.095 --> 00:07:06.955
Now, I suppose the, the strategy that Spain's adopted is

184
00:07:06.955 --> 00:07:09.915
to say it's a rule of our constitutional ideology

185
00:07:10.145 --> 00:07:12.395
that you can't challenge the integrity

186
00:07:12.575 --> 00:07:13.675
of the state as a whole.

187
00:07:14.175 --> 00:07:17.595
The Constitution seeks to put that out of public debate.

188
00:07:18.255 --> 00:07:22.595
Um, if that works great because you've taken a controversial

189
00:07:22.615 --> 00:07:24.555
and difficult political offshoot of the table.

190
00:07:25.215 --> 00:07:27.875
But if it doesn't work, then you've got a huge problem,

191
00:07:27.945 --> 00:07:31.035
because now the structures that are meant to be processing

192
00:07:31.715 --> 00:07:34.315
disagreement are ignoring that disagreement.

193
00:07:34.495 --> 00:07:37.475
And the only way in which those who, advocate

194
00:07:37.475 --> 00:07:40.075
that political position can get reach their, their, their,

195
00:07:40.075 --> 00:07:42.315
their objectives is in conflict

196
00:07:42.315 --> 00:07:44.635
with the constitutional structures of the state.

197
00:07:45.135 --> 00:07:47.235
So there is a significant difference, I think,

198
00:07:47.235 --> 00:07:50.475
between political ideology and constitutional ideology,

199
00:07:50.505 --> 00:07:54.035
because one of the functions of a constitutional ideology is

200
00:07:54.035 --> 00:07:56.835
to allow different rival political ideologies

201
00:07:56.895 --> 00:07:58.875
to engage in the constitutional order so

202
00:07:58.875 --> 00:08:00.235
that the constitution can process

203
00:08:00.875 --> 00:08:01.995
disagreement and not exclude it.

204
00:08:02.335 --> 00:08:04.515
And it, one of the reasons we want constitutions

205
00:08:04.515 --> 00:08:06.875
to do this is because that often makes the state stronger

206
00:08:06.875 --> 00:08:09.275
and more effective rather than weaker.

207
00:08:09.385 --> 00:08:12.115
Both ideologies don't have that aspect where they want

208
00:08:12.115 --> 00:08:14.395
to allow other groups

209
00:08:14.395 --> 00:08:15.675
and other ideologies to engage

210
00:08:15.675 --> 00:08:17.115
through, through their structures.

211
00:08:17.255 --> 00:08:18.275
So most constitution,

212
00:08:18.305 --> 00:08:20.715
most other ideologies can just reach a conclusion about it.

213
00:08:21.055 --> 00:08:22.435
So when I was writing that part of the paper,

214
00:08:22.595 --> 00:08:23.875
I had two examples in mind.

215
00:08:24.415 --> 00:08:27.355
Um, the first example is religious ideologies.

216
00:08:27.775 --> 00:08:31.075
So many religious beliefs contain some quite,

217
00:08:31.645 --> 00:08:33.995
quite broad claims about, first of all,

218
00:08:34.305 --> 00:08:35.675
what can cause things to happen.

219
00:08:36.135 --> 00:08:37.635
So many religious people would say

220
00:08:37.635 --> 00:08:40.915
that God's intervention on earth can cause things to happen.

221
00:08:41.375 --> 00:08:43.755
You know, may, may, maybe God causes a hurricane,

222
00:08:43.755 --> 00:08:45.275
or God saves somebody from,

223
00:08:45.385 --> 00:08:46.915
from an illness or something like that.

224
00:08:47.575 --> 00:08:50.235
So religious, some religious people make

225
00:08:50.545 --> 00:08:51.635
that sort of causal claim.

226
00:08:52.055 --> 00:08:54.675
Um, they also back it up with a particular way of

227
00:08:54.675 --> 00:08:55.675
Arguing. The, the,

228
00:08:55.675 --> 00:08:57.445
the, those causal claims can be proven.

229
00:08:58.345 --> 00:09:01.005
So rather than the scientific method of proving,

230
00:09:01.325 --> 00:09:04.205
causality, a religious person might argue, for example,

231
00:09:04.315 --> 00:09:05.605
that it's possible to, to,

232
00:09:05.605 --> 00:09:07.085
to prove something through revelation.

233
00:09:07.945 --> 00:09:11.645
So I just know that God saved my partner for, from,

234
00:09:11.645 --> 00:09:13.805
from death, because this was revealed to me.

235
00:09:13.805 --> 00:09:17.875
Yeah. So there's a, a, a difficult causal claim

236
00:09:17.875 --> 00:09:19.395
of a possibility God did this thing,

237
00:09:19.495 --> 00:09:22.035
but also a difficult claim about how that can be proven.

238
00:09:22.475 --> 00:09:26.345
I I just know it now, this way of thinking is,

239
00:09:26.345 --> 00:09:28.185
is isn't just confined to the religious.

240
00:09:28.185 --> 00:09:30.785
Think about the way in which during the, the Covid,

241
00:09:31.065 --> 00:09:33.905
19 crisis, there was certainly a substantial group of people

242
00:09:33.965 --> 00:09:36.745
who seemed to think that if we just pretended it wasn't

243
00:09:36.745 --> 00:09:38.345
happening, it would go away.

244
00:09:39.005 --> 00:09:41.945
Um, and that group of people seem to, seemed, to me anyway,

245
00:09:41.945 --> 00:09:43.585
seemed to think that, that, that, that, that those

246
00:09:43.585 --> 00:09:46.025
who are concerned about covid,

247
00:09:46.175 --> 00:09:48.345
were in a sense causing this problem to happen.

248
00:09:49.125 --> 00:09:50.665
So this is sort of radical boosters,

249
00:09:50.665 --> 00:09:51.745
and it's the same with climate.

250
00:09:52.005 --> 00:09:54.825
Uh, change a suggestion that the, the, the, the, the, the,

251
00:09:54.825 --> 00:09:56.665
the, that by worrying about a problem,

252
00:09:56.665 --> 00:09:57.705
you're causing it to happen.

253
00:09:58.165 --> 00:09:59.465
So those are the two things in mind.

254
00:09:59.465 --> 00:10:01.785
These, these very difficult sort of causal claims.

255
00:10:02.325 --> 00:10:05.185
Now, the constitutional ideology then faces a problem.

256
00:10:05.685 --> 00:10:07.825
One option for the constitutional ideology is to say,

257
00:10:07.965 --> 00:10:10.505
we don't permit arguments of this type

258
00:10:10.505 --> 00:10:12.625
to run in our constitutional system.

259
00:10:13.005 --> 00:10:14.905
And you do get some systems like France

260
00:10:15.175 --> 00:10:18.225
that exclude religious arguments from,

261
00:10:18.225 --> 00:10:19.705
the secular realm entirely.

262
00:10:20.245 --> 00:10:22.545
But remember what we were talking about just a moment ago

263
00:10:22.545 --> 00:10:23.825
when we talked about succession?

264
00:10:23.895 --> 00:10:26.265
There's a cost to that because you're shutting people out

265
00:10:26.885 --> 00:10:28.545
of those constitutional institutions.

266
00:10:29.005 --> 00:10:31.505
Um, lots of people may, maybe the majority

267
00:10:31.505 --> 00:10:35.345
of people believe these type of difficult causal claims,

268
00:10:35.525 --> 00:10:37.265
and they'll find that they're not able then

269
00:10:37.265 --> 00:10:38.825
to run the arguments they want to run

270
00:10:39.015 --> 00:10:40.865
with within the constitutional institutions.

271
00:10:40.865 --> 00:10:42.465
They're shut out, and they can only make those arguments

272
00:10:42.465 --> 00:10:43.625
outside the public realm.

273
00:10:43.805 --> 00:10:45.905
That's really difficult. Interestingly,

274
00:10:46.185 --> 00:10:48.585
I think interestingly, the, the extent

275
00:10:48.585 --> 00:10:49.825
to which you can run that type

276
00:10:49.825 --> 00:10:52.745
of argument often depends on the particular constitutional

277
00:10:52.745 --> 00:10:53.945
institution you are looking at.

278
00:10:54.285 --> 00:10:56.665
And this might be something interesting to reflect on.

279
00:10:56.965 --> 00:10:59.065
So in the, legislature, for example,

280
00:10:59.165 --> 00:11:01.425
you can run often religious arguments.

281
00:11:01.685 --> 00:11:04.225
You can say, I think, I think ultimately it's God

282
00:11:04.225 --> 00:11:06.625
that's looking out for us and, and will and will protect us.

283
00:11:06.625 --> 00:11:09.185
And I think that if we pray, then God will show us favor.

284
00:11:09.605 --> 00:11:11.065
But imagine if you went into a court

285
00:11:11.165 --> 00:11:12.385
and tried to run that argument.

286
00:11:12.725 --> 00:11:15.745
You know, you say, no, no, no, that that plot

287
00:11:15.745 --> 00:11:16.945
of land wasn't sold to that person.

288
00:11:17.005 --> 00:11:18.385
And I know because God told me.

289
00:11:18.685 --> 00:11:20.105
You, you would just get laughed out of,

290
00:11:20.245 --> 00:11:21.465
court pretty quickly.

291
00:11:22.285 --> 00:11:25.705
So, again, interesting, the, the, the, the type of,

292
00:11:26.145 --> 00:11:28.105
constitutional ideology you see in different institutions

293
00:11:28.355 --> 00:11:31.305
might make different types of causal,

294
00:11:31.305 --> 00:11:32.745
require different types of causal commitment.

295
00:11:33.045 --> 00:11:35.225
One constitutional institution might be quite broad

296
00:11:35.445 --> 00:11:37.265
and allow you to make those sort of,

297
00:11:37.545 --> 00:11:38.865
inspired boosters type claims.

298
00:11:39.095 --> 00:11:41.865
Another constitutional institution might be more narrow

299
00:11:42.165 --> 00:11:44.145
and restrict the type of claim that you can make.

300
00:11:44.345 --> 00:11:46.105
I saw this paper as a toolkit paper.

301
00:11:46.645 --> 00:11:49.505
Um, I hope this is a helpful paper that people will make use

302
00:11:49.505 --> 00:11:52.025
of, because it's a paper that can be taken in many,

303
00:11:52.125 --> 00:11:53.185
different directions.

304
00:11:53.785 --> 00:11:55.925
Um, for example, it's a paper

305
00:11:55.925 --> 00:11:57.765
that allows constitutional scholars

306
00:11:57.765 --> 00:11:59.725
to start thinking about the importance of history.

307
00:12:00.305 --> 00:12:01.885
Um, so one of the motivations

308
00:12:01.885 --> 00:12:04.565
for writing this paper was the big historical debate

309
00:12:04.565 --> 00:12:06.325
that we have going on in the United Kingdom at the present,

310
00:12:06.555 --> 00:12:07.845
over the legacies of empire.

311
00:12:08.145 --> 00:12:11.005
If you read Nigel Bigger on the Virtues of Empire,

312
00:12:11.105 --> 00:12:13.845
and then you read Carolyn Elkins on the Virtues of Empire,

313
00:12:13.935 --> 00:12:14.885
you'd think that they were writing

314
00:12:14.895 --> 00:12:16.045
about two different things.

315
00:12:16.545 --> 00:12:19.765
So bigger sees, our imperial legacy is largely positive,

316
00:12:19.765 --> 00:12:21.125
something we should be proud of.

317
00:12:21.585 --> 00:12:22.845
Elkins sees it as something we

318
00:12:22.845 --> 00:12:23.965
should be ashamed of and regret.

319
00:12:25.635 --> 00:12:28.165
What I found interesting was that this debate didn't seem

320
00:12:28.165 --> 00:12:29.205
to be entirely about history.

321
00:12:29.475 --> 00:12:31.445
This was a debate about the parameters

322
00:12:31.445 --> 00:12:32.805
of constitutional ideology.

323
00:12:33.355 --> 00:12:35.765
Once you start thinking about constitutional ideology,

324
00:12:35.765 --> 00:12:38.805
you can see that this, this historical debate is a debate

325
00:12:38.805 --> 00:12:40.045
about our national story

326
00:12:40.585 --> 00:12:42.725
and about the way in which public institutions

327
00:12:42.725 --> 00:12:45.885
and citizens should understand that national story in terms

328
00:12:45.905 --> 00:12:49.205
of, of, of providing a grounding on our present day

329
00:12:49.605 --> 00:12:51.005
responses internationally and to,

330
00:12:51.065 --> 00:12:52.325
and way of understanding ourselves.

331
00:12:52.585 --> 00:12:53.845
So there's the first big thing

332
00:12:53.845 --> 00:12:55.245
that I hope this paper will do,

333
00:12:55.465 --> 00:12:57.245
it will encourage constitutional lawyers

334
00:12:57.585 --> 00:13:00.325
to think about the story states tell about their history,

335
00:13:00.495 --> 00:13:02.285
about their purpose, about their

336
00:13:02.285 --> 00:13:03.605
values, about their culture.

337
00:13:04.385 --> 00:13:07.845
But the second big thing that I hope this paper does or,

338
00:13:07.865 --> 00:13:10.045
or allows us to start to, to do is

339
00:13:10.045 --> 00:13:13.205
to think about constitutional identity, about what it means

340
00:13:13.265 --> 00:13:16.045
to be a, a, a member of, a state.

341
00:13:16.155 --> 00:13:18.965
Because constitutional, ideology

342
00:13:18.965 --> 00:13:21.605
and state ideology more generally is a way of framing

343
00:13:21.605 --> 00:13:24.285
what it means to be a member of those groups.

344
00:13:24.905 --> 00:13:26.765
It tells you what you ought to believe,

345
00:13:26.765 --> 00:13:27.805
what you ought not to believe.

346
00:13:27.945 --> 00:13:28.965
It tells you what's important

347
00:13:28.985 --> 00:13:31.045
and what's not important in that context.

348
00:13:31.665 --> 00:13:34.205
So this provides us with an avenue to understand

349
00:13:34.205 --> 00:13:35.765
what it means to be a state member.

350
00:13:36.585 --> 00:13:39.485
And interestingly, I think if we go down this, this route,

351
00:13:39.655 --> 00:13:41.085
we'll discover that this way

352
00:13:41.085 --> 00:13:44.525
of looking at constitutions shows that sometimes the,

353
00:13:45.305 --> 00:13:47.925
the constitutional ideology of the state is intention

354
00:13:47.955 --> 00:13:50.285
with some of its formal legal commitments.

355
00:13:50.385 --> 00:13:53.285
For example, in the United Kingdom, we have,

356
00:13:53.345 --> 00:13:57.085
the institution of citizenship, which is at least supposedly

357
00:13:57.595 --> 00:13:59.125
equally applied to all citizens.

358
00:13:59.125 --> 00:14:01.165
If you're, every citizen is treated equally,

359
00:14:01.705 --> 00:14:04.245
but if you look at the constitutional ideology of the state,

360
00:14:04.625 --> 00:14:07.125
the way in which it deals with, race,

361
00:14:08.025 --> 00:14:09.605
it deals with empire, then

362
00:14:09.605 --> 00:14:11.125
that becomes much more problematic.

363
00:14:11.505 --> 00:14:12.685
It seems to a certain extent

364
00:14:12.685 --> 00:14:15.005
that the constitutional ideology is undermining

365
00:14:15.795 --> 00:14:18.255
the legal claim of EEE equal citizenship.

366
00:14:18.515 --> 00:14:20.375
So yeah, I hope this is a useful paper.

367
00:14:20.575 --> 00:14:21.895
I hope people build on it.

368
00:14:22.255 --> 00:14:23.575
I, I'm looking forward to hearing

369
00:14:23.575 --> 00:14:24.695
people disagree with it too.

370
00:14:25.115 --> 00:14:26.295
So I, I, I hope it's fun.

Exploring Constitutional Ideologies

00:00:00 - Reason for this interview is a paper that I've recently published on constitutional ideologies that's in the International Journal of Constitutional Law called, and I thought this was a very snappy title, what is Constitutional ideology? So if any of the, viewers want to, to read that, it's open access and, Google is your friend, so you can, you can access it very easily and have a read for three. Most of the time, constitutional lawyers focus on law. It's, it's sort of in the job title. And we, we, we, we, we look at law as being a structure which regulates the way in which the, the state makes decisions in which constitutional

00:00:35 - But I found that was a, a increasingly found, that was a con, unsatisfying way of looking at constitutional institutions. So it didn't seem to me that law provided a complete explanation of how they produced the outcomes that they did. There seemed to be some constraints that weren't legal constraints, but nevertheless seemed very important. So that was the starting intuition that maybe there are some limitations, some guidelines, some structures on constitutional institutions that aren't found in law, but have perhaps found in other rules, in social rules.

00:01:07 - The idea is that constitutional ideology is that set of rules that structures the way in which, institutions deliberate and make decisions, not necessarily legal, but they can be, social. I started to look into, I, the idea of ideology, and I quickly discovered that there seemed to be two broad groups of approaches to, ideology. So on the one hand, you have political theorists who treat ideologies as groups of concepts, of sets of concepts that they can study and interpret.

Complementary Perspectives on Ideology: Concepts and Rules

00:01:38 - or the ideology of liberalism, and that that's a sort of a very, a narrative almost, that it's, it's a story that they tell, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the then subject to interpretation. On the other hand, there are social psychologists who look at related matters. And for social psychologists, ideology seems to be a rule-based practice. So for social psychologists, there are rules that structure deliberation In the groups. In groups, there are rules that exclude certain propositions from consideration. There are rules that require the group to consider certain propositions.

00:02:12 - of understanding the ideology, ideology as concepts which are interpreted ideology as rules, which can be studied. But I began to realize that these were two sides of the same coin. They're complimentary. So the rules are the things that underpin the concepts. Social groups, including the state, including constitutional institutions, have a set of, of, of rules that structure how they de they debate. But when you look at those rules, you can see that that, that that concepts are extrapolated outta those rules.

00:02:41 - and I think looking at ideologies, both in terms of rules and concepts is, is quite helpful. So first off, in terms of rules, that gives us quite a sharp way of identifying what those ideologies are. So there's an awful lot written on how you go about identifying the existence of a social rule. There's a social rule in operation when breach of that rule triggers criticism in the group. And moreover, that criticism is of a certain type. It's a criticism for breach of the rule. So that the, the social psychology literature gives us a

Understanding Ideologies: The Intersection of Rules and Concepts

00:03:13 - and pinning down those rules. But the, political theory literature, I think brings out the way in which those rules then generate a set of concepts that provide a worldview, a way of looking at, reality. So think of ideologies then as constructing a lens that people then look through to see, to understand how the world is, to understand how they think the world, ought to be. And those concepts can't just be collapsed back into the rules because concepts can be used. The concepts can be used in situations where the rules don't necessarily apply.

00:03:45 - that have broader reach than the, than the specific rules. People assume that there's a single ideology you have to buy into. Everybody's only buys into one ideology. But if an ideology is a feature of a social group, then every social group has its own ideology. Yeah. And there could be multiple ideologies that we have to engage and navigate, and those inter ideologies can interact. So in the context of a state and the constitution, the constitution, constitutional ideologies for within the state, they're part of the state state's ideologies.

00:04:17 - in particular, constitutional institutions. So we can talk of constitutional ideology as a whole as being those, rules that structure the deliberation of constitutional actors. But we could also talk about the constitutional ideology of a particular institution like parliament or the courts or the executive. And these could all be different. state ideology, I think is, is broader seal. So state ideology also encompasses the way in which private groups interact in the state, because one of the tasks of the state is

Expanding State Ideology: Balancing Disagreement and Constructive Debate

00:04:49 - the state, deliberate. So the state sets, rules that regulate the way in which say people within charities discuss and decide on activity or trade unions or companies. So the state speaks to the way in which it, its members have to deliberate within private groups. So state ideology is broader than constitutional ideology expands outwards. I don't want to pretend the constitutional ideology isn't a political ideology in a sense, but one of the purposes of a constitution is to, process

00:05:19 - So there are two broad, I think two big views of what a constitution is there to do. One view of the constitution is it's there to end disagreement. It's sort of memorializes our conclusions. It shuts down, disagreement. So those who support those who advocate for human rights, for example, would say it's very important to have human rights in the Constitution, because we want to shut out debate over those rights. So that's one thing constitutions do. But a second thing constitutions do is they provide structures in which people can disagree constructively.

00:05:52 - the disagreement is, is, is is being brought to a conclusion. Constitutions provide you with mechanisms where you can, can, you can fight your corner, you can argue your case within the structure. And one of the things that, one of the, the, the, the, the hazards, I think of constitutional ideology is it becomes too rich because the richer constitutional ideology becomes the fewer political ideologies that can be advocated through the constitutional structures. So the constitutional ideolog starts to shut things out

Constitutional Ideology and the Debate on Secession

00:06:21 - Now, this might sometimes be a good thing. You might say, well, Nick, I don't want us to be able to argue over the merits of, water boarding. I want us to say that torture is always off the table, but there are other issues where it can become, can become a problem. So, contrast, for example, the way in which say, I know, the United Kingdom and Spain deal with the issue of succession. So in Spain, as I'm sure you're aware, there's a huge constitutional problem over the question of whether or not in, in, in, in, in Barcelona, it's possible to advocate succession within Spanish

00:06:54 - In contrast, there's no question. But if you are a Welsh nationalist or a Scottish nationalist, you can argue for succession in, in parliament and in the constitutional structures. Now, I suppose the, the strategy that Spain's adopted is to say it's a rule of our constitutional ideology that you can't challenge the integrity of the state as a whole. The Constitution seeks to put that out of public debate. if that works great because you've taken a controversial

00:07:25 - But if it doesn't work, then you've got a huge problem, because now the structures that are meant to be processing disagreement are ignoring that disagreement. And the only way in which those who, advocate that political position can get reach their, their, their, their objectives is in conflict with the constitutional structures of the state. So there is a significant difference, I think, between political ideology and constitutional ideology, because one of the functions of a constitutional ideology is

Constitutional Ideology and Processing Disagreement

00:07:56 - to engage in the constitutional order so that the constitution can process disagreement and not exclude it. And it, one of the reasons we want constitutions to do this is because that often makes the state stronger and more effective rather than weaker. Both ideologies don't have that aspect where they want to allow other groups and other ideologies to engage through, through their structures. So most constitution, most other ideologies can just reach a conclusion about it. So when I was writing that part of the paper, I had two examples in mind.

00:08:27 - So many religious beliefs contain some quite, quite broad claims about, first of all, what can cause things to happen. So many religious people would say that God's intervention on earth can cause things to happen. You know, may, may, maybe God causes a hurricane, or God saves somebody from, from an illness or something like that. So religious, some religious people make that sort of causal claim. they also back it up with a particular way of

00:08:55 - the, those causal claims can be proven. So rather than the scientific method of proving, causality, a religious person might argue, for example, that it's possible to, to, to prove something through revelation. So I just know that God saved my partner for, from, from death, because this was revealed to me. Yeah. So there's a, a, a difficult causal claim of a possibility God did this thing, but also a difficult claim about how that can be proven. I I just know it now, this way of thinking is,

Constitutional Ideology and Public Discourse During Crises

00:09:28 - Think about the way in which during the, the Covid, 19 crisis, there was certainly a substantial group of people who seemed to think that if we just pretended it wasn't happening, it would go away. and that group of people seem to, seemed, to me anyway, seemed to think that, that, that, that, that those who are concerned about covid, were in a sense causing this problem to happen. So this is sort of radical boosters, and it's the same with climate. change a suggestion that the, the, the, the, the, the, the, that by worrying about a problem,

00:09:58 - So those are the two things in mind. These, these very difficult sort of causal claims. Now, the constitutional ideology then faces a problem. One option for the constitutional ideology is to say, we don't permit arguments of this type to run in our constitutional system. And you do get some systems like France that exclude religious arguments from, the secular realm entirely. But remember what we were talking about just a moment ago when we talked about succession? There's a cost to that because you're shutting people out

00:10:29 - lots of people may, maybe the majority of people believe these type of difficult causal claims, and they'll find that they're not able then to run the arguments they want to run with within the constitutional institutions. They're shut out, and they can only make those arguments outside the public realm. That's really difficult. Interestingly, I think interestingly, the, the extent to which you can run that type of argument often depends on the particular constitutional institution you are looking at. And this might be something interesting to reflect on.

Religious Arguments and Constitutional Ideology

00:10:59 - you can run often religious arguments. You can say, I think, I think ultimately it's God that's looking out for us and, and will and will protect us. And I think that if we pray, then God will show us favor. But imagine if you went into a court and tried to run that argument. You know, you say, no, no, no, that that plot of land wasn't sold to that person. And I know because God told me. You, you would just get laughed out of, court pretty quickly. So, again, interesting, the, the, the, the type of, constitutional ideology you see in different institutions

00:11:31 - require different types of causal commitment. One constitutional institution might be quite broad and allow you to make those sort of, inspired boosters type claims. Another constitutional institution might be more narrow and restrict the type of claim that you can make. I saw this paper as a toolkit paper. I hope this is a helpful paper that people will make use of, because it's a paper that can be taken in many, different directions. for example, it's a paper that allows constitutional scholars to start thinking about the importance of history.

00:12:01 - for writing this paper was the big historical debate that we have going on in the United Kingdom at the present, over the legacies of empire. If you read Nigel Bigger on the Virtues of Empire, and then you read Carolyn Elkins on the Virtues of Empire, you'd think that they were writing about two different things. So bigger sees, our imperial legacy is largely positive, something we should be proud of. Elkins sees it as something we should be ashamed of and regret. What I found interesting was that this debate didn't seem to be entirely about history. This was a debate about the parameters

Exploring Constitutional Ideology and National Identity

00:12:33 - Once you start thinking about constitutional ideology, you can see that this, this historical debate is a debate about our national story and about the way in which public institutions and citizens should understand that national story in terms of, of, of providing a grounding on our present day responses internationally and to, and way of understanding ourselves. So there's the first big thing that I hope this paper will do, it will encourage constitutional lawyers to think about the story states tell about their history, about their purpose, about their

00:13:04 - But the second big thing that I hope this paper does or, or allows us to start to, to do is to think about constitutional identity, about what it means to be a, a, a member of, a state. Because constitutional, ideology and state ideology more generally is a way of framing what it means to be a member of those groups. It tells you what you ought to believe, what you ought not to believe. It tells you what's important and what's not important in that context. So this provides us with an avenue to understand

00:13:36 - And interestingly, I think if we go down this, this route, we'll discover that this way of looking at constitutions shows that sometimes the, the constitutional ideology of the state is intention with some of its formal legal commitments. For example, in the United Kingdom, we have, the institution of citizenship, which is at least supposedly equally applied to all citizens. If you're, every citizen is treated equally, but if you look at the constitutional ideology of the state,

Constitutional Ideology and Equal Citizenship

00:14:25 - it deals with empire, then that becomes much more problematic. It seems to a certain extent that the constitutional ideology is undermining the legal claim of EEE equal citizenship. So yeah, I hope this is a useful paper. I hope people build on it. I, I'm looking forward to hearing people disagree with it too. So I, I, I hope it's fun.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis