Writing Ideologies Essays

Every ideologies question takes the same form: "To what extent is [ideology] united or divided over [a theme]?" The theme is usually human nature, the state, society or the economy, or one of the core principles. The question never names a key thinker.

Decode the question

[Ideology] tells you the strands to compare (liberalism = classical and modern).
[Theme] is the one area you must stay on (for example the economy).
United or divided tells you to weigh the agreements against the disagreements.
To what extent is the judgement: decide which is greater, and how great. It is never a yes or no answer.

The essay is marked on three skills that carry equal weight. Give each the same attention.

AO1 KnowledgeWhat each strand believes, the right key terms, and two key thinkers used properly.

AO2 AnalysisComparing the strands, agreements and disagreements, in the same paragraph.

AO3 JudgementDeciding whether the agreements or disagreements are greater, and saying so.

The rule that catches people out: you must use at least two of the five named key thinkers for that ideology. Use fewer than two and the whole essay is capped at Level 2 (a maximum of 9 out of 24), however good the rest is. Use their ideas, do not just name them.

Brainstorm four possible themes, then build the essay on the best three. The fourth is your spare. Pick one shape and keep to it:

Three themes - three paragraphs, each weighing agreement and disagreement on one theme. The most flexible.
Agree, Disagree, Disagree - one paragraph on agreement, then two on disagreement, explaining why the disagreements matter more.
Agree, Disagree, Agree - use when the agreements are the stronger side of your argument.

Introduction: Define, Context, View

Define the key terms (the ideology and the theme).
Context: name the strands and set up the debate in a sentence.
View: state your line of argument up front, which is greater and briefly why. "They disagree more than they agree" is clearer than hedging on the word extent.

Conclusion

Return to the judgement. Concede the weaker side ("While we can see that...") and assert the stronger side with a direct answer ("It is clear that... to a large or limited extent"). Add no new evidence.

This is where most marks are won, because it is where you compare (AO2) and judge (AO3). Build every paragraph the same way:

Topic sentence - name the theme.
Point - the first strand's view.
Evidence - a key term and a key thinker.
Analysis - how that supports the point.
However - signal the other strand.
Counterpoint - the second strand's view, with evidence and analysis.
Comparison - say plainly how the two differ, side against side.
Interim judgement - which is greater for this theme.

Compare, do not list. Writing one strand in the first half of a paragraph and the other in the second half is two descriptions, not a comparison. Force it into one sentence: "Where a classical liberal sees X, a modern liberal sees Y, which shows they disagree about Z."

"To what extent are liberals united over the role of the state?" Here is an introduction, one full paragraph and a conclusion. The labels show where each skill appears.

Introduction

Liberalism divides into two strands, classical and modern. Both treat the state as a "necessary evil" that must rest on consent and be limited by a constitution. However, they divide sharply over how large that state should be. This essay argues that liberals are more divided than united over the state, because their disagreement about its size matters more than their shared starting point.

Body paragraph

AO1 Classical liberals want only a minimal "night-watchman" state that keeps order and protects property, because they prize negative freedom. John Locke held that government rests on consent and that "where there is no law there is no freedom".

AO1 Modern liberals want an enabling state providing welfare, education and health, because real freedom is the capacity to flourish. John Rawls used the veil of ignorance to argue that rational people would protect the worst-off, which justifies redistribution.

AO2 Where Locke's classical liberal sees progressive taxation as a breach of the natural right to property, Rawls's modern liberal sees it as the very thing that makes freedom real, so the strands are not differing by degree but disagreeing about what the state is for.

AO3 On the role of the state, then, the disagreement clearly outweighs the shared preference for limited government.

Conclusion

While liberals agree that the state must be limited and built on consent, it is clear that they are more divided than united over its role, because they disagree fundamentally about whether freedom needs a minimal state or an enabling one.

Two key thinkers are used to show strand views, the comparison sits in one sentence, and the judgement appears in the body and the conclusion.

State your view

"This essay argues that [ideology] is more divided than united over [theme], because..."
"While [ideology] shares [X], the disagreements over [Y] are more fundamental."

Compare the strands

"Where a [strand] believes [X], a [strand] believes [Y], which shows..."
"Both strands agree that [X]; however, they part company over [Y]."

Judge

"On this theme, then, the [agreement or disagreement] is clearly the greater."
"This shows that, to a [large or limited] extent, [ideology] is [united or divided] over [theme]."

Conclude

"While we can see that [weaker side], it is clear that [stronger side], so [direct answer]."

I answered "to what extent" with a clear judgement, not a yes or no.
I stated my view in the introduction and kept to it.
Every paragraph compares the strands in the same sentences, not in separate halves.
I used at least two named key thinkers, and used their ideas, not just their names.
I made an interim judgement at the end of each paragraph.
I stayed on the exact theme in the question.
My conclusion concedes the weaker side and asserts the stronger, with no new evidence.

Only disagreeing. Engage with both agreement and disagreement.
Listing the strands side by side, which makes no comparison and loses AO2.
Name-checking thinkers, or using fewer than two and triggering the Level 2 cap.
Mislabelling a thinker's strand, for example calling Nozick a New Right thinker (he is a libertarian used to illustrate neoliberal thinking).
Treating "to what extent" as a yes or no question.
Saving the judgement for the conclusion instead of judging in every paragraph.
Drifting onto a different theme from the one in the question.

Decode the question

Introduction: Define, Context, View

Conclusion

State your view

Compare the strands

Judge

Conclude