23 The word “ideology” is one of the catchwords of the hour. The author regrets having to use it, but dares not coin a neologism to replace it. He does not desire that “ideology” be opposed to “truth,” but uses the word in its broadest possible sense, referring to the whole socio-psychological conditioning of a group of people. He does not, therefore, speak of ideologies as a collection of Paretian derivations, fictions which mask some “truth.” He considers his own background—or Pareto’s, for that matter—as ideological, and—in the sense of the word here employed—cannot conceive of any human belief or utterance _not_ ideological. The task he has set himself is the transposition of a pattern of Chinese ideas concerning government from the Chinese ideology to the Western-traditionalist ideology of the twentieth century. Whether one, the other, neither, or both, is “right,” is quite beside the point, so far as the present enterprise is concerned. In calling the whole non-physical background of a society the ideology of that society, the author can excuse his novel use of the term only if he admits that he establishes the new meaning by definition, without any necessary reference to the previous use of the term. He has no intention of following, in the present work, any “theory of ideology” or definition of “ideology” established by political philosophers, such as Marx, or sociologists such as Weber, Mannheim, or Pareto. (Professor A. O. Lovejoy suggested the following definition of the term, “ideology,” after having seen the way it was employed in this work: “_Ideology_ means a complex of ideas, in part ethical, in part political, in part often religious, which is current in a society, or which the proponents of it desire to make current, as an effective means of controlling behavior.”)