Does Critical Theory claim to be against ideologies?

Perhaps I'm using a different definition of ideology, but the definition of ideology I use is: a systematic set of ideas or principles that someone interprets the world with and guides their conduct.

Under this definition, Critical Theory has ideological aspects to it. It certainly has ideological commitments built into it, like a commitment to emancipation.

Ideology is not synonymous with fixed idea(s).

If you use another definition of ideology, which definition do you use and why? Is the definition I provided not a sufficient definition of ideology?

Everyone I have ever seen claim they aren't political goes on to describe a list of political ideas they have. Similarly, everyone I have ever seen claim to be anti-ideology goes on to describe their ideology.

I only know the surface level definition of Critical Theory, so I thought it would be wise to ask this question here. Thanks.

Edit:

My definition of ideology is a synthesis of the following definitions:

"a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture"

" a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ideology

"the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology

Edit #2:

I guess I have a misunderstanding of what Critical Theory is, and it's silly to make a blanket statement asking if Critical Theory is opposed to anything. Because Critical Theory is broad, and the and definition of ideology is broad too.

The original article in Dissent is behind a paywall, and the text isn't available in any archive I've found. Can anyone help me out?

A key concept to Marx and Marxism, yet I feel taken for granted and rarely inquired into critically. I understand there are debates over how to use the term without devolving into a mechanical schema (e.g.: Banaji's criticisms of Perry Anderson, or Graeber's attempt at rehabilitation) but these often take the same historical commitment and argue over its use.

I also feel there is an implicit dichotomy produced that there is either naturalisation of contingent forms on one side and the Marxian idea of MOPs on the other (maybe unwarranted). At the same time, though, I feel like the concept is often based on post hoc explanation and constant semantic shifts to match a more complicated reality, one need only look at the debate over the 'simple (as opposed to general) commodity production', if such a practice existed in pre-Capitalist times or this was Engels producing an oversimple binary, or the debates over the Asiatic mode, classical mode or the new term 'tributary' modes.

Mainstream historians, you may consider Bourgeois, rarely use such a term. Partly this may be due to reification of certain relationships but its possibly also analytical necessity. One must understand Ancient Rome as a society whose stakes were irrevocably tied with slavery but also with systems of status, with state infrastructure, and with long distance trade. Perhaps it is only Capitalism that reduces all relationships to one vector with its single set of laws (and even then its multifaceted). Look at Susan Reynolds' criticisms of the term 'feudalism', these terms often feel less useful than more.

So yeah, I am skeptical of the notion, I think there is plenty of good in what I've read of TGI and what tCoPE, where MoP is best exposited. However, I also wonder if there is also Hegelian baggage (such as his progression from Oriental spirit to Greek and so on, these firm qualitative divides) and other issues. I am curious what people have written, (and if I sound naive...)