Abercrombie, Hill and Turner enunciate a dominant ideology thesis with the objective of subjecting it to a fierce critique:

“In all societies based on class divisions there is a dominant class which enjoys control of both the means of material production and the means of mental production. Through its control of ideological production, the dominant class is able to supervise the construction of a set of coherent beliefs. These dominant beliefs of the dominant class are more powerful, dense and coherent than those of the subordinate classes.[1]

          Therefore, this dominant ideology is incorporated by the working class and this phenomenon ensures the reproduction of the capitalist system and the absence of a social revolution: the working class is absolutely integrated in the system against its own interest by means of this compact and coherent dominant ideology.

          The first remarkable objection to this thesis is, according to Abercrombie et al., the disorganised ways in which, in its multiple versions, it has been presented. There should be a clear answer to each one of these questions in any version of the thesis:[2]

1. What is the dominant ideology?

2. What effect does the dominant ideology have on the dominant class?

3. What effect does the dominant ideology have on subordinate classes?

4. What is the apparatus that transmits the dominant ideology in society?

          The responses to these questions given by Marxism and its theorists of the dominant ideology are not very satisfactory, according to Abercrombie et al.:

1. The contents of the dominant ideology are not always specified.

2. Basically, the different versions agree in the profitable and beneficious effects of the ideological dominance for the dominant classes, “although not necessarily throughout their own deliberate activities”.[3]

3. Mainly, the effects concentrate in the incorporation of the working class and its conformism, “though there is considerable disagreement as to the degree of incorporation and the consequent degree of social stability”.[4]

4. The apparatuses have to be very effective in order to overcome the contradictions within the capitalist structures.[5]

          Though from the beginning they assume they are going to attack this thesis, they agree that “ideology has importance in explaining the coherence of the dominant class but not in the explanation of the coherence of a society as a whole”.[6]

          The turn to ideology to try to explain social reproduction has been brought, according to Abercrombie et al., by the fact that the expected revolution did not occur. After the First World War, therefore, a general concern with the superstructure of Marxist analysis is reflected in different writers: “the Frankfurt school, for example, emphasised the independent role of culture, while Gramsci was primarily a theorist of politics”.[7] More radical, Althusser dismantles the base-superstructure theory and explains how “the social whole is a totality of instances relatively independent and relatively autonomous”.[8] According to him, “there is never a moment when the economy is somehow pure; it is always associated with, and is literally inconceivable without, political and ideological structures”.[9] It is possible to argue that Althusser’s view makes everything ideological.

          According to C. Lodziak, Gramsci and Althusser “are identified by Abercrombie et al. as two of the principal advocates of the dominant ideology thesis”.[10] Thus it is very recommendable to examine their respective views on ideology and dominance.

          Gramsci has, “probably more than any other theorist, contributed to the contemporary dominant ideology thesis”.[11] Gramsci was a theorist of hegemony, a most important concept in Marxism from the end of the First World War. He considered hegemony the leadership of a class over the rest of a given society. This leadership, is not only exerted by the state’s repression but, in a very important way, as an “intellectual and moral leadership”[12], which means ideological domination. Gramsci is actually a convinced supporter of the autonomy of the superstructure and he depicts it as an engineering of consent which works in combination with the state forces but in the realm of civil society. The proportion in which the domination of one class makes use of both repression and ideological control is variable. Gramsci compared the situation of Russia at his time (more repression) with the West, democratic and relying almost entirely in ideological consent.[13]

          Nevertheless, where the plainest sense of the defence procured to ideology by Gramsci is to be found is in the prison writings between 1929 and 1935. There we read:

“The bad sense of the word [ideology] has become widespread [...]. The process leading up to this error can be easily reconstructed:

      1. Ideology is identified as distinct from the structure, and it is asserted that it is not ideology that changes the structures but vice versa.

      2. It is asserted that a given political solution is “ideological”, e. g., that it is insufficient for changing the structure, although it thinks that it can do so; it is asserted that it is useless, stupid, etc.

      3. One then passes to the assertion that every ideology is “pure”, appearance, useless, stupid, etc.[14]“

          Gramsci refers to Marx and his enhancing of the solidity of popular beliefs in becoming authentic forces of change.[15] This task is to be accomplished by the working class “gaining consciousness of its strength, its possibilities”,[16] because at the moment he is writing the conception of the world in the hands of the worker is composed of “common sense”,[17] a fragmentary knowledge of the world based on his/her limited view of his/her economic activity without self-awareness of his/her potential as a member of a community.

          Thus for Gramsci the dominant ideology, which is widespread around “libraries, schools, associations and clubs of various kinds, even architecture and the layout and names of streets”,[18] impedes the development of the capabilities of the working class to oppose the capitalist system. This working-class consciousness is actually in existence, but in a weak form and hardly surviving under the requirements of a traditional and historically absorbed “common sense”.[19] This common sense seems to be therefore a kind of primitive but deeply rooted dominant ideology. One could say an underlying ideology.

          On the other hand, Althusser, as we have mentioned before, regards everything as ideological and he can be possibly defined as the most radical author committed with the dominant ideology thesis. According to him, Marx never spoke of an economic based evolution of societies, but he just discerned two extremes which are keys to understand society. He[20] “told us to find out what goes on between them”, let us say, between economic base and superstructure. The way ideology works is “by placing and adapting men to their roles as bearers of the structures of social relations”.[21] The individual becomes a subject, in a double sense: a subject because he/she has to submit to the structures of social relations, he is therefore living the dominant ideology, more than internalising it,[22] and at the same time he/she is formally recognised as a subject in the sense of “centre of initiatives”. As such, ideology is “an illusory representation of the world”.[23]

          Someway ideology arises objectively from the social structures and “is of crucial significance in the reproduction of the relations of production”. [24] Those social structures are distinguished in a parallel way to Gramsci’s: Repressive State Apparatus’ institutions and Ideological State Apparatus’ institutions.[25] Nevertheless, the role of civil society and the possibility of generating a working-class consciousness from there have disappeared from Althusser’s view; it is only an oppressive state what is left.

          A mysterious analysis of the evolution of the dominant ideology is given by Althusser in his essay “Reading Capital”. There we find a conception of ideology reflecting historical changes “which it is its mission to assimilate and master by some imperceptible modification of its peculiar internal relations”;[26] it seems that he is returning to economicism in this late writing or, alternatively, it can be understood that he is linking in an n inseparable manner, as it is suggested above, economic base and superstructure in “an expressive totality”.[27] Both interpretations are open to discussion.

          Although the more elaborated versions of the dominant ideology thesis are developed by Gramsci and Althusser, it is worth mentioning a non-purely-Marxist view of the thesis: the one given by Jurgen Habermas. Habermas “wants to retain the ideology-critical features of Marx’s theory while discarding its “positivist” framework.[28]

          He touches the issue when he gives relevance to legitimation. Legitimation is the process that enables the social system to subsist and be supported by its actors. So the system demands “ideological solutions” (though legitimation could be assured by other means, e. g. material rewards) for its  “strains”.[29] Legitimation comes, in late capitalism, not from the idea of justice and equivalent exchange in the market place (early capitalism) but from our contemporary formal democracies, where the state assumes “the insufficiency of the market to achieve social justice”[30] and takes care of the management of the economy. However, this management becomes separate from the will and participation of the subordinate classes, and in the end we find ourselves in a society of “civil privatism” far from a substantive democracy.[31]

          Apart from the Marxist views on the dominant ideology, Abercrombie et al. refer to “similar theoretical assumptions” coming from classical sociology. They call these versions Theories of the Common Culture and they study them in two main groups.

          The first bunch of theories comes from the sociology of knowledge or “attempts to show how beliefs can be reduced to social groups”.[32] Similarities are to be found between Marx and Weber, for example, when the latter analyses social systems of belief, especially religious belief. According to Abercrombie et al., “Weber’s position is analytically not far removed from the claim that religion is the opium of the masses“, since Weber regards religion as a legitimation for the powerful and a promise of compensation for the poor; these both strong beliefs mitigate “the full impact of contradictory class interests”.[33] Weber thinks that the spirit of capitalism is based on Protestantism: it brought about the substitution of the Catholic Church’s control over everyday life for “a new form of control”.[34]

          Protestantism encourages values of utility, profit-making and interest over money: someway “the earning of money within the modern economic order is, so long as it is done legally, the result and the expression of virtue and proficiency”.[35] Therefore, the ideology of Protestantism is, according to Weber, entirely internalised by the population of Protestant countries, since “the greater other-wordliness of Catholicism, the ascetic character of its highest ideals, must have brought up its adherents to a greater indifference toward the good things of this world”.[36] this ideology, this economic rationalism, has been followed by the whole population, “both as ruling classes and as ruled”.[37]

          More and even stronger similarities with the Marxist versions of the dominant ideology thesis are to be discovered in Karl Mannheim and his “Ideology and Utopia”. There he makes even extensive use of a clearly dichotomous class model: examining Christianity he reaches the conclusion that religion, not exactly as Weber pointed out, proportions a helpful ideology to the dominant class and “utopias for the oppressed class”.[38] In the evolution to the primacy of the state power, it enhances the scientific method. If “the churches and sects conducted their battles with diverse irrational articles of faith”, the political parties made use of “systems of thought” in a period where “science as such was accorded a greater social esteem”. [39] This period was the period of Enlightenment.

          Nevertheless, the result of this shift to rationality did not alter the basic structure of the collective unconscious of the social groups. Mannheim asserts that, in the new era of democracy, still the very ideology of the liberal state carries “the insight that in certain situations the collective unconscious of certain groups obscures the real conditions of society both to itself and to others and thereby stabilizes it”.[40]

          Mannheim distinguishes two interpretations of the term ideology, one particular and one total; “both these conceptions of ideology, accordingly, make these so-called ideas a function of him who holds them, and of his position in his social milieu”.[41] To put it more simply, ideology reinforces the actual state of society even if it is not realised by its members.

          However, Mannheim acknowledges the existence of a “utopian thinking”, again, in the new secular society. This utopian thinking is no more elevating its hopes to a world beyond this one, but becomes the weapon which enables “certain oppressed groups” that are “intellectually strong” to attempt “the destruction and transformation of a given condition of society”.[42] According to Mannheim, these groups see “only those elements in the situation [capitalism] which tend to negate it”.[43] He seems to be referring to Communism, and at the same time remarking the actual power of it, which makes his conception of the dominant ideology something weak and something susceptible of being overcome.

          Both Mannheim’s and Weber’s theories become extremely close to the idea of “the ruling ideas of every age” being “necessarily those of the dominant social class”.[44] Both authors, as well, consider how religious ideas were capable of incorporating “the various social classes within a common way of life”.[45]

          The second group of Theories of The Common Culture examined by Abercrombie et al. is defined as Sociology of Common Culture and Beliefs; this one escapes relatively from a religious-centred view to a notion of “conscience collective”.[46]

          The first author examined, Emile Durkheim, found the basis for his sociological thought in Saint-Simon, the same author to whom Marxism owes a great deal of ideas.[47] This common origin gives way, though, to different interpretations of what could be defined as “dominant ideology”. Durkheim’s view is, according to Abercrombie et al., the following:

“He notes that industrial conflict is the inevitable outcome of the social separation of owners and workers and that these conflicts are especially evident in large factories [...]. He is also aware that the working class is incorporated into the new society [capitalism] by a combination of consent and constraint.[48]“

          Durkheim thinks that this tense situation is due to the unsatisfactory conditions in which the subordinated classes live, but they accept them because “they have no means to change them” (italics are mine).[49] It seems that Durkheim is, at the moment, far away from the dominant ideology thesis. He is appealing to material resources, whose lack forces the  social reproduction of the working-class uncomfortable circumstances.

          Some pages after, though, he analyses which can be the cohesion principle of modern industrial societies, and he definitely finds the State and the governmental actions very relevant in order to maintain “certain moral uniformity among occupations”,[50] because the specialisation and division of labour is growing and has “dispersive effects”.[51]

          In my opinion, it is doubtful to include Durkheim as an advocate of the dominant ideology thesis. He actually writes passages like this one:

“The collective conscience is becoming more and more a cult of the individual, we shall see that what characterises the morality of organised societies, compared to that of segmental societies, is that there is something more human, therefore more rational, about them [...]. It does not make us servants of ideal powers of a nature other than our own, which follow their directions without occupying themselves with the interests of men.[52]“

          Durkheim could be speaking about a dominant ideology clearly based on individualism, but he is then in favour of it and finds it cohesive and beneficious for society.[53] He seems to contradict his former assertion and that is why, in my eyes, it becomes very risky to conciliate him with Abercrombie et al’s critique.

          That is not the case of Talcott Parsons who, according to Abercrombie et al., explains the internalisation process of the dominant values as involving the transfer of these “to the personality of the actor so that successful performance of social roles is both socially rewarding and psychologically gratifying”.[54] It is not that a dominant class imposes a concrete way of understanding social relationships, but the social relationships are there and submitting to them means to be repaid with personal and collective gratifications.

          The concept of socialisation becomes essential, as well as the system created by the interaction of cultural patterns, social institutions and personality needs.[55] Amongst the theorists of the Common Culture, we could argue that it is Parsons the most convinced leader of the dominant ideology thesis, since he reckons that “if a collectivity exists, the it must possess an integrated system of values which are successfully internalised into the personalities of the individual-in-roles”.[56] Abercrombie et al’s critique understands that Parson’s theory applies quite well to pre-industrial societies, but its lacks are manifest when trying to transfer its arguments to capitalism.[57]

          The main object of attack is the existence of subcultures and non-conformist values (one of them is the very Marxism); this is not satisfactorily resolved within Parson’s theory. It is the same problem facing Marxism (Abercrombie et al. think Parsons enters in “an ironic relation” with Marx when he focuses “on common culture as a social requirement for stability”[58]), let us say, the fact that the working class is not a “tabula rasa“[59] where the dominant class can inscribe “its ruling ideas”. It is impossible neither to regard social behaviour as an effect of only ideological motivations, since pragmatism plays an important role as well.

           Referring to the whole examination of the different versions of the dominant ideology thesis, Abercrombie et al. “do not deny the possibility of ideological incorporation, but ideology generally plays a secondary, partial and insignificant role in social order”.[60]

          Through their study of the dominant ideology thesis, Abercrombie et al. empirically assess the validity of the thesis from feudalism to early and finally late capitalism, and the definitely conclude that:

          1. There is nothing such as “ideological unity” of any kind of sets of beliefs, especially in late capitalism. They assume that, “despite improvements in the apparatus of transmission”, that lack of coherence is a fact because of “major changes in the economic and political organisation of society” have occurred: deep specialisation of labour, appearance of sub-cultures, internal differentiation of the dominant class into interests groups, etc.[61] This argument seems to be a kind of post-modernist one.

          2. The effects of the supposed ideology on the subordinate classes have nothing to do with incorporation. Ideology and culture, in general, have cohesive effects for the different social groups. They admit even the “possibility that elements of the culture of subordinate classes, which develop autonomously from the culture of dominant classes, will have the effect of dampening down oppositional activity”.[62] This fact, it is immediately added, must not be understood as ideological incorporation (?).

          3. The effect of the dominant ideology on the dominant classes. Changes in the economic structure of capitalism have led to “the changing nature of the dominant class itself”,[63] and the effects are more likely to be reduced if we think of the mentioned lack of unity or incoherence of the dominant ideology.

          4. The apparatuses of transmission of the dominant ideology are potentially very powerful: “mass-media and a mass compulsory education system”.[64] Nevertheless, in late capitalism the “dominant ideology is relatively less well defined, the dominant classes are relatively less incorporated (?), and the subordinate classes are relatively more incorporated,[65] though only partially so”.[66]

          I agree with Abercrombie et al’s critique of the dominant ideology thesis in general, but there are some points I would like to comment:

          – It is true that no explanation is ever given of what contents should be included especifically in the concept of dominant ideology. C. Lodziak reviews some studies about the doubtful internalisation of “dominant values”[67] such as ideology of accumulation, merit, etc. They, plus the results given by Abercrombie et al., indicate a very low degree of internalisation. Nevertheless, some objections are to be drawn about the reliability of those empirical studies, because these are “limited and not representative of all fractions of the working class”.[68] It is quite risky to decide, on the basis of what the people answer in a questionnaire, what is to be considered beliefs or what it is not.

          – The idea of grouping Marxist and classical sociologists together to blame them for not having understood how the capitalist system reproduces itself becomes quite hard to follow. In some cases (e. g. Durkheim) the validity of using someone’s theories to criticise the dominant ideology thesis becomes doubtful.

          – The third and the most complicated question to point out is the notion of ideology used by Abercrombie et al. As C. Lodziak observes, “while the reproduction of capitalist societies involves the reproduction of gender and race domination”,[69] Abercrombie et al. only see as necessary, for that reproduction, the continuation of the dominant classes and that would be uncritically accepted by the subordinate classes. Evidently this interpretation helps them quite a lot; it makes the reader understand it is a way of depreciating the working class to believe it can be deceived so easily. They prefer to speak about the “pragmatic acceptance” of the system,[70] due to the lack of realistic alternatives to it. They even take into account the possibility of the social reproduction being based on a system of rewards. The pursuit of these records would not be the result of ideological manipulation because “they are not illusory”.[71] Actually they observe that “the political struggle of labour is channelled into the maximisation of economic rewards through institutionalised wage bargaining”.[72]

          The first argument fails to acknowledge that maybe the lack of serious alternatives to the actual capitalist system is due to the operation of a subtle but stronger ideology which could be called not “dominant” but “systematic”. C. Lodziak speaks about an “underlying ideology”, one “which accepts the idea of a wage, and in so doing reproduces the legitimacy of the idea of the division between employer and employee, that is, it reproduces the representation of a structural feature of class domination”.[73] I would add that it actually reproduces the whole system.

          Concerning the second justification of the social reproduction given by the authors of  “The Dominant Ideology Thesis“, it is well known that if not illusory, most of the rewards proportioned by the system have nothing to do with human basic needs for meaning and self-development. In that sense those rewards (Abercrombie et al. put forward the example of a washing machine “which has real advantages”[74]) are mainly superficial and create more dependence on the capitalist system.

          In my opinion, it is with this “underlying” dominant ideology in mind that we can properly think of a critique of it. Otherwise, it seems that Abercrombie et al. have built a limited concept of ideology themselves for the purpose of attacking and despising it more easily.

Bibliography:

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin

“A Gramsci reader. Selected writings 1916-1935″, ed. by David Forgacs, 1988, Lawrence and Wishart

Althusser, L. and Balibar, E.: “Reading Capital”, 1977, Unwin Brothers Ltd

Durkheim, E.: “The Division of Labor in Society”, 1964, The Free Press-Macmillan

Lodziak, C.: “The Power of Television. A Critical Appraisal”, 1986, Francis Pinter

Mannheim, K.: “Ideology and Utopia. An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge”, 1976, Routledge and Kegan Paul

Sensat, Julius: “Habermas and Marxism”, 1979, Sage

Weber, M.: “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, 1970, Unwin University Books

 Footnotes:

[1]  Ibid.

 

[2]  Ibid. (p2)

[3] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980, George Allen and Unwin (p29)

 

[4]  Ibid.

[5]  Ibid.

[6]  Ibid. (p3)

 

[7]  Ibid. (p10)

[8]  Ibid. (p20-21)

[9]  Ibid. (p21)

[10]  Lodziak, C.: “The Power of Television. A Critical Appraisal”, 1986, Francis Pinter (p71)

 

[11] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin (p14)

[12]  Ibid. (p12)

[13]  Ibid. (p12-13)

[14]   “A Gramsci reader. Selected writings 1916-1935″, ed. by David Forgacs, 1988, Lawrence and Wishart, (p199)

[15]   “A Gramsci reader. Selected writings 1916-1935″, ed. by David Forgacs, 1988, Lawrence and Wishart, (p200)

[16]  Ibid. (p210)

[17] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p14)

[18]   “A Gramsci reader. Selected writings 1916-1935″, ed. by David Forgacs, 1988, Lawrence and Wishart, (p381)

[19] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p15)

[20]  Ibid. (p21)

[21]  Ibid.

[22] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p22)

[23]  Ibid.

[24]  Ibid. (p23)

[25]  Ibid.

 

[26]  Althusser, L. and Balibar, E.: “Reading Capital”, 1977, Unwin Brothers Ltd., (p142)

 

[27] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p20)

[28]  Sensat, Julius: “Habermas and Marxism”, 1979, Sage, (p111)

[29] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p19)

[30]  Sensat, Julius: “Habermas and Marxism”, 1979, Sage, (p66)

[31] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p19)

 

[32]  Ibid. (p30)

[33]  Ibid. (p34)

[34]  Weber, M.: “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, 1970, Unwin University Books, (p36)

[35] Weber, M.: “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, 1970, Unwin University Books, (p54)

[36]  Ibid. (p40)

[37]  Ibid.

[38] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p35-36)

[39]  Mannheim, K.: “Ideology and Utopia. An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge”, 1976, Routledge and Kegan Paul, (p32-33)

[40]  Ibid. (p36)

[41]  Ibid. (p49-50)

[42] Mannheim, K.: “Ideology and Utopia. An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge”, 1976, Routledge and Kegan Paul, (p36)

[43]  Ibid.

[44] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p36)

[45]  Ibid.

[46]  Ibid. (p36)

[47]  Ibid. (p39)

[48] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p42-43)

[49]  Durkheim, E.: “The Divison of Labor in Society”, 1964, The Free Press-Macmillan, (p356)

 

[50]  Ibid. (p361)

[51]  Ibid. (p360)

[52]  Ibid. (p407)

[53] Durkheim, E.: “The Divison of Labor in Society”, 1964, The Free Press-Macmillan, (p356)

[54] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p48)

[55]  Ibid. (p51)

 

[56]  Ibid. (p50)

[57]  Ibid. (p51-52)

[58] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p54)

[59]  Ibid. (p55)

[60]  Ibid. (p57-58)

[61]  Ibid. (p155)

[62]  Ibid. (p157)

[63] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p157)

[64]  Ibid. (p158)

[65]  N. of the A.: This last assertion escapes from my capabilites of interpretation because it seems to contradict all what they were supporting through the whole book.

 

[66]  Ibid.

[67] Lodziak, C.: “The Power of Television. A Critical Appraisal”, 1986, Francis Pinter, (p72-73)

 

[68]  Ibid. (p72-73)

[69] Lodziak, C.: “The Power of Television. A Critical Appraisal”, 1986, Francis Pinter, (p80)

[70] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p166)

[71]  Ibid. (p168)

[72]  Ibid.

[73]  Ibid. (p82)

[74] Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. S.: “The Dominant Ideology Thesis”, 1980. George Allen and Unwin, (p168)