Abercrombie’s Critique of The Dominant Ideology Thesis

          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.