Talk:Dominant ideology

Untitled

The "Two versions" are a horrible way to explain dominant ideologies. The phrases top-down and bottom-down dont even match with the distinctions proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.20.226 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A reference to the essays where Marx talks about this would be helpful. There are currently no citations or external links. 129.19.1.130 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this term really unique to Marxist ideology?

I find it very difficult to believe that this concept did not predate Marx's work and if it did the intro should not imply that it did not. —Cupco 20:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We rely on sources over doubts. I'd suggest now is the time to start reading Western Marxists on Hegel and the young Hegelians and such like. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I can think of more exciting things. ;-) If the hopefully neutral way that I've tried to address the issue with sectioning instead of substantive text changes is insufficient, let me know. Google Books has this 1841 use by Louis Bautain and Caleb Sprague Henry which I believe predates the Marxist canon by at least a couple years. —Cupco 00:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that that isn't a terminological use. The key with history of ideas articles on wikipedia is to look for texts that substantially discuss of the object of inquiry, which is why I suggested the unamusing reading relating to post-Hegelian philosophy amongst writers interested in ideology. With a fully searchable lexicon we can find throw away phrasal uses or mere conjuctions of adjectives with nouns with ease. What someone coming here to read about is the concept or term "dominant ideology," which sees heavy use in the marxist literature, but I'm not so sure has seen heavy use elsewhere? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Counting verbatim google hits on ["dominant ideology"] with and without [... marx OR marxist OR marxism] suggests that about four out of five do not include the latter, and many of those that do don't connect the two, e.g., this book. Anyone seeking the Marxist specifics will not lose the trail with the details in this article's body following a two sentence intro. The concept has permeated the vernacular in the unsophisticated sense that the existing intro fully conveys while retaining compatibility with the Marxist details. —Cupco 04:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The text you've linked to is (at best) an undergraduate textbook from either media studies (probably not great) or sociology (better)—a genre of work commonly known for occluding the scholarly reality in favour of stories for children with teaching purposes. I'm quite happy for you to be right—I care about you being right from an appropriate source. Again, we aren't a dictionary of phrases here—what matters is the terminological uses (about which, I'm perfectly happy for you to be correct). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/589886 looks like it might help. It gets 173 citations on Google Scholar. I'll ask for the full text on WP:RX. —Cupco 05:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That is the perfect choice of article! A peer reviewed journal, publishing a "field review" or "review article" piece regarding a major theoretical construct, the focus of the article being precisely on our article's topic! Even if it doesn't assist you, its bibliography and footnotes ought to. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a good read. It says a lot more about why dominant ideology has less power than in early capitalism and before (e.g., the severance between ownership and control) and some related topics that I'll eventually add if someone doesn't get to it first. I checked some of the recent citing references to make sure it was being cited favorably. —Cupco 11:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Editor Cupco:

Please abide Fifelfoo's advice, and fully inform yourself about this MARXIST subject. Yes, it has non-Marxist versions in its quiver, but, as such, as the Dominant Ideology it originated in the work of Magister K.H. Marx. Your poor, hurried writing, replete with spelling and grammar errors, AND the sock puppetry, betray BAD EDITORIAL WILL, and other ideological baggage, with which you have simplistically over-simplified the article. In this case, despite the historical background, the subject (not the concept) cannot be realistically divorced from Marxism. . . .

So, gird your loins, do the wider reading, and participate in good faith; be a sport, not a spoil sport. Knowing whereof you speak makes you credible. . . really, it does.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Most usage was not Marxist until 1929

Google just vastly expanded the source documents in their N-gram viewer today.

It now appears that only one of the several uses of "dominant ideology" from 1800-1928 in the new corpus are explicitly Marxist. From 1929 to the present the vast majority are, for what it's worth. Plexis Pi (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up

Dear Plexis:

Your work is valuable and worthwhile, because it underscores the intellectual and practical validity of Marxist philosophy and theory, at this very, very late date (?) in the Twenty-first Century. Especially in the cases of right-wing plagiarism, wherein semi-, demi-, quasi-, part-time-, and pseudo-intellectuals seek to use Marxism, whilst claiming ideologic originality, in service to nefarious right-wingery and other such truthiness. For example, in U.S. politics, cultural hegemony is the basis of Pat Buchanan's nasty "culture war" racism; the political action committee (PAC) is just a type of vanguard party, i.e. Leninism, which Lenin derived from Magister Marx, and so forth and so on, and the silliness, herein, about ″I cannot believe. . . . that Marxist common sense is Marxist.″

Thank you, for the contribution; I think Wikipedia is maturing, and might someday (sigh) prove a reliable, factual source.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)