Talk:Dominant ideology

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this term really unique to Marxist ideology? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Most usage was not Marxist until 1929