Class Domination and Ideological Hegemony*

Sallach, David L.

doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1973.tb01853.x

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Building on both the consensus and conflict imagery from past research on stratification ideology, James Kluegel et al (Kluegel, Csepeli, Kolosi, Orkeny, and Nemenyi 1995;Kluegel and Smith 1981; have advanced a "split-consciousness" perspective stressing the ideologically mixed nature of most persons' thinking on inequality. Rooted in Gramsci's (1971) theories of hegemony and contradictory consciousness, this perspective highlights how (non-elite) actors' thinking is simultaneously shaped by ideas reflecting dominant-class interests (e.g., individualism; equity norms) as well as those stemming from lived experience and the practical realities of life in stratified social systems (e.g., structuralism, equality norms) (Cheal 1979;Sallach 1974). Consistent with this imagery-and in direct contrast to most early empirical studies of stratification ideology that assumed individualistic and structuralist beliefs represented opposite ends of an attitudinal continuumresearch over the past several decades has shown that these two types of belief are not mutually exclusive (Hughes and Tuch 2000;Hunt 1996;Kluegel and Smith 1986;Lee et al 1990).…”

Section: Beliefs About Povertymentioning

confidence: 99%

Concentrated Disadvantage and Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty: A Multi-Level Analysis

Merolla

Hunt

Serpe

2011

Sociological Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of beliefs about social stratification have generally focused on how individual-level factors shape people's explanations of poverty and inequality. In this article, the authors contribute to this literature by adding a community-level measure of “concentrated disadvantage” (poverty and associated conditions) to models predicting support for individualistic (person-centered) and structuralist (system-challenging) beliefs about the causes of poverty. Using data from two Los Angeles County surveys and the 1990 Census, multi-level linear and logistic regression models reveal that higher levels of concentrated disadvantage are associated with increased support for both individualist and structuralist explanations of poverty—a “dual consciousness” pattern the authors attribute to increased exposure to social conditions that simultaneously foster sympathetic and antagonistic attitudes toward the poor. These findings add useful information to our knowledge of stratification beliefs and contribute to a growing body of studies showing that “place-level” factors can be important determinants of beliefs and attitudes net of individual-level covariates.

show abstract

Section: Beliefs About Povertymentioning

confidence: 99%

Concentrated Disadvantage and Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty: A Multi-Level Analysis

Merolla

Hunt

Serpe

2011

Sociological Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concepts of cultural/media imperialism or hegemony (e.g., Galtung, 1971;Gitlin, 1980;Said, 1993;Sallach, 1974) developed from the Marxist theory of economic determinism, revamped and disseminated by the Frankfurt School. Media hegemony theorists posited that the class that has economic power uses not only politics (ideology and government structures) but also culture (science, arts, education, public communication) as a means of control over the whole society.…”

Section: Sense-extension Theory Of the Media (1964) Marshall Mcluhanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory and Research in Mass Communication

Bryant

Miron

2004

Journal of Communication

352

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing about the state of the art of mass communication theory and research evokes vivid images of those unfortunate on-site reporters for The Weather Channel who get stuck doing stand-up live shots right after the hurricane has subsided, or the snow has stopped, or the funnel cloud has disappeared, which, of course, always happens the very moment the director switches to the remote feed. What habitually results is beleaguered and bedraggled reporters who look and sound like blithering idiots trying to describe and explain something that no longer exists. Like volatile stormy weather, at some level changes in mass communication theory and research occur almost too rapidly and unpredictably for even the bestintentioned reporters to chronicle and explain accurately.Some very good reasons for these challenges to precise descriptions and explanations of mass communication exist, and many of them are tied to changes in the media that contribute content and context to the processes, effects, systems, and institutions we study: For example, (a) all of the media of mass communication are undergoing dramatic changes in form, content, and substance (e.g., Levins, 1997), which are explained only partially by the notion of convergence; (b) newer forms of interactive media, such as the Internet, are altering the traditional mass communication model from that of communication of one-to-many to communication of many-to-many (Li, 1998); (c) media ownership patterns are shifting dramatically and sometimes ruthlessly in ways that tend to disregard the entertainment, informational, educational, political, and social needs of consumers and that potentially cause major problems for their host societies (e.g., McChesney, 2004); (d) the viewing patterns and habits of audiences worldwide are changing so rapidly as to be almost mercurial (e.g., consider the transition from children's bedrooms to children's media rooms; Rideout, Foehr, Roberts, & Brodie, 1999); (e) the very nature of the primary unit in which most media consumption takes place-the family-is undergoing remarkable changes in its own right that mark-

show abstract

“…Gramsci's reformulation has been termed "suggestive" many times but until very recently has seen only preliminary theoretical applications in American sociology (e.g., Livingstone, 1977;Sallach, 1974). However, current research efforts by Gitlin (1979Gitlin ( , 1980 and Kellner (1979) on the mass media are noteworthy for their discussions of ideological hegemony in the concrete.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy propaganda: Channels for corporate hegemony

Page

1984

Sociological Spectrum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Class Domination and Ideological Hegemony*

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Concentrated Disadvantage and Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty: A Multi-Level Analysis

Concentrated Disadvantage and Beliefs about the Causes of Poverty: A Multi-Level Analysis

Theory and Research in Mass Communication

Energy propaganda: Channels for corporate hegemony

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About