Ideology

The dominant ideology views individual workers as apparently free to sell their labour-power in an open and equal market based within the capitalist mode of production. Individuals are seen as being able to do as they wish and make the most of their abilities. However, ideology has a negative connotation for Marxists, described by Engels as false consciousness, where the dominant ideology legitimises the capitalist economic structure, law and politics through generating ideas about society (Gough, 1979). Marx argued that if people do not recognise the underlying processes of society, then people‟s thoughts regarding understanding society are superficial and instead adopt the dominant ideology. The ideology of the dominant class assists with the economic structure being adapted to meet the needs of capitalism, while the outcome of capitalist relations remains hidden from those individuals (Bedggood, 1980; Gough, 1979; Joseph, 2006; Wolff, 2002).

The dominant ideology also views the state, the judiciary and the church as separate from the market, masking the real purpose of these institutions by capitalist social relations. Both the state and ideology must appear to be separate from any class interest and so cannot be connected to the ruling class. Therefore, ideology is seen within values of a nation‟s culture while the state is seen to represent all society‟s interests (Bedggood, 1980). Gramsci provided a contrast between differing ideas and values in relation to viewing society.

One must distinguish between historically organic ideologies, those, that is, which are necessary to a given structure, and ideologies that are arbitrary, rationalistic, or „willed‟. To the extent that ideologies are historically necessary they have a validity which is „psychological‟; they „organise‟ human masses, and create the terrain on which men move, acquire consciousness of their position, struggle etc. To the extent that they are arbitrary they only create individual „movements‟, polemics and so on (Gramsci, cited in Oliver, 1990, p. 46).

Gramsci‟s notion of “hegemony” describes how the dominant class can impose their values and ideas onto society. This, in turn, leads to how the subordinate class view the world in the terms of the dominant class‟. In today‟s society the dominant class portrays the notion that although the social order is not ideal, it is better than any alternative. Any change to be made is remedial and there is no need for any significant structural change to society (Miliband, 1989)

The dominant class has an advantage over those expressing a radical alternative as the social order of society has existed for a long time and is seen by both the dominant and working classes as „natural‟ (Miliband, 1989). There is a presumption in bourgeois ideology that capitalist relations of production are forever and therefore unable to be changed. Although the dominant class does not speak as one voice the diversity that exists in that class maintains its beliefs by continuing to attempt to persuade the working class to accept the current social order. The dominant ideology is supported by governments who are much more in agreement with the underlying beliefs

of the dominant class than they are with supporting the working class (Ginsburg, 1979; Miliband, 1989).

However, the dominant ideology and the state have not completely been able to persuade the working class to submit to their indoctrination. For example, aspects of the wider population continue to protest and show dissent which the state is required to contain, so any permanent pacification of the working class is unachievable (Miliband, 1989). As Miliband (1989) states:“This is why repression and the threat of repression remain an essential element of class struggle from above, and indeed occupy a growing place in the political life of these countries” (Miliband, 1989, p. 152).

Summary

This chapter has described the theoretical underpinning of this research through the discussion of historical materialism, and a Marxist view of the role of the state, welfare state and ideology. It describes how the relationship between the working class and the dominant capitalist class within the mode of production leads to class struggle. The labour theory of value and the theory of surplus value both identify the point where exploitation of the working class originates. Class struggle exists for all the working class which includes the reserve army of labour and not just those who are in work. The contradictory roles of the state and the welfare state have been identified and while the state‟s main focus is on maintaining the conditions to support capital accumulation, it does also provide concessions for the working class as a response to class struggle. A Marxist interpretation of ideology has also been described, where the dominant class attempts to impose its values and beliefs on the working class to legitimise the capitalist economic structure.

Chapter Three - The social model of disability

Introduction

The previous chapter described class relationships within the process of production and exchange. In order to provide a link between the conventional Marxist analysis of class relations and the specific focus on mental health service users, I have incorporated the social model of disability into this research. The social model of disability offers a framework which helps better understand the tension between people with disabilities and society, highlighting the structural disadvantages that exist within a capitalist society. To link Marxist theory with the social model of disability this chapter discusses disability in relation to the mode of production, ideology, oppression, the reserve army of labour and the welfare state.

3.1 The social model of disability

The social model of disability stems from the work of a group of influential disabled activists in the 1960s and 1970s, who believed that the view held by professionals in the disability field, was inappropriate. The social model of disability is a construct focusing on the restrictive nature of society that does not adapt to people‟s needs, and responds to disability in terms of individual experiences rather than social barriers, material and ideological. Since the early 1970s the issue around disability within society has become politicised and the social model of disability is now seen as a focal point for the social and environmental barriers existing for disabled people. As a model it can help better understand the tension between people with disabilities and society (Barnes, 1998; Milner, 2005; Oliver, 1996; Vernon, 1998).