mentioned in definition one as proponents of DIT. Marcuse, whose One-Dimensional Man: The Ideology of Industrial Society would at first glance seem the most qualified for inclusion under the construct definition of DIT, did not at all adhere to the restrictive definition of ideology. When he talked about how 'changes in the character of work and the instruments of production change the attitude and the consciousness of the labourer, which become manifest in the widely discussed "social and cultural integration" of the labouring class', he was referring to 'assimilation in needs and aspirations, in the standard of living, in leisure activities, in politics'. ⁹ The point is not whether Marcuse was right or wrong in his analysis of this process -- AHT clearly think he was wrong. The point is that he saw it as an outcome of what AHT call I the massive and constraining quality of everyday life' (p. 166 ), of the worker's being 'incorporated into the technological community of the administered population', by means of 'an integration in the plant itself, in the material process of production'. ¹⁰ AHT are closer to the mark in their discussion of Habermas's concern with legitimation. To their credit, however, they also register that Habermas's concept of legitimation sometimes extends beyond beliefs of right and wrong. To that extent, Habermas escapes the critical salvos directed at DIT (p. 16 ).

From another angle, Althusser's discussion of ideology was explicitly concerned with, among other things, how we come 'to recognize that we are subjects and that we function in the practical rituals of the most elementary everyday life'. ¹¹ As to Gramsci, the 'consent' he analysed in relation to hegemony was neither an exclusively normative acceptance in AHT's sense, nor simply an everyday routine. Rather, Gramsci held that 'this consent is "historically" caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production'. ¹² While this formulation may lend itself to different interpretations, Gramsci could also be quite explicit about non-normative components of ideological hegemony. In a reflection about the possibility of interpreting Italian Fascism as a 'passive revolution', he wrote:

The ideological hypothesis could be presented in the following terms: that there is a passive revolution involved in the fact that -- through the legislative intervention of the State, and by means of the corporative organization -relatively far-reaching modifications are being introduced into the country's economic structure in order to accentuate the 'plan of production' element. . . . What is important from the political and the ideological point of view is that it is capable of creating -- and indeed does create -- a period of expectation and hope, especially in certain Italian social groups such as the great mass of urban and rural petty bourgeois. It thus reinforces the hegemonic system. ¹³

-176-