MODULE 1, UNIT 4

Construction of Meaning: Dominant Ideology and Hegemony
How Ideological Positions are Articulated Through Discourses and Media

Goal: to identify residual, emergent, and dominant ideologies and hegemonic practices.

This unit introduces three concepts central to understanding media and power: discourse, ideology, and cultural hegemony. Media artifacts produce and reflect discourses that enact ideology. To understand ideology, it is also important to recognize different types: dominant, residual, and emergent. Over time, some ideologies come to dominate and be accepted as common sense; they become hegemonic. Other ideologies fade, or become residual. Oppositional ideologies can become emergent as they challenge dominant ideologies.

Discourse

The word discourse stems from the French word “discours,” which means speech (as in “making a speech”). However, discourse refers to more than a speech, or an exchange of ideas between two or more people. According to media scholars O’Shaugnessy and Statler, “the term ‘discourse’ typically refers to the collective discussion or interplay of meanings and ideas circulating around a particular subject, incorporating these different models of expression and instances of communication.”^[1] Given the previous discussion of symbols, it should be clear that meanings and ideas can be exchanged through verbal, embodied, and visual signs, and because signs’ meanings are influenced by their relationship to each other, the overarching relationships between signs form discourses.

Media studies scholars use discourse to mean a shared way of speaking and understanding. Social groups collectively develop communication practices for members with an explicit and implicit set of rules (either informal or formal). In this way, discourse is found in languages, in the texts certain groups exchange and share, and in media. Discourse is a system of thought, knowledge, or communication that constructs people’s experience of the world.

Systems of discourse exist on an almost unlimited range of topics: politics, the military, science, law, music, religion, medicine, and sports. For example, in basketball, “swish,” “brick,” and “downtown” all have special meanings in the discourse of the game. Discourse often involves jargon that needs to be learned in order to understand or participate in the conversation. If you understand the aforementioned jargon for basketball, you are part of that discourse. But, do you know what “beamer,” “yorker,” and “downtown” mean for the game of cricket? What is it like to be left out of the discussion?

Your own actions offer an example of how you adapt the way you communicate to implicit and explicit rules of discourse. Think about: Do you change the way you communicate depending on to whom you are talking and where the conversation is happening?  Do you talk differently when hanging out with friends, when with your community, when at work, when in the classroom? If so, you are shifting between discourses, also known as code-switching. Code-switching “includes adjusting one’s style of speech, appearance, behavior, and expression in ways that will optimize the comfort of others in exchange for fair treatment, quality service, and employment opportunities.”^[2] Code-switching involves voice (style of speech), body (appearance and behavior), and language (expression). Power comes into play because some discourses are preferred or dominant, and people not part of that dominant group have to adapt to them. This is why ​​comedian Dave Chapelle once joked “Every Black American is bilingual. We speak street vernacular, and we speak ‘job interview’.”^[3] 

Discourse and Power

Studying discourse necessarily involves the study of power. In “The Discourse on Language,” Michel Foucault explained,

in every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organised and redistributed according to a certain number of procedures, whose role is to avert its power and its dangers, to cope with chance events, and to evade its ponderous, awesome materiality.^[4] 

To summarize Foucault: Because discourse has the power to do things, those in power seek to exert power over it. By tracking the rules of discourse, you can see where power resides, for example by looking for what is prohibited. Foucault argued you can track prohibitions by looking for “rules of exclusion” relating to people, places, and topics of discourse. Foucault wrote:

We know perfectly well that we are not free to say just anything, that we cannot simply speak on anything, when we like or where we like; not just anyone, finally, may speak of just anything. We have three types of prohibition, [1] covering objects, [2] ritual with its surrounding circumstances, [3] the privileged or exclusive right to speak of a particular subject; these prohibitions interrelate, reinforce and complement each other, forming a complex web, continually subject to modification.^[5] 

As this paragraph outlines, people, places and topics are governed by rules of discourse. To use Foucault’s language, there are some things (“objects”) that one cannot speak of; there are acts and ways of being (“ritual”) that one cannot speak of or do; and, there are only certain people (“the privileged”) that are permitted to speak about some topics.

Think about how these rules play out in a work meeting. Constraints on whose speech matters in the workplace make evident where power resides. For example, co-workers rarely take notes when other workers speak, nor do they direct their comments to other workers but, instead, funnel them through the boss (exclusion of people). In the workplace, the boss is the only one accorded credibility to speak; they are accorded a location of power through the rituals of employer-employee interaction. When workers do formal presentations, they often move to the podium in the conference room, or stand at the head of the table near the boss. People have been acculturated to the rules of discourse to recognize that the podium is a location that accords a person more power (exclusion of place).

Given a workplace is devoted to a particular task, any topic that goes beyond that task can cause discomfort (think about the Not Safe for Work – NSFW – designation). You know you are “not free to say just anything” (exclusion of topic). However, the rules governing people, places, and topics are not static; tracing their changes enables researchers to trace shifting relations of power.

Now, think about how this applies to media discourse by identifying locations of people, places, and topics of silence in media:

Are there particular types of people who are absent or silent? Research on media representation makes clear that women and people of color appear less often in movies and streamed shows and, even when they do appear they have fewer lines:

Annenberg Inclusion Initiative: https://assets.uscannenberg.org/docs/aii-study-inequality-popular-films-20220311.pdf
Used under Fair Use exemption to U.S. Copyright law.

Are there particular topics about which people are silent? According to research by one of this book’s authors, the news media in the U.S. rarely covers stories about the working poor. These are the more than five percent of adult workers who work full-time or more, yet still remain in poverty.^[6]  In another example, until recently the topic of menopause was something rarely discussed in public in the U.S., and even by many doctors. A feature about the topic in the New York Times in 2023 became one of the most read stories of the year for the publication, suggesting the “rules of exclusion” were beginning to change.^[7]

Are there particular locations from which little is heard? The newspaper business in the U.S. lost almost a quarter – about 2,100 – of its daily and weekly newspapers between 2004 and 2020. According to researchers, “most of those have been papers serving small and mid-sized communities,” which means those are places – some of them now news deserts, with no credible news outlets – where local news stories aren’t being produced.^[8] From a business perspective, these are places that don’t merit a media voice.  

Ideology

What is ideology? The etymology of the term is helpful. Ideo refers to a form or pattern and logos refers to discourse. So, ideology refers to patterns of thinking present in discourse. In Making Sense of Political Ideology, communication scholars Bernard L. Brock, Mark E. Huglen, James F. Klumpp, and Sharon Howell define ideology as “typical ways of thinking about the world [that] help shape human action” because it normalizes “day-to-day social, political, economic, and cultural structures” by making them appear natural and inevitable.^[9] Ideology is a set of ideas formed by the symbols and myths that a society collectively references to understand the world.^[10] Families, religious groups, political systems and educational institutions all play a role in shaping ideology. Mass media also play a significant role.^[11] 

How Ideology Works

Ideology can be found in the traditions and rituals that normalize a whole set of worldviews and structures. For example, each year at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, about 2,500 female students participate in Bama Rush, the rush season to gain acceptance into one of the many sororities. Alabama claims to have the biggest sorority rush in the country, with 19 sororities participating.^[12] Ideology makes ongoing rituals like this seem like common sense. That is, if you are a female college student at Alabama, you should be part of Bama Rush and yearn to be a member of a high-level sorority.

Social media screenshots used under Fair Use exemption to U.S. Copyright law.

For context, the Bama Rush process has five main components. As the New York Times described, there is first an open house, “where potential new members (PNMs) get to know all the different sororities. Then comes Philanthropy Day, “where PNMs learn about — but do not actually participate in — each chapter’s volunteer work.” Next is the Sisterhood period: “PNMs spend carefully monitored one-on-one time with different sorority members,” which is followed by Pref Night, where PNMs visit their favorite two houses.^[13] Finally comes Bid Day, where the PNMs open envelopes to see if they are admitted to a sorority, and if so, which one.

Media have helped to present this culture to the rest of the world, and have also become an intricate part of the Bama Rush itself. Beginning in 2021, the short #BamaRush videos on TikTok (sometimes called RushTok) went viral on the social media platform. PNMs posted videos of themselves throughout the process, or sometimes featured themselves with other PNMs in choreographed dances. In addition, they showed off their very expensive designer jewelry and outfits in OOTD (outfit of the day) videos. The New York Times wrote “The videos are uniform and mesmerizing: The women, most of whom have southern accents, simply explain what day it is and what brands they are wearing from earrings to shoes.”^[14] Some users have re-posted the TikTik videos with critical commentary, as the OOTD outfit values can total into the thousands of dollars.

TikTok videos and other social media have become part of the ritual of rushing sororities at Alabama and other large universities. Consultants who guide PNMs through the process can cost up to $2,000, and dish out helpful advice such as what to post on social media. “‘Bikini photos’ are a big topic of discussion,” the Guardian wrote in its reporting on the elite sorority consultant. “It’s kosher to have one or two on the grid, but they should seem playful and fun, not sexy or brooding.”^[15]

The Bama Rush ritual, specifically, is based on a complex web of structures with many interlocking themes. Whiteness (race), socioeconomic status (class), heterosexual norms (gender), and Southern tradition are all part of the ideological mix, and reaffirmed by this annual institution.

Race: Only in 2013 were sororities in Alabama required to desegregate, after the university’s student newspaper revealed that alumni had been forcing their sororities not to accept Black members and the U.S. Justice Department inquired about the situation.^[16] By 2023, the percentage of minority sorority membership at Alabama was still significantly lower than the percentage of minority students in the overall student population.

Class: The Guardian (a news organization based in London), argued that sororities, “which are not administrated by colleges but student organizations, admit lucky freshmen into a world of special housing, elite parties and networking opportunities . . . These institutions are an essential part of the way the elite and their privilege is protected in the US.”^[17]

Gender: Tressie McMillan Cottom, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (another large southern university), noted that the TikTok videos (and a Max documentary about Bama Rush in 2022) reveal the “the inherited culture and code of conduct that filters for the ‘right’ type of young woman — thin, able-bodied, athletic and, yes, in most cases, white — to rush at the University of Alabama.”^[18]

Southern tradition: The Bama Rush ends up reproducing the ideology – the normalized ways of thinking of race, class, and gender – that constitute the traditional Southern social, cultural, and familial power structure. The sorority “winners” can achieve power in the system, but it ultimately supports a system in which white men are still in charge.   As Cottom explains:

Their sorority system is a legitimate status culture, just like fraternities and sports leagues, with a clear hierarchy; the top dogs get more privileges and honor than the lesser-ranked sororities . . . It boils down to performing hyperfemininity and settling for referent or secondhand authority while deferring to masculine power. The cute dances and OOTDs also reveal how complicated it is for today’s young women to live feminist lives.^[19]

Everyone has an ideology; ideology is inescapable because it’s integrated into the way people think, feel, and act. Whether someone’s ideology tilts toward being community-minded or more individualistic can affect everyday life decisions, such as whether they scoop up the poop or not when they walk their dog. Ideology about gender relations may factor in on whether they decide to hold a door for someone, and for whom (being selfless versus selfish may also play a role). And ideology can be present in what people eat, what social groups they choose to belong to, or the ceremonies they take part in or plan. Because social groups share a set of beliefs and values (that is, they share an ideology), people find it very natural to go along with these beliefs and to not question them. Or, they may decide to be ideologically oppositional and question these commonsense value systems that are embedded in the group’s discourse.

An ideology is not something you can point at. Instead, its presence is woven throughout the symbols and signs (the discourses) people use and receive. Because ideologies are so deeply embedded in people’s daily lives, people are often unaware of them and rarely question them. Eminent cultural studies theorist Stuart Hall explained, “When people say to you, ’Of course that’s so, isn’t it?’ That ‘Of course’ is the most ideological moment, because that’s the moment you are least aware you are using an ideological framework.”^[20]  So, how can we make you aware of your “of courses”? These activities can help.

Cultural Hegemony

Developed by the Italian philosopher, journalist, linguist, writer, and politician Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), the idea of cultural hegemony has to do with the way a dominant group can control a society, not through force or threats of physical violence, but by subtly imposing an ideological worldview that defines common sense.

For context, Gramsci was the leader of the Italian communist party during the 1920s, and had become a vocal critic of the fascist regime led by Benito Mussolini, who had risen to power. When the regime imprisoned Gramsci in 1926, he spent the next 11 years (still imprisoned until his death) filling notebooks with theoretical writings about history, nationalism, and culture. In developing the theory of cultural hegemony, he asked: Why is it that people who are without power – the disenfranchised, the disaffected, the unemployed, the poor, the exploited, the minority groups – do not more routinely rise up against those in power?

According to Gramsci, people from all parts of society are more likely to accept the ideological worldview of the dominant class when it is presented – through compelling stories told by families, educational institutions, and media – as a cultural norm.  In other words, the dominant class wins the willing consent of the subordinate classes, even though these beliefs and values often go against people’s best interests, because common sense stories go unquestioned. The power of the dominant group, essentially, is maintained through stories (or sets of myths), about the way things are. This consent of the subordinate classes must constantly be re-won, since people’s material and social experience reminds them of the disadvantages of their subordination.

For example, consider the idea of “trickle down economics.” Supporters of this approach argue that tax cuts for the wealthy, which then allow them to accrue more wealth, will result in wealth trickling down to middle and working class people in the form of increased wages and more jobs. The narrative that trickle down proponents tell is a story that says enabling the wealthy to accumulate more wealth through lower taxes will result in better wages for everyone. The story convinced working class people to support tax cuts for the wealthy. But empirical evidence has demonstrated that trickle down economics does not work for the middle and working class.

An example of hegemony: 50 years of tax cuts

Two researchers, David Hope and Julian Limberg of the London School of Economics’ International Inequalities Institute and King’s College London, researched the effect of tax cuts over the last fifty years (1965-2015) across 18 nations with industrialized market economies (including Australia and the United States).^[22] This empirical study sought to identify the actual effects of tax cuts for the wealthy. The study compared the economic outcomes of countries that made tax cuts to those that did not cut taxes in the same year. They found only one group was helped by tax cuts for the wealthy: the wealthy. Although unemployment rates and gross domestic product were the same in countries that did and did not offer tax cuts to the wealthy, one thing did change: “The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality.”^[23] The researchers’ conclusion: “Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.”^[24] 

Even the person who created the idea, David Stockman who was the budget director for the Reagan administration, admitted there was no proof that tax cuts for the wealthy would trickle down economic benefits to the working class and poor. So, to convince the public to support the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy, they changed the way they described it. Instead of calling it “trickle down” economics, which people began to question because their experiences made clear the working poor did not benefit and the name made it sound like the lower economic classes would have to settle for the dregs that trickled down from the top, they changed the name to “supply side” economics, making it seem like the focus was on producers (and not the wealthy).  In an interview, Stockman admitted to the hegemonic trick of trickle-down:

Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory [another name for “trickle down economics”] was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy. ‘It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’’ he explained, ‘so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.^[25]

Yet, the idea of trickle down/supply side economics still holds sway within large segments of the U.S. population, even when it does not benefit them. Why? Because the ideology was pushed so hard across political and media discourse that it just seems to make common sense.

People’s reactions to this study also illustrate the power of ideology.  Dr. Limberg described the different responses:

One was, ‘This cannot be true, and we don't believe this.’ And also, ‘You are socialists and that's it.’ And the other type of reaction was, ‘Well I knew all of this already. Thank you Captain Obvious.’ There was little ground in between these two extremes, which we found quite surprising. It actually strengthened our belief that a data driven approach, going a bit beyond this political polarisation is needed.^[26] 

Reaction 1, “this cannot be true,” shows the power of ideology to ignore evidence to the contrary. Instead of changing beliefs, people simply reject any evidence that does not fit with what they already believe. Reaction 2, “you are socialists,” places people into a narrative as heroes and villains (the term “socialist” here is used in a derogatory way). If you support tax cuts for the rich you are an economic hero and those who oppose those tax cuts must be motivated, not by data, but by their own political ideology. Reaction 3, “Captain Obvious,” is an indication some people already held an ideology opposing tax cuts for the wealthy, and so any new data (as impressive, wide ranging, and empirical as it was) was already obvious.

Hope, Limberg, and Nina Weber did a follow-up randomised survey experiment

to answer “Why do (some) ordinary Americans support tax cuts for the rich?” especially given “The continued support of a sizeable portion of the American population for tax cuts for the rich is even more surprising given the trajectories of income inequality and taxes on the rich since the 1980s.”^[27] One of their core findings: “show how sticky trickle-down beliefs are, even in the face of empirical evidence that lower taxes on the rich have been associated with slower economic growth.”

This illustrates the power of ideology, captured in a powerful story, of how the economy works. Even though tax cuts for the wealthy do not benefit the middle and working classes, “many ordinary Americans support tax cuts for the rich. Continued support for this policy in the US is even more baffling given recent decades have been characterised by substantial reductions in taxes on the rich and rapidly rising inequality, especially at the top of the income distribution.”^[28] Why?  

Gramsci would say that the hegemonic ideology of economics explains this. The wealthy have not forced ordinary U.S. residents to support tax cuts. Instead, they have created an ideology, reinforced through stories and discourses, that induce ordinary Americans to support things that are not in their self-interest.  

In fact, your reactions to this example might also illustrate the power of ideology. If you are a supporter of supply-side/trickle down economics, you might be thinking: these professors are pushing their ideology on me. But, if we had provided information in support of supply-side, you might not have noticed – because it was just common sense to you. That, in part, is the power of hegemonic ideology: it interrupts people’s ability to question and challenge and it makes an enemy of those who do.

Philosopher Rosemary Hennessy explains that hegemony exerts social control by determining what makes sense: “Hegemony is the process whereby the interests of a ruling group come to dominate by establishing the common sense, that is, those values, beliefs, and knowledges that go without saying.”^[29] Thus, people often participate in their own subordination, because hegemonic ideology convinces them that is just the way things should be.  As noted earlier, the consent of the subordinate classes must constantly be re-won, since people’s material and social experience can remind them of the disadvantages of their subordination.

Residual, dominant, and emergent ideologies

Media theorist Raymond Wiliams built on Gramsci’s theories of cultural hegemony by arguing that a historical moment does not exist in a vacuum, but should be analyzed to account for the way dominant cultures are negotiated, maintained, and disputed. Raymond introduced the idea of residual, dominant, and emergent ideologies that build upon or compete with each other simultaneously.

• A residual ideology was dominant at one point in time, but is now considered “out of date.” However, it can still exist in some form. A dominant ideology is adapted from a residual ideology.
• A dominant ideology is the one that is espoused currently by most of society (this is why it's dominant). It’s the one that can be considered “common sense” or hegemonic – the least likely to be questioned at that particular historical moment.
• An emergent ideology is new and in direct opposition with the dominant ideology. It is this tension between emergent and dominant ideologies that pushes cultural change, but also instigates backlash among dominant groups. When emergent discourses invent new genres and introduce new language and ways of being, this change can be intimidating and uncomfortable, both for dominant groups and for those who have been dominated and suppressed through our hegemonic system. For emergent groups, who have spent  years pressuring the dominant system to be heard and seen, who are on the outside looking in, ideological change can be a relief, a release, and an affirmation.  

The example of biological sex illustrates how multiple ideologies might be at play at the same time. A still powerful residual ideology is that only two biological sexes exist: sex is binary (meaning you are either one OR the other), and a strict gender should align with them: men are masculine and women are feminine. This sex/gender binary ideology has residual roots in religious texts that people claim determine that only two sexes exist, as in Matthew 19:3–6 “[God] made them male and female.” The effect of this residual ideology can be seen in statements by people like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has  put up a sign outside their Capitol Hill office declaring: “There are TWO genders: MALE & FEMALE ‘Trust The Science’.”^[31] In many places, the sex/gender binary is also the dominant ideology, as laws premised on this ideology have passed in many state legislatures.

However, an emergent ideology has gained traction over the last 50 years based on social and biological science research and human beings’ lived experiences. First, increasingly people recognize sex and gender are distinct, with sex referring to biological categories and gender referring to cultural expectations attached to bodies. Second, science has demonstrated that more than two biological sexes exist. In 1993, developmental geneticist Anne Fausto-Sterling argued at least five sexes exist: “Biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male; and depending on how one calls the shots, one can argue that along that spectrum lie at least five sexes—and perhaps even more.”^[32] 

That sex is not binary is not a radical, brand new idea. Physician and sexologist Magnus Hirschfield wrote in 1910:

The number of actual and imaginable sexual varieties is almost unending. In each person there is a different mixture of manly and womanly substances, and as we cannot find two leaves alike on a tree, then it is highly unlikely that we will find two humans whose manly and womanly characteristics equally match in kind and number.^[33] 

For this doctor and sexologist, Hirschfield found that sexual identities were “wildly varied and fluid, and defied classification,” and that ”no one was a ‘true’ sex type; human beings were all to some degree bisexual and bi-gendered, all ‘sexual intermediaries’–and because of these endless variations, defined less by their difference than by their shared humanity.”^[34] 

As ideology evolves so, too, have the symbols people use to communicate about sex: words like intersex, trans, cis, and transgender have become common. Examining sites like OKCupid and Tumblr, Australian social scientist Rob Cover (2019) noted how young people have added “more than one hundred nuanced sexual and gender labels, such as heteroflexible, bigender, non-binary, asexual, sapiosexual, demisexual, ciswoman, antiboy, transcurious, and many more.”^[35]

Slowly, law is beginning to recognize people who do not fit the binary. In 2021, the United States started issuing passports with an X designation for intersex, non-binary, and other non-conforming people.^[36] U.S. society is in a moment in time when the long dominant sex binary ideology, informed by a residual religious ideology and magnified during the Victorian era and then again before, during, and after WWII, is being challenged by an emergent ideology that accepts a more complex understanding of sex and gender.

Examples of sex identification ideology are all around. The music superstar Madonna celebrated a milestone in emergent ideology as she announced the first Grammy-award winning transgender artist, Kim Petras, at the Grammy Awards in 2023:

If they call you shocking, scandalous, troublesome, problematic, provocative, or dangerous, you are definitely on to something. So I’m here to give thanks to all the rebels out there forging a new path and taking the heat for all of it…Your fearlessness does not go unnoticed. You are seen, you are heard, and most of all, you are appreciated.^[37]

But, dominant ideologies do not allow challenges to go unanswered; they seek to resecure their power against emergent ideologies. In the case of sex and gender, dominant ideology has been reinforced by laws that govern the clothing one wears, access to gender-affirming care, the right to use names and pronouns, and the bathrooms people use.

The controversy over bathroom use in the United States is one place where the ideology of the sex binary becomes evident. U.S. states like Florida and Iowa have passed laws that require people to use the bathroom designated for the sex assigned to them at birth, and those sexes must be male or female. The controversy over bathrooms might seem odd to many people from outside the United States. In much of Europe, public bathrooms are sex inclusive. For example, at the University of Copenhagen, there are just bathrooms with rows of stalls and rows of sinks and everyone uses closeted stalls in the same room. It is unremarkable to see all sexes using the same bathroom there.

Why are there different bathroom structures in these two countries? The segregation of U.S. public bathrooms traces back to the Victorian ideology that men should inhabit the public sphere and women the private sphere. As women increasingly were allowed out into the public sphere to shop, separate bathrooms were created as “safe spaces . . . tucked in a world in which women were vulnerable.”^[38] (Gender ideology in the U.S. characterized women (actually, white women who had the wealth and leisure time to shop in department stores) as fragile and vulnerable. Thus, in the 1880s, U.S. law began mandating separate bathrooms and by 1920, 40 states mandated that bathrooms be segregated by sex.

The bathroom issue persists. Just as Victorian society grappled with changing sex and gender roles, so does contemporary society.  A New Yorker article asked a series of interesting questions:

Today, men and women, not assumed to be only heterosexual, are expected to function at work alongside one another, eat at adjacent seats in restaurants, sit cheek by jowl in buses and airplanes, take classes, study in libraries, and, with some exceptions, even pray together. Why is the multi-stall bathroom the last public vestige of gendered social separation? When men, gay or straight, can stand shoulder to shoulder at urinals without a second thought, is there much to back up the view that men and women must not pee or poop next to one another, especially if closed stalls would shield them from view? Women may have some distinctive sanitation needs, but why does that require a wholly separate space from men?^[39]

The answer: “Perhaps the point is precisely that the public restroom is the only everyday social institution remaining in which separation by gender[/sex] is the norm, and undoing that separation would feel like the last shot in the ‘war on gender’ itself.”^[40] 

Bathrooms are ideological.

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What is discourse? What are systems of discourse?
2. How does discourse relate to power?  In other words, how are people, places and topics governed by rules of discourse? And who sets the rules?
3. What is ideology? What are some examples of ideology? What are some aspects of your ideological framework? What does “of course” have to do with ideology?
4. How does a dominant group control a society through cultural hegemony?
5. How is the story of trickle-down economics (renamed “supply-side economics”) an example of hegemony?