The idea that personal communication can symbolise conformity or resistance to dominant ideology has a great deal of support, but also some limitations.

Personal communication in terms of appearance and language, etc can be very closely linked to the formation of identity. The way in which we dress, speak and choose to present ourselves can be argued to be the physical manifestation of our concept of self and identity. It is therefore, arguably, one of the easiest and most commonly used ways to express acceptance or rejection of the dominant ideology.

Marxists, however, would argue that this choice is limited by consensus and the effects of socialisation. Marxism assumes that the dominant ideology will be accepted as normal and natural by members of society, and many cultural institutions are used as ideological state apparatus (Althusser) to ensure this. This economic determinism, however, assumes that children are passive products of the socialisation process and accept this ideology unquestioningly. There is evidence, however, to suggest this is not the case, as with mods and rockers, or punks for example, who rejected the widely accepted modes of dress in favour of non-conformist appearances. However, it may be argued that in the rejecting of the dominant ideology, they were conforming to another sub-culture, supporting the view that personal communication may symbolise both conformity and resistance.

However, the majority of people could be argued to conform largely to what is expected of them in terms of appearance, for an interview for example, where formal dress is deemed to be acceptable and appropriate. This would suggest that the majority are largely influenced by the socialisation process.

This may also be see in the way gender identity is formed, for example. Ann Oakley identifies a number of ways in which boys and girls are socialised into expected gender roles, through, for example, giving them specific toys or using certain terms of endearment for them. However, this again may be seen to be rejected by "tom-boys", for example, who reject the "feminine" appearance in favour of what is widely recognised by the dominant ideology, as a "masculine" appearance.

Gender roles appear to be, however, more difficult to reject in terms of appearance, than language. Despite appearances, males and females use differing speech codes which appear to symbolise conformity to an ideology, as they seem less likely to resist.

The idea that socialisation plays such a great role in whether or not we choose to conform to or resist dominant ideology, is rejected to an extent by the postmodern perspective, who argue that we are now free to choose the identity and lifestyle we wish. It is argued that people can now construct their own identities from a hybrid culture where fluidity and a heterogeneous lifestyle are valued. It is therefore, arguably, easier to conform to or resist dominant ideology as it is now more socially acceptable. For example, cultural diversity allows us to experience foreign foods, and listen to music associated with various subcultures but still appropriate western ideas about dress, and these choices remain unquestioned.

This does however, assume that this hybrid lifestyle is available to everyone, and in a society where lifestyle is for sale as cultural artefacts become commodities, it may be argued that some are restricted by economic or class inequalities.

There is also a post-colonial argument which suggests that western youths appropriate non-western practices such as tattooing and piercing for example, in order to resist the dominant ideology. Body adornment such as this represented, in one culture, a sense of conformity and belonging to a particular tribe perhaps, or a people such as the Maori, now represents in a post-colonial era, a sense of autonomy in another culture. In this way, personal communication can again be seen to symbolise conformity, but also an expression of self and individuality in the resistance of the dominant ideology.

Therefore, despite the Marxist argument that there is a general consensus, there is evidence, such as the sub-culture of mods and rockers, or body adornment, to suggest that this should not assume such passive acceptance. However, it can be argued that some forms of personal communication are more likely to be, or are easier to use as expressions of conformity or resistance than others. For example, language in gender-role expression is likely to show more conformity, especially in the long-term, than perhaps appearance.

Principal Examiner's Comment

This answer is at the very top end of responses. It is fluent, sophisticated and well informed. The candidate has a thorough grasp of perspectives and is able to use them productively and creatively.

Particularly impressive aspects of the answer include the discussions of identity, hybridity and the notion of appropriation. Full marks could certainly be achieved by responses with fewer merits than are displayed here.

AO1 10
A02 20
Total 30