Teun van Dijk定义的意识形态作为社会表征的社会群体成员共享和区分它从文化知识，他定义为预思想信仰系统共享在社会所有必要的组通信发生[ 20004 ]。在这个意义上说，意识形态是一种文化中的一个子集的成员的信念。他还建议使用这个定义，我们可以看看在权利在美国言论自由的英国和几乎绝望的信念，个人的自主性在美国片文化知识，因为它们是嵌入在词、故事、信仰和文物[德·安德拉德，1995，p.十四]整个社会和坚持随着时间的共识，全社会都表示（思想）组【范戴克，2004】。另一方面，认为白人比黑人，Jesus是上帝的儿子，或者一个人的行为不应该伤害别人的意识形态由于并非所有组内的文化可以分享他们因为这些更容易变的比知识，虽然，慢慢发生变化。
然而，比利希，谁看的意识形态更为习惯和固定的东西，把问题与Dijk的定义。他认为，任何意识形态的定义也必须表明，在某些情况下，广泛的社会信仰变得如此扭曲，他们是不够的了解产生了这样的信念的社会条件[ 1999 ]。当然，他这里指的是葛兰西的霸权理论时，占主导地位的群体或集团的历史必然有共同的经济利益关系作为思想的接受或相信一种意识形态是合乎情理的，因此把它作为文化知识[ 1971 ]这当然表明他们已经忘记了条件导致接受那些信念。
That said, though, Price is indeed correct. To begin to explain why Price is correct, we need first to look at the concept of ideology, which at its core appears to be a belief system among some members of a larger group as opposed to an entire society, although this too is debated as is how discourse is constructed and interpreted.
Teun van Dijk defined ideology as social representations shared by the members of social groups and distinguished it from cultural knowledge, which he defined as a pre-ideological belief system shared by all groups across a society necessary for communication to occur . In this sense then, ideologies are beliefs that members of a subset within a culture share. He also suggested that Using this definition, we can look at the belief in the right to free speech in the United States and the United Kingdom and the almost desperate belief in the autonomy of the individual in the US as pieces of cultural knowledge since they are embedded in words, stories, and in artifacts [D’Andrade, 1995, p. xiv] throughout the society and have persisted over time as common ground for all social representations of all (ideological) groups [van Dijk, 2004]. On the other hand, the belief that whites are superior to blacks, that Jesus is the son of God, or that one’s actions should never harm others are ideologies since not all groups within a culture may share them and since these are more readily changeable than is knowledge, albeit that the change occurs slowly.
However, Billig, who viewed ideology more as something secured by habit and custom, took issue with Dijk’s definition. He suggested that any definition of ideology must also indicate that under certain circumstances widespread social beliefs become so distorted that they are insufficient for understanding the social conditions which have produced such beliefs . Of course, here he is referring to the Gramsci’s theory of hegemony that occurs when dominant groups or historic blocs’ – bound as much by ideological ties as by shared economic interests – accept or believe that an ideology is commonsensical and thus look at it as cultural knowledge  which of course indicates that they have forgotten what conditions led to the acceptance of those beliefs.
However, in doing so, they also then propagate values that reinforce their control over politics and the economy [Raphael, 2003] via access – as a dominant group – to the media and thus most inhabitants of the larger society. An example here could be the ideology of capitalism and the fact that those who ascribe to it as a belief shared by all who matter no longer understand or remember that at its foundation was a division of labor, a desire by the ruling class to keep its power, and a ploy to subscribe to man the right to own property, thus instilling competition