The argument that there is a clear social con- sensus over a core group of criminal laws poses problems for any extreme conflict position (although most conflict positions acknowledge consensus ofopinion over certain laws). But this observation alone is not sufficient to deny that there is disagreement about the appropriate composition of criminal law. particularly when it comes to laws pertaining to drugs. abortion. sexual morality. delinquency. and laws at the boundary between civil and criminal jurisdic- tion. The appearance of consensus over certain laws may also be illusory if in fact consensus is ideologically produced; in Gramsci‘s terms con- sensus over cenain kinds of laws reflects hege- monic processes. ln Gramsci"s writing. the term “hegemony” refers to ideological domination as. for example. in the way the bourgeoisie establishes and maintains its rule not simply by force. but through the active consent of the cit- izenry (Bottomore I983. 20]-3). The rule of law becomes an important pan of the construction of bourgeois hegemony (or consensus). For example. there is evidence that certain drug laws. rather than issuing from any public con- sensus. actually created the consensus (Small I973). And although the definition of burglary seems obvious enough. the line between theft and profit is less clear. Although the functionalist version of Marxist theory (that law only serves the interests of a ruling class) is difficult to sustain empirically or theoretically. criminal laws are socially con- structed and function to preserve a particular vision of social order. Because this vision is not shared by all members of society. an under- standing of the intentions. purposes. and inter- ests of law appears necessary to understand those who defy it. Law. then, cannot be taken for granted as if it were sui gz'nt'ri.r—law also requires explanation