Hegemony: Reflection 3

My struggle with Gramsci was painful to say the least but understanding such an important notion as hegemony which seems to sneak into every one of my classes, is invaluable. Pulling from the Simon reading for a little clarity I worked my way through Gramsci and came up with this...



As a Communications student hegemony is a concept I have grappled with since my first introduction to the core theories of the discipline. As a fairly new academic discipline many of the communication theories I study borrow from and are comprised of ideas taken from sociology, linguistics, political science and psychology. So needless to say, I knew at some point I would have to struggle with the concept of hegemony in a different context, there is no escaping it (no pun intended). This is a preemptive reflection of sorts as we have yet to discuss Gramsci in class but I am hoping after two and a half years of this I should be able to reflect on hegemony without the aid of class prompts.
In Simon's outline of Gramsci's work he defines hegemony as “a relation, not of domination by means of force, but of consent by means of political and ideological leadership. It is the organization of consent.”
1 Gramsci, I learned, is a Marxist philosopher which affects the way I understand his specific definition of hegemony compared to others I have studied. His Marxist affiliation simply means that Gramsci was most likely referring specifically to the ideological and discursive power over the proletariat held by the bourgeoisie class. However, this distinction is moot as one can easily extrapolate on all Marxist theories to render them applicable to modern day circumstance. Modern day circumstance is what I am most concerned with in this reflection. I would like to go as far as to argue that the distinction between hegemony and domination by means of force in Gramscian theory is almost unnecessary in the modern North American political realm. Domination through manipulation of discursive practices, ideology and societal values is the only domination I argue, going on within our economically based system of legislature, elite governance, and politics which is, of course, our current ruling class or bourgeoisie equivalent. The relevance of dominance by force within day to day governance in North America (Canada specifically) has declined with the on set of popular media and the ever-growing influence of other (not so) subtle persuasive mediums. I argue that hegemony is the only form of domination at work within Canadian society and I further argue that the need for domination by force has diminished entirely because of the astonishing success of more subtle and “consent” driven modes of persuasion referred to when using the term hegemony. That is not to say that military and more blatant forms of control – such as policing and the criminal justice system – do not exist and are not necessary in modern Western society but the prevalence and undeniably crucial role of more subtle forms of control, I argue, are the forces truly shaping ideology and discourse within North American society today.
Simon further illuminates the notion of hegemony by saying that “hegemony is a relation between classes and other social forces. A hegemonic class, or part of a class, is one which gains the consent of other classes... through maintaining a system of alliances by means of political and ideological struggle.”
2 Simon discusses the Marxist view that hegemony is used to oppress certain classes and can in turn be used in a revolutionary context to uplift these oppressed classes. I think what is important to highlight here is that when Gramsci is referring to the oppressive classes he is referring to those in power, those who hold property rights and the rights to production. Hegemony, as I argued above, is the highly persuasive force that it is partly because of the ease of dissemination of ideas through various mass media outlets. The nature of hegemony today barring that, makes me question whether hegemony can be used as a revolutionary tool when a major medium for the dissemination of discourse and dominant ideology (the major components of hegemony) is held in the hands of and controlled by the oppressive class. For this reason I question Gramsci's preoccupation with hegemony as he was a Marxist philosopher, unless I am simply misinterpreting what he is saying and in actuality he is just concerned with the negative effects of hegemony as it relates to the oppressive control of the proletariat classes.




1&2 Simon, Roger. “Gramsci's Political Thought: An Introduction.” Lawrence and Wishart, London. 1991.






No comments:

Post a Comment