a question regarding HEGEMONY

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

right. first of all i dont understand fully the concept of hegemony, hence me asking this question.

Im doing a dissertation on whether the continuing press coverage of the royal family has diminished the moarchys cultural influence in Britian.

Now, a key theme is that i believe the growth of middle class indipendance is leading to the royals have less autocratic influence over a developing british society.

my teacher agreed, and said ''look into hegemony''.

but in what context does she mean? does she mean look into how the middle class have more influence over society? or how the monarchy are having less?

again...i REALLY dont understand the theory fully so please excuse im ignorance!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Is it money you pay a gardener?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Is it money you pay a gardener?

ah, that would make more sense.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

You need to mention Antonio Gramsci on the subject of hegemony.

Ideological Hegemony

Gramsci accepted the analysis of capitalism put forward by Marx in the previous century and accepted that the struggle between the ruling class and the subordinate working class was the driving force that moved society forward. What he found unacceptable was the traditional Marxist view of how the ruling class ruled. It was here that Gramsci made a major contribution to modern thought in his concept of the role played by ideology.

Often the term "ideology" is seen as referring simply to a system of ideas and beliefs. However, it is closely tied to the concept of power and the definition given by Anthony Giddens is probably the easiest to understand. Giddens defines ideology as "shared ideas or beliefs which serve to justify the interests of dominant groups" [Giddens 1997 p583] Its relationship to power is that it legitimises the differential power that groups hold and as such it distorts the real situation that people find themselves in.

The traditional Marxist theory of power was a very one-sided one based on the role of force and coercion as the basis of ruling class domination. This was reinforced by Lenin whose influence was at its height after the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Gramsci felt that what was missing was an understanding of the subtle but pervasive forms of ideological control and manipulation that served to perpetuate all repressive structures. He identified two quite distinct forms of political control: domination, which referred to direct physical coercion by police and armed forces and hegemony which referred to both ideological control and more crucially, consent. He assumed that no regime, regardless of how authoritarian it might be, could sustain itself primarily through organised state power and armed force. In the long run, it had to have popular support and legitimacy in order to maintain stability.

By hegemony, Gramsci meant the permeation throughout society of an entire system of values, attitudes, beliefs and morality that has the effect of supporting the status quo in power relations. Hegemony in this sense might be defined as an 'organising principle' that is diffused by the process of socialisation into every area of daily life. To the extent that this prevailing consciousness is internalised by the population it becomes part of what is generally called 'common sense' so that the philosophy, culture and morality of the ruling elite comes to appear as the natural order of things. [Boggs 1976 p39]

Marx’s basic division of society into a base represented by the economic structure and a superstructure represented by the institutions and beliefs prevalent in society was accepted by most Marxists familiar with the concepts. Gramsci took this a step further when he divided the superstructure into those institutions that were overtly coercive and those that were not. The coercive ones, which were basically the public institutions such as the government, police, armed forces and the legal system he regarded as the state or political society and the non-coercive ones were the others such as the churches, the schools, trade unions, political parties, cultural associations, clubs, the family etc. which he regarded as civil society. To some extent, schools could fit into both categories. Parts of school life are quite clearly coercive (compulsory education, the national curriculum, national standards and qualifications) whilst others are not (the hidden curriculum).

So for Gramsci, society was made up of the relations of production (capital v labour); the state or political society (coercive institutions) and civil society (all other non-coercive institutions).

Gramsci's analysis went much further than any previous Marxist theory to provide an understanding of why the European working class had on the whole failed to develop revolutionary consciousness after the First World War and had instead moved towards reformism ie tinkering with the system rather than working towards overthrowing it. It was a far more subtle theory of power than any of his contemporaries and went a long way to explain how the ruling class ruled.

Now, if Gramsci was correct that the ruling class maintained its domination by the consent of the mass of the people and only used its coercive apparatuses, the forces of law and order, as a last resort, what were the consequences for Marxists who wished to see the overthrow of that same ruling class? If the hegemony of the ruling capitalist class resulted from an ideological bond between the rulers and the ruled, what strategy needed to be employed? The answer to those questions was that those who wished to break that ideological bond had to build up a ‘counter hegemony’ to that of the ruling class. They had to see structural change and ideological change as part of the same struggle. The labour process was at the core of the class struggle but it was the ideological struggle that had to be addressed if the mass of the people were to come to a consciousness that allowed them to question their political and economic masters right to rule. It was popular consensus in civil society that had to be challenged and in this we can see a role for informal education.

Overcoming popular consensus, however, is not easy. Ideological hegemony meant that the majority of the population accepted what was happening in society as ‘common sense’ or as ‘the only way of running society’. There may have been complaints about the way things were run and people looked for improvements or reforms but the basic beliefs and value system underpinning society were seen as either neutral or of general applicability in relation to the class structure of society. Marxists would have seen people constantly asking for a bigger slice of the cake when the real issue was ownership of the bakery.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

ah super. i have a book called 'gramsci is dead' or something like that. but there is no pictures in it so it may be a struggle

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Is it money you pay a gardener?

If gardening is relevant, I recommend Gramsci's thoughts on "Organic Intellectuals".

 

[Stoichkov]

ah super. i have a book called 'gramsci is dead' or something like that. but there is no pictures in it so it may be a struggle

mention his hair

 

[crasher]

right. first of all i dont understand fully the concept of hegemony, hence me asking this question.

Im doing a dissertation on whether the continuing press coverage of the royal family has diminished the moarchys cultural influence in Britian.

Now, a key theme is that i believe the growth of middle class indipendance is leading to the royals have less autocratic influence over a developing british society.

my teacher agreed, and said ''look into hegemony''.

but in what context does she mean? does she mean look into how the middle class have more influence over society? or how the monarchy are having less?

again...i REALLY dont understand the theory fully so please excuse im ignorance!

I guess what your teacher means is the dominant or received idea in our society about monarchy. In other words the dominant idea shapes what we all think about the monarchy. this is hegemony. Gramsci, I think, is more positive than others about the possibility that we can struggle against and to some extent escape from hegemony. Others, like Althusser, are much more pessimistic.

But hegemony is much over-used word in modern academic life and tends to mean different things to different people.

Going back to the Royal family - the death of Diana was a perfect example of how media coverage of "national grief" reinforced assumptions that we call care deeply about the monarchy. Millions of us were entirely unaffected by "grief" but you wouldn't know it from most sources. The media carried only the hegemonic narrative.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Going back to the Royal family - the death of Diana was a perfect example of how media coverage of "national grief" reinforced assumptions that we call care deeply about the monarchy. Millions of us were entirely unaffected by "grief" but you wouldn't know it from most sources. The media carried only the hegemonic narrative.

correct, i watched football italia on 4 while the funeral was happening.

my teacher at the time was disgusted.