File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0102, message 44


Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:26:24 -0600
From: Mary Murphy&Salstrand <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: hegemony


hugh bone wrote:

>"Hegemony" is a term applicable to "globalization", as well as the >structure of of corporate-dominated politics so well-described in the >Kangas article for which you gave a link in an earlier post.
> 
> We don't need better words and theories to describe these problems. We >know what the problems are.  We do need communication, cooperation, >mutal action to cause change by voting.

Hugh,

This is where I would disagree with you. I think Don Smith put it far
better than I could. Here is his post -
 
"Isn't hegemony the disembodiment of intellectuals? To me, hegemony
establishes a Zeitgeist that disguises ideology as common sense. For
example when I discuss the disproportionate distribution of wealth with
acquaintances they justify it as a part of the natural order of things.
They say that to accumulate as much as possible is human nature. They
see meritocracy as a natural condition rather than a socially
constructed institution. Why do they think this way rather than
otherwise? Hegemony! 

For me the important characteristic of hegemony is the insidious way in
which it creates a common sense in the service of power in such subtle
ways that the victims participate in their own undoing. I think
Foulcault was effective in pointing out the often subtle ways in which
discourse forms the subject in the interest of power."

It isn't just a question of using tools such as the Internet to
communicate in a better way, but finding the means to challenge and
confront the narratives that legitimize power. This too is a form of
political action.



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005