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.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005