File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0102, message 51


From: "JohaN HUGO" <12813249-AT-humarga.sun.ac.za>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:15:49 +200
Subject: hegemony


hi 

i've been lurking around for a while now, trying to follow the 
discussion, and though i can't claim to know anything about it but the 
most generally known, something just occurred to me.
would hegemony necessarily be monopolised by the state/the 
media/capital etc.? of course, it would appear to be easiest for them 
generate it (btw, is it "generated" or "created", perhaps merely adapted, 
evolved and perpetuated, or even just encouraged/allowed to "occur/ 
happen"?), since by definition they appear to control the resources 
needed, but that only depends upon our definition of the community 
upon which is exercised as the broadest category of the masses*. (i take 
it that almost by def. hegemony is exercised over a community? should 
i be using class? is class not just in a certain sense a special case of 
community?)

however, if we should define this community slightly differently, 
precisely, for example, AS the quasi-community of left-wing 
intellectuals, dissidents etc, would it be possible to organise a counter-
narrative of hegemony, one exercised not BY capital/the state etc. but 
precisely AGAINST these. in such a scenario, instead of hegemony 
masking ideology, would ideology not become a certain way of masking 
its own hegemony (over this community of the left etc.)? what is to 
guarantee that the theory of hegemony ITSELF is not hegemonic in 
this sense (albeit over the intellectuals): eg. "look how much we can say 
about hegemony, therefore a.) it must exist and b.) to some extent at 
least, we must have escaped it, if we can talk about it."
i quote from don smith also: "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! "

if we say otherwise, what is tt guarantee that THAT isn't hegemony, that the 
zeitgeist of left-wing theory is not such a hegemony?

am i completely off the ball, or redundant?

love

JohaN 

*ps. i do not know how much gramsci per se there is in it, but i have 
recently read baudrillard's "in the shadow of the silent majorities", 
which seems to deconstruct a lot of relevant things, such as the 
concept, precisely, of the masses, and their necessary domination by 
the media. any comments?

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005