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