Skip to main content

Gramsci's Hegemony II

 In Marxist theory, society consists of two parts: the base/ substructure and the superstructure. Marx defines the base as the social relations between men which create and produce materials that are eventually put up for the exchange. From the base comes a superstructure in which laws, politics, religion and literature legitimize the power of the social classes that are formed in the base. 


Antonio Gramsci divided Marx's superstructure into two elements: political society and civil society. Political society consists of the organized force of society (ex: police and military) while civil society refers to the consensus-creating elements (ex: trade unions, political parties, schools and universities, religious institutions, media, NGOs and all other bodies indirectly associated with the State) that contribute to cultural hegemony. Both constituents of this superstructure are still informed by the values of the base, serving to establish and enforce these values in society. 


According to Gramsci, the ruling class exercises the “function of hegemony” through civil society. Hegemony in this case means the worldview, reality, and beliefs of the dominant classes coming to be accepted by the subordinate classes as “common sense”. There is a silent agreement that the view of the dominant class is the only sensible way of seeing the world. Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation, American Dream, Acche Din etc. is fine examples for this. This was achieved through education, media propaganda as well as the fact that the ruling class owned the means of production. Any groups who present an alternative view are therefore marginalised. 


Let's Simplify

Every political system, including the democratic one, is based on a given cultural hegemony, which presupposes the dominance of political ideas of some social elite, or elites, but also implying the consent of social groups at lower strata of the society. To win or maintain cultural hegemony, control of the media, education, and public communications, as well as use and abuse of various mechanisms of "soft power" -as is the case today with "fun-making-society"- must be constantly upheld and updated. All of these conditions shape public opinion. (IDEAS bibliographic database


Gramsci’s theory thus delivers to us the awareness that the ruling classes are dominant in more than a purely economic sense. Not only do the classes at the top control vast amounts of wealth and the power of the state, but the ideas, theories and values that come to accepted by all as “normal”. Finally, he also claims that the social revolution that Marxists aim towards will only be fully realised and achieved by developing a counter-hegemony to capitalism for which the proletariat will have to produce its class of intellectuals to instigate the revolution. (thefablesoup WP)


Why Hegemony is crucial?

The political and practical implications of Gramsci’s ideas were far-reaching because he warned of the limited possibilities of direct revolutionary struggle for control of the means of production; this ‘war of attack’ could only succeed with a prior ‘war of position’ in the form of a struggle over ideas and beliefs, to create a new hegemony. This idea of a ‘counter-hegemonic struggle – advancing alternatives to dominant ideas of what is normal and legitimate – has had broad appeal in social and political movements.


Lenin defined hegemony as domination. Gramsci redefined it as an intellectual and moral leadership directed by contradictory political and cultural agents and organizations he called organic and traditional intellectuals. Organic intellectuals represented the interests of the working classes. One of their tasks was to make the proletariat aware of capitalist domination and exploitation. Traditional intellectuals represented the interests of the bourgeoisie. (traditional and organic intellectuals is defined in the description)


The culture was central to Gramsci's political strategy. He argued that culture was a political product of intellectuals, for another of their tasks was to develop the people's culture through education and ideological indoctrination. Traditional intellectuals worked to convince people of the virtues of capitalism and obtain their consent to capitalist rule. Organic intellectuals worked to help people develop an alternative to capitalist culture. Gramsci suggested how organic intellectuals might use popular cultural forms and signs to marshal working-class revolutionary energies, depose capitalism, and construct a unitary proletarian culture. 


More than any other Marxist thinkers of his time, Gramsci recognized the significance of culture in revolution. The culture was central to Gramsci's political strategy. He argued that culture was a political product of intellectuals, other tasks of these people was to develop the people's culture through education and ideological indoctrination. Traditional intellectuals worked to convince people of the virtues of capitalism and obtain their consent to capitalist rule. Organic intellectuals worked to help people develop an alternative to capitalist culture. 




Two types of intellectuals


Gramsci identified intellectuals as leaders in society. He identified two types of intellectuals. The first is traditional intellectuals who are people that regard themselves as independent of the dominant social group and are regarded as such by the majority of the population. Example: Jordan Peterson, Sreejith Panikkar etc.


Organic intellectuals do not simply describe social life by scientific rules, but instead articulate, through the language of culture, the feelings and experiences which the masses could not express for themselves. To Gramsci, it was the duty of organic intellectuals to speak to the obscured precepts of folk wisdom, or common sense (senso comune), of their respective political spheres. These intellectuals would represent excluded social groups of a society, what Gramsci referred to as the subaltern. Example: Periyar EV Ramaswamy, MK Gandhi, BR Ambedkar etc.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Revisiting Malabar rebellion of 1921

The what, why and how of Malabar Rebellion and it's aftermath. Malabar rebellion is one of the most misinterpreted peasant uprising in the country. The hindutwa forces tries to demonize the rebels. Where islamic fundamentalists sees it a movement to establish Sunni Islamic state. But the studies confirm both were absolutely wrong. Events leading to Malabar rebellion of 1921? Tipu Sultan's regin (1793-1762) after the invasion of Malabar (present day Palakkad, Kozhikode, Malappuram and parts of Kannur) many Jenmis (landlords) were displaced or was under refuge of neighbouring states. Those who didn't runaway converted to Islam for mercy and appeasement. But Tipu altogether abolished the Janmi system and introduced new taxation by which the government bodies have fixed share based on produce unlike before. Also massive land reforms and cultural reforms were introduced such as covering the breasts was made mandatory by law being one of them.  This ensured well-being...

Squid Game: Through Marxist perspective

  “Everyone here has insurmountably large loans and stands at the precipice of life, Do you want to go home and live the rest of your life like garbage, being chased by creditors? Or do you want to grab this last opportunity, which we are presenting?” - an anonymous game organizer in a mask and pink uniform tells the assembled players in the first episode. The hit Korean show “Squid Game,” where working-class contestants are given a chance to win billions, or literally die trying. It also breathes life to an allegory of capitalism rooted in the alienation of the working class. Also, it never makes its action look glamorous. Squid Game is directed by Hwang Dong-hyuk. The core theme of the series is a group of contesters getting into battle royale style games to win prize money. The show tries to tell us how humans show their true nature when put in extreme situations. on the other hand, it also shows participants actualizing their most human powers — solidarity, tenderness, and empa...

History of international workers' day!

May 1, 1886, Chicago socialists, reformists, anarchists, and ordinary workers combined to make the city the center of the national movement for an eight-hour day. Between April 25 and May 4, workers attended scores of meetings and paraded through the streets at least 19 times. On Saturday, May 1, 35,000 workers walked off their jobs. Tens of thousands more, both skilled and unskilled, joined them on May 3 and 4. Crowds traveled from workplace to workplace urging fellow workers to strike. Many now adopted the "radical demand of eight hours' work and increased wage". Police clashed with strikers at least a dozen times, three with shootings.  At the McCormick reaper plant, a long-simmering strike erupted in violence on May 3, and police fired at strikers, killing at least two. On May 4 a peaceful meeting at Haymarket Square became even more so. The meeting was almost over and only about two hundred people remained when they were attacked by 176 policemen carrying...