Antonio Gramsci Theory of Cultural Hegemony

[FOREVER LEFT]

Antonio Gramsci Theory of Hegemony is very interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

[Hit The North]

Yes, and one of the most compelling reasons for building and maintaining revolutionary organization - even in the free market, consumerist "paradise" of early 21st century western society.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Gramsci is one of the best Marxists since Marx!

His stuff even sounds cool "war of position" "war of movement" :D

Importantly, Gramsci was also aware of the role of intellectuals in society. But, he didn't the normal academic intellectuals, he meant all the regular people who had an expertise in some areas like chefs or seamstresses.

He argued, that these people, need to be persuaded to revolutionary thought, and to create and alternative culture.

The alternative culture would eventually encompass all of the working class, allowing for a revolution in the already industrialised countries.

He didn't think that the Bolshevik model was applicable in the already advanced countries.


This was largely due to the working class consenting to capitalism in the advanced countries, whereas they are not complicit in the less developed countries, like Russia in 1917.

So, the War of position is getting the revolutionary consciousness into the dominant culture. The war of movement, is the actual act of revolution.

[Raúl Duke]

Interesting....should look up into this....

this idea was interesting:

the War of position is getting the revolutionary consciousness into the dominant culture.

so, do anyone have ideas how this could be done?


Capitalism, Gramsci suggested, maintained control not just through violence and political and economic coercion, but also ideologically, through a hegemonic culture in which the values of the bourgeoisie became the 'common sense' values of all. Thus a consensus culture developed in which people in the working-class identified their own good with the good of the bourgeoisie, and helped to maintain the status quo rather than revolting.

yes...but don't the bourgeoisie appropriate/expropriate most revolutionary culture (that attempts to enter the dominant culture) and gives it to us back (or you could say re-markets or re-sells it) in a consumer friendly complacent with status qou version? How do we stop this appropriation?

P.S.
Maybe someone should start a study group about this.

[Vargha Poralli]

the War of position is getting the revolutionary consciousness into the dominant culture.


so, do anyone have ideas how this could be done?

Cultural Revolution :blush: . Mao's ideas(about cultural revolution) are more or less similar to Gramsci's. But in practice it was an utter failure because of the behind the scene politics of Mao.IMO cultural revolution should preceed any political or social revolution. It would greatly reduce the failure of revolution and even after the success it would reduce the effect of Thermidor.

[Raúl Duke]

What ideas or action of the Cultural Revolution could be used in a setting prior the revolution?

Also, does anyone else has any other suggestions outside from Mao's Cultural Revolution (want to get as many ideas and past events out so to examine.)

[BreadBros]

I don't think Gramsci is very relevant today. First of all, he rejected materialism, which is troubling.


yes...but don't the bourgeoisie appropriate/expropriate most revolutionary culture (that attempts to enter the dominant culture) and gives it to us back (or you could say re-markets or re-sells it) in a consumer friendly complacent with status qou version? How do we stop this appropriation?

This is another problem. Guy Debord refers to it as "recuperation", the assimilation of antagonistic ideas. The situationists argue that culture itself is a commodity, one of the most integral commodities created because it reproduces the conditions for humans to continue capitalist production and to continue to shape the world along the lines of capitalist production. They seemed to think that the only way to escape this was to reject culture as a representation of reality (just like they rejected the party as a representation of the working class) and abandon it for actual life.

As for hegemony, I think there are several problems with it. Capitalism in the West is incredibly entrenched at the moment, probably more so than in Gramsci's day, yet most people don't seem particularly dominated by the ideological consensus. Most people seem to cast a rather cynical eye towards the existing capitalist institutions and their values. Also, we know that people do in fact participate in class based conflict on a daily basis, even if its unconscious. Everything from work slowdowns to migration to mutual aid among minority groups are responses to capitalism and people acting on class-based interests. Also, historically there have been very large movements towards rebellion. The 60s were an example of that in the US, an example that was dismantled by the FBI. Similarly the CIA subverted many electoral processes where it was clear that leftists were going to win. Italy after WWII is an example, as are various Third World nations. It seems more likely that the failure of socialist revolution to materialize is a result of premature prognosticaton. Capitalist does definitely seem in decay and the working class is increasingly experiencing bursts of consciousness and conflict, but not on the scale where victory has proven possible.

[ExpansiveThought]

I would argue that Hegemony is still in effect today based on the fact that bourgoise ideolody is dominant in the mainstream media, which unfortunately is for many children the primary agent of socialization. However i would like to argue that the mainstream media no longer constitutes culture whatsoever, what we commonly refer to as popular culture is often nothing more than simply bourgoise ideology, its disguise as entertainment gives a thin veil to consumerist propogandha. Thusly, people are mass produced in their own living rooms to live a life of complacency all the while remaining unconcious of the class conflict all around them. This makes it apparent that attempts hegemony (effective or not) are certainly in practice today and continue to expand at the expense of real culture.
In a society aiming towards hegemony it is quite logical for subliminal messaging to be employed as a means of ideological domination and as such everyone should harbor a fervent distrust for all state owned or otherwise for that matter media outlets. Television is by nature a powerful tool for mass coercion as it creates a trance like state making viewers prime targets for brainwashing. This may seem implausible in an era where television is such big business.......Or does this mean that broadcast corporations are forced to play lap-dogs to the government agencies who regulate them?
For the most part, people recieve their main political views from their parents who are in a more natural state of existence the agents of socialization, however the ideology of the right is far too often engrained in the psyche of the contemporary parent, most people i meet have grown up to believe in meritocracy and two tier healthcare through the brainwasing their insufferably ignorant parents have bestowed upon them. This provides yet another facet to hegemony.
I'd like to ask, in closing, does the previously mentioned meddling with election results such as in the convoluted build up to the vietnam war constitute another facet of hegemony or can it be categorized simply as imperialism? Does imperialism by necessity perpetuate hegemony?