6: Whose common sense? Hegemony

Question 1

Hegemony

Answer 1

Hegemony is a particular theoretical tool to try and grapple with the issue of common sense in relation to power. The concept of hegemony, is particularly good at trying to understand how domination/particular forms of inequality in power relations persist and last over time.

Question 2

Key points:

Answer 2

Gramsci and, inspired by him, Roseberry argue that the concept of ‘hegemony’ (or ‘hegemonising processes/projects’) helps us theorise how forms of domination can maintain themselves over time, why dominated people often don’t resist, and how this is not always a matter of violence and coercion. (foucs on domination). The issue of common sense. So, the concept of hegemony is a particular theoretical tool to try and grapple with the issue of common sense in relation to power.

Question 3

Film: The Caterpillar moon

J Simmons and J Howarth 1996

Answer 3

¬ Africa, two groups, tall people and ‘Aka’ (short people) – The document studies the link between these two people – the relationship in which they live.
¬ This relationship is one of Deep inequality – tall people are in a position of much more influence and power over the Aka. Unequal relations overtime.
¬ This is the kind of situation that the concept of hegemony can help us understand and theorise.
¬ A situation of inequality with two groups of people living in unequal relations over time.
¬ Tall people in situation of superiority compared to the Aka people. For example, the relations between different colours with skin last over time etc. All these situations of inequality between different groups between men and women, etc can be theorised in all kinds of ways. One concept to theories that has been the concept of hegemony. Way that is used in social sciences today is associated with one particular man called Antonio Gramsci.

Question 4

We use the interpretation for this module, offered by:

Answer 4

• William Roseberry.

Question 5

William Roseberry:

KEY TEXT

Answer 5

• Since he was a Marxist activist, he was also developing his ideas and theory’s in relation to trying to change the world, and also to try and develop the thought of Marx which came from 19th century.
• What was the dominant way of understanding Marx in this time? (1920’s) = Economic determinism: a belief that there are certain contradictions in capitalism that will more or less automatically lead to a revolution. The economy determines the superstructure.
• He disagreed with this economic determinism – he rejected it. He found it deeply problematic.
• There were different reasons in his day why there were problems with this kind of view.
• In 1920’s if that particular economic determinists view were to be correct, the economic condition in the 1920s would make you worried about this econ determinism:
• 1) E.g. lots of workers were starting going to fascist parties, right wing parties – rather than the communist party.
• 2) Also there had been on communist revolution in Russia – he said when we look at what happened in Russia it was hardly an uprising caused by the economic determination of capitalism – in fact Russia was a 99% agricultural state. Russia the last place you would expect this to happen because there were hardly any factory’s there.
• Reasons why he was thinking something was wrong.
• Since he did desire a revolution, and develop a theory that would facilitate a revolution, he said we have to improve and get rid of this economic determinism views. This is where he introduced the concept of hegemony.

Question 6

Establishing Hegemony:

William Roseberry

Answer 6

• He wanted to understand how is it that we have a situation in which there is a certain class who are owning the factory’s and who are in charge of country, exploiting country etc etc. How did that come to be? Because there was no such thing as a capitalist class 70 years before that for example. It became a class. He says we need to describe and understand the development and process in which this situation came to be.
• He says there are 3 levels in that understanding.

1: Economic level How that group of people, the class of factory owners etc, how they first established their control over the means of production, the land, THE ECONOMY.(In line with the economic determinist) WHO HAS GOT CONTROL OVER ALL THE MEANS? Who gets to eat and who decides what they get to eat. And therefore survive. He says that class may have the control of the factory’s, machines and land etc, but they needed another step in order to become the dominant class to have the power they had in the 1920’s.

• 2: Political level. It wasn’t enough for them to just have the factorys and production etc, also needed control over state institutions. (Doesn’t necessarily mean that have ti be the parliamentarians them self’s) They have a parliament, government, state system, police force, army that works for them etc. Not just about people livlihoods (like 1st) but having having an institution of laws but also threaten violence in oder to maintain this position.
• 3: Culture and ideology. He makes his most original contribution here. In order for that capitalist class to be in charge, they have to have something else (not enough just to have the economy, state institutions, police, laws etc) some degree of consent from people (the people who are subordinated. Workers etc). This class to be able to spread their ideology/view of the world, as THE world view. (to a degree accepted by the people in question)
• This is about COMMON SENSE. Its about being able to establish in a particular society a degree of common sense that is shared by most people, including the ones that seem to be disadvantages by this particular form of common sense. In this case, the third level is the one most accosaited with his contribution. But of course we need all three of the levels to make up the process by which the capitalist class in Italy became the dominant power.
• He developed a concept of hegemony, and he says this is the way which the capitalist class in Italy, established a degree of hegemony, and therefore this explains why there is no revolution going on, why the workers are dependent on the capitalist class for their bread, threatened by their guns, and also sharing some of their common sense. They don’t actually think its entirely oppressive, even though they are being oppressed.

Question 7

Linking three stages to film:

Answer 7

• In this film we have a situation in which the tall people in the village are obviously in a long standing situation of domination over the Aka. And this situation could be analysed by using hegemony.
• We can look at the degree to which the tall people have established hegemony in that context.
• If we wanted to do that we would have to look at various dimentions:
• an 1: economic process, (first level) – see that the Aka to are large degree are depended o the tall people for certan material conditions, like clothing, cigarettes etc. Also they are officially owners by the tall people, even inherinted. The tall people/villagers are living by the fruits of the labours of the Aka. If want to see hegemony of place have to look at all 3:
• 2: Political: would have to look at laws, official laws, threat of violence ‘police’ e.g. women goes into camp and when she’s there they odnt talk back etc.
• 3: Level of common sense: the practice frame works in which people give meanings to their everyday lives. To a certain degree, the Aka seem to accept their position. If nothing else, they are not burning down the village. They are going to the forest and they are collecting caterpillars for the villagers, and they seem to have lived in generations of quite harsh material conditions compared to tall people in which they are giving the villagers the fruits of the labour.
• On the other hand (this is why its always a matter of degree), in the film we also get a sense that the people don’t necessarily but into the ideology of the tall people. They say these people as unable to look after themselves, and thus being looked after by the tall people. In order to keep it this way is declaring them less able to look after themselves, thus subordination. The tall people rely on this story.
• The Aka seem to have an alternative story. Don’t see anything that seems them supporting this story that treats them as inferior and the tall people as superior.
• They don’t buy into the world view of the dominant, not a situation of total consent, we see there is a process and conversation there, there is a degree of struggle there. The aka are not just brainwashing into thinking they are inferior or have to be treated in this way, but at the same time where they do live their lives, according to a practical framework of everyday life, that does reproduce their situation as being subordinate to the tall people.