Post by Scott on Jan 20, 2016 2:16:33 GMT
Each of these readings engage a topic that almost all of us discuss at some point or another in our own work, hegemony, but what I find to be troubling in works such as these is the propensity to problematize hegemonic power with a major gap in analyzing how hegemony comes to be. If there is a common thread in each of these readings, it is that hegemony is a very materialist concept, but these authors conveniently evade or contradict one another one a very simple question that would make combatting hegemony much easier which is: where does it come from in the first place?
Each brushes a bit on the subject, beginning first with Zompetti (1997), who uses the Gramscian theory of cultural hegemony to construct a form of criticism that would enable us to expose the relations of power and means by which these forms of power are constituted to combat oppressive forms of hegemony. In this sense, Gramsci makes sense and illustrates a very real beginning point for hegemony: culture (and arguably, ideology). From this perspective, it is the dominant ideological and cultural modes of thought that breed power and enables material conditions to perpetuate or change. In other words, the material is a byproduct of the ideological. Personally, I can get on board with this way of looking at hegemony, ideology, and material conditions. It makes sense to me to reflect on my own material conditions and understand that my perception of wealth or social class is shaped by the cultural beliefs I hold. McGee and Laclau (yuck) vaguely touch on these discussions as well, but only in an ancillary fashion.
In other words, I wanted to shoot the question out there of what your personal views are regarding the origins of hegemony, materialist thinking or even more broadly, power? I think these are considerations central to all of our own work and something we rarely see scholars directly interrogating.
Each brushes a bit on the subject, beginning first with Zompetti (1997), who uses the Gramscian theory of cultural hegemony to construct a form of criticism that would enable us to expose the relations of power and means by which these forms of power are constituted to combat oppressive forms of hegemony. In this sense, Gramsci makes sense and illustrates a very real beginning point for hegemony: culture (and arguably, ideology). From this perspective, it is the dominant ideological and cultural modes of thought that breed power and enables material conditions to perpetuate or change. In other words, the material is a byproduct of the ideological. Personally, I can get on board with this way of looking at hegemony, ideology, and material conditions. It makes sense to me to reflect on my own material conditions and understand that my perception of wealth or social class is shaped by the cultural beliefs I hold. McGee and Laclau (yuck) vaguely touch on these discussions as well, but only in an ancillary fashion.
In other words, I wanted to shoot the question out there of what your personal views are regarding the origins of hegemony, materialist thinking or even more broadly, power? I think these are considerations central to all of our own work and something we rarely see scholars directly interrogating.
