 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(This file is organized into two major parts: New Notes (more systematic) and Old Notes (less organized)
Note: do (a) and (b) refer to leadership and consent, while (c) refers to domination, subjugation, force, and coercion.
"The 'spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group [ie, through their intellectuals who act as their agents or deputies]; this consent is 'historically' caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production" (12).
Special function of intellectuals (besides organizing domination for the bourgeoisie) is to organize the consent of the masses in support of the dominant class. This comes easily, given the "prestige" of the dominant economic class.
a) Eliminating or Subordinating Opposing Forces:
b) Winning Active or Passive Consent of Subaltern Allies:
Gramsci's summary of above two processes desribed how innovative forces took control of the Italian state during the Risorgimento: "these forces took power and united in the modern Italian State, in struggle against specific other forces and helped by specific auxiliaries or allies. In order to become a State, they had to subordinate or eliminate the former and win the active or passive assent of the latter. A study of how these innovatory forces developed, from subaltern groups to hegemonic and dominant group, must therefore seek out and identify the phases through which they acquired: 1. autonomy vis=a=vis the enemies they had to defeat, and 2. support from the groups which actively or passively assisted them; for this entire process was historically necessary before they could unite in the form of a State. It is precisely by these two yardsticks that the level of historical and political consciousness which the innovatory forces propgressively attained in the various phases can be measured...". (53).
Note: this implies that the process of attaining hegemony involves both attaining consent among allies and using force against enemies.
Note: it also implies that hegemony is a historical concept, it is a process, never fixed forever in time.
"The methodological criterion on which our own study must be based is the following: that the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as 'domination' and as 'intellectual and moral leadership'. A social group dominates antagonistic groups, which it tends to 'liquidate', or to subjugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied groups. A social group can, and indeed must, already exercise 'leadership' before winning governmental power (this indeed is one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power); it subsequently becomes dominant when it exercises power, but even if it holds it firmly in its grasp, it must continue to 'lead' as well." (57-8).
Note: Gramsci is really talking about the interdependence of force and consent.
"The 'normal' exercise of hegemony on the now classical terrain of the parliamentary regime is characterised by the combination of force and consent, which balance each other reciprocally, without force predominating excessively over consent. Indeed, the attempt is always made to ensure that force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so=called organs of public opinion -- newspapers and associations -- which, therefore, in certain situations, are artificially multiplied. Between consent aned force stands corruption/fraud..." . (80, fn.).
Gramsci discusses the Piedmont situation in which social groups emerged that wanted to dominate, but not to lead; he says that this is not a situation of hegeomy (pp. 104=106): ie, "It is one of the cases in which these groups have the function of 'domination' without that of 'leadership': dictatorship without hegemony." (106).
In his Notes on Machiavelli, Gramsci writes that "there are allusions to the moment of hegemony or consent in The Prince too, beside those to authority or force." (125, fn.).
An Application of Separation of Force from Hegemony as Consent:
Hegemony as Consent Is Stronger the More Force is Exercised:
Gramsci is talking about the "dual perspectives" of consent and force in terms of the "dialectical unity of the moments of force and consent in political action" (169, fn): Gramsci talks about the "two fundamental levels, corresponding to the dual nature of Machiavelli's Centaur -- half-animal and half- human. They are the levels of force and of consent, authority and hegemony, violence and civilisation, of the individual moment and of the propaganda, of tactics and of strategy, etc. ... In actual fact, it often happens that the more the first 'perspective' is 'immediate' and elementary, the more the second has to be 'distant' (not in time, but as a dialectical relation), complex and ambitious. In other words, it may happen as in human life, that the more an individual is compelled to defend his own immediate physical existence, the more will he uphold and identify with the highest values of civilisation and of humanity, in all their complexity". (169-170).
E.g. appeals to patriotism, God, and nationalism by soldiers in War.
In context of discussion theoretical syndicalism as a hegemony which prevents the working class from taking political stances:
"Undoubtedly the fact of hegemony presupposes that account be taken of the interests and the tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be exercised, and that a certain compromise equilibrium should be formed - in other words, that the leading group should make sacrifices of an economic- corporate kind. But there is also no doubt that such sacrifices and such a compromise cannot touch the essential..." (161)
"...though hegemony is ethical- political [Croce], it must also be economic, must necessarily be based on the decisive function exercised by the leading group in the decisive nucleus of economic activity" (161).
Two Moments or Relations of Forces:
1) Material forces of production and relations of production (social classes).
2) Relations of Political Forces: ("in other words, an evaluation of the degree of homogeneity, self- awareness, and organization attained by the various social classes." (181).
This moment or level Gramsci divides into three Levels:
a) economic-corporate level or trade consciousness: trades groups and professional groups identify with their own narrow self-interests, but they do not yet identify with their entire class.
b) Economic social class consciousness: ie, "...consciousness is reached of the solidarity of interests among all the members of a social class -- but still in the purely economic field." (181).
c) Hegemonic Moment: (foreshadowns Poulantzas' State)
"A third moment is that in which one becomes aware that one's own corporate interests, in their present and future development, transcend the corporate limits of the purely economic class, and can and must become the interests of other subordinate groups too. This is the most purely political phase, and marks the decisive passage from the structure to the sphere of the complex superstructures; it is the phase in which previously germinated ideologies become 'party', come into confrontation and conflict, until only one of them, or at least a single combination of them, tends to prevail, to gain the upper hand, to propagate itself throughout society -- bringing about not only a unison of economic and political aims, but also intellectual and moral unity, posing all the questions around which the struggle rages not on a corporate but on a 'universal' plane, and thus creating the hegemony of a fundamental social group over a series of subordinate groups. It is true that the State is seen as the organ of one particualr group, destined to create favourable conditions for the latter's maximum expansion. But the development and expansion of the particular group are conceived of, and presented, as being the motor force of a universal expansion, of a development of all the 'national' energies. In other words, the dominant group is coordinated concretely with the general interests of the subordiante groups, and the life of the State is conceived of as a continuous process of formation and superseding of unstable equilibria (on the juridical plane) between the interests of the fundamental group and those of the subordinate groups -- equilibria in which the interests of the dominant group prevail, but only up to a certain point, i.e. stopping short of narowly corporate economic interest." (182).
Central Characteristics of Hegemony in Above Passage:
i) Passage from economic to political class consciousness;
ii) Moment of superstructure built up out of the base or structure.
iii) Economic=corporate interests of dominant group adopted by subordinate groups.
iv) A single combination of ideas become dominant and pervasive throughout society.
v) Moment of a historical bloc: synthesis of economic, political, intellectual, and moral.
vi) Universalization of interests of dominant group which are presented as not its own narrow corporate-economic interests, but national interests shared by subordinate groups.
vii) State mediates or fashions the hegemony by being the unstable equilibria of compromises between the dominant and subordinate groups such that the interests of the dominant group prevail.
("crisis of authority" or "crisis of the State") Ruling class loses the consent of the masses, or when there is a mobilization of large subordinate classes (peasantry or intellectual petit bourgeoisie) against ruling class. Occurs when social classes become detached from their party representatives. Anything can happen, violent solutions are possible. Ruling class attempts to reassert its control by quelling opposition, etc. (210=11).
Gramsci believed that the most realistic conception of democracy can be worked out in relation to the concept of hegemony: "In the hegemonic system, there exists democracy between the 'leading' group and the groups which are 'led', in so far as the development of the economy and thus the legislation which expresses such development favour the (molecular) passage from the 'led' groups to the 'leading' group" (56f).
They function to fashion the intellectual, moral and political leadership by engaging in practical activities -- ie, organizational. This is especially true for organic intellectuals who fuse moral and intellectual dimensions with the practical activities of the class out of which they emerge.
1.1) Of the proletariat. Comintern position which Gramsci inherited. Perry Anderson (1977: 19): hegemony refers "...to the class alliance of the proletariat with other exploited groups, above all the peasantry, in a common struggle against the oppression of capital."
a) Compromises must be set up between the hegemonic group and its allies which recognizes their differnces in interests and builds upon them. While the leading group or class should concede its narrow economic interests, it cannot give up its position located in the economic mode of production itself. Gramsci: "Undoubtedly the fact of hegemony presupposes that account be taken of the interests and the tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be exercised, and that a certain compromise equilibrium should be formed - in other words, that the leading group should make sacrifices of an economic- corporate kind. But there is also no doubt that such sacrifices and such a compromise cannot touch the essential; for though hegemony is ethical- political [Croce], it must also be economic, must necessarily be based on the decisive function exercised by the leading group in the decisive nucleus of economic activity" (161). (Anderson, 1977: 19).
Ie, hegemony can be exercised by the proletariat over other allied classes (peasantry, petty bourgeoisie, etc.), or by the bourgeoisie over the entire society, especially over the proletariat (e.g. "theoretical syndicalism). (see section on "Economism"). Note: does Gramsci anywhere state that the proletariat can ever exercise hegemony over the bourgeoisie, or can only force be applied in a Leninist way against the bourgeoisie in the transition period?
5.1) Consent organized by organic intellectuals on behalf of bourgeoisie
Special function of intellectuals (besides organizing domination for the bourgeoisie) is to organize the consent of the masses in support of the dominant class. This comes easily, given the "prestige" of the dominant economic class. The function of "social hegemony" in civil society comprises: "The 'spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group [ie, through their intellectuals who act as their agents or deputies]; this consent is 'historically' cdaused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production" (12).
8.1) In relation to government power. Gramsci believed that hegemony was more effective in attaining and maintaining dominance (supremacy) than force. "...even before attaining power a class can (and must) 'lead'; when it is in power it becomes dominant, but continues to 'lead' as well...there can and must be a 'political hegemony' even before the attainment of government power, and one should not count solely on the power and material force which such a position gives in order to exercise political leadership or hegemony" (57f; see also 57-8 and 59 for similar statement).
8.2) Friends vs Enemies. Hegemony is exercised with respect to class allies, and force or coercion in respect to class enemies. Gramsci argues that the methodological premise of his study is based on: "that the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as 'domination' and as 'intellectual and moral leadership.' A social group dominates antagonistic groups, which it tends to 'liquidate', or to subjugate perhaps even by armed force; it leads kindred and allied groups" (57).
8.3) Hegemony = consent + force
In his notes on Machiavelli, Gramsci states that "The 'normal' exercise of hegemony on the now classical terrain of the parliamentary regime is characterised by the combination of force and consent, which balance each other reciprocally, without force predominating excessively over consent. Indeed, the attempt is always made to ensure that force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so-called organs of public opinion - newspapers and associations - which, therefore, in certain situations, are artifically multiplied. Between consent and force stands corruption/fraud..." (80f).
(see p. 161). (Anderson, 1977: 19). Ie, hegemony, although ethical-political, must be ultimately based on the economic function performed by the fundamental social group in production.
Gramsci believed that the most realistic conception of democracy can be worked out in relation to the concept of hegemony: "In the hegemonic system, there exists democracy between the 'leading' group and the groups which are 'led', in so far as the development of the economy and thus the legislation which expresses such development favour the (molecular) passage from the 'led' groups to the 'leading' group" (56f).
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright. All rights reserved. Carl Cuneo, Dept. of Sociology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.