Hegemony in Gramsci

 

"Hegemony" comes from the Greek word "egemonia," which is rooted in "egemon," meaning a leader or ruler, often of a state other than their own. Since the 19th century, it has commonly referred to political dominance, usually of one state over another. In the late 1800s through the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Russian Social-Democrats gave "hegemony" a specifically Marxist meaning, known as "gegemoniya." This Marxist interpretation, articulated by Lenin, referred to the leadership exerted by the proletariat over other oppressed classes in society.

 

Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist thinker and leader (1891-1937), is closely associated with the concept of hegemony. He used "hegemony" to explain not only what was necessary for the proletariat and its allies to successfully overthrow the bourgeoisie (the ruling class), but also to describe the power structures of the bourgeoisie in late 19th and early 20th-century Western European states. In his later work, especially in the Prison Notebooks written while he was imprisoned by Fascists, Gramsci developed a nuanced use of the term. Essentially, Gramsci's "hegemony" refers to a process of moral and intellectual leadership, where subordinate classes in post-1870 industrial Western European nations agree to their own subordination by the ruling classes, rather than being purely coerced into accepting inferior positions.

 

It's important to note that while Gramsci's prison writings avoided using explicit Marxist terms due to censorship, he defined hegemony as a form of control exercised by a dominant class in the Marxist sense. He used the term "fundamental group" to substitute for "class." In Gramsci's context, the dominant class was the bourgeoisie, defined as the modern capitalists who own the means of production and employ wage laborers. The crucial subordinate class, potentially capable of leading a revolution, was the proletariat, those who sell their labor power to survive because they don't own the means of production.

 

To fully grasp Gramsci's concept of hegemony, it's essential to consider his other ideas like "state" and "civil society."

For Gramsci, hegemony meant a type of control that operated mainly through a society's superstructure, rather than its economic foundation or relations of production. In the book "Marxism and Literature," Raymond Williams explains three ways Karl Marx uses the term "superstructure":

 

(a) Legal and political forms that reflect existing real production relationships.

(b) Forms of thinking that express a particular class's perspective on the world.

(c) A process where people become aware of a fundamental economic conflict and engage in it across various activities.

 

These three meanings guide our focus towards institutions, ways of thinking, and political and cultural practices. For analysis, Gramsci divides superstructure into two main levels: "civil society," which includes private organizations like churches, trade unions, and schools (often seen as non-political), and "political society" or "the State." Gramsci's key idea is to demonstrate that how civil society shapes human relationships and consciousness is profoundly political. This is crucial for understanding class domination and the potential for overcoming it, especially in Western Europe.

 

According to Gramsci, civil society corresponds to hegemony, while political society or the State (in a narrow sense) corresponds to direct command. Gramsci further explains:

 

"Social hegemony" refers to the voluntary agreement of the majority of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant group (in Gramsci's Western Europe, this would be the bourgeoisie). This agreement arises from the prestige and confidence that the dominant group enjoys due to its position and role in the world of production.

 

"Political government" refers to the system of state authority that legally enforces discipline on groups who do not actively or passively agree. This system is designed for the entire society, especially during moments of crisis when spontaneous agreement has failed.

 

Although these categories help us understand different forms of social control, Gramsci ultimately combines them under the concept of the "integral State."

 Gramsci sometimes uses "State" narrowly to mean the government's coercive apparatus. However, he also employs a broader concept, the "general notion of State" or "integral State," which encompasses both social hegemony and political government.

 

In this broader sense:

 

·         State is a combination of "dictatorship + hegemony."

·         It comprises both political society (the government) and civil society, essentially representing dominance backed by the force of coercion.

·         State encompasses all the practical and theoretical actions through which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains its control, but also gains the active agreement of those under its rule.

·         Gramsci's idea of the integral State stems from changes in the historical dynamics between the State and Civil Society. He discusses this shift alongside a transformation in military strategies, moving from a war of movement to a war of position.

 

Gramsci likens shifts in political struggle to changes in military warfare, particularly during World War One. He contrasts two types of warfare:

 

War of Manoeuvre/Movement: This involves rapid troop movements and frontal attacks. It's akin to dynamic, swiftly changing strategies.

 

War of Position: This is comparable to trench warfare, where troops fortify fixed positions. It's marked by immobile troops defending entrenched lines.

 

Gramsci emphasizes that in "modern States," referring to post-1870 Western European States, the war of manoeuvre transitions towards the war of position. This shift isn't just about physical trenches but includes the entire organizational and industrial system supporting the army.

 He points out key characteristics of these modern States:

 

·         Expanding colonial territories

·         Complex and extensive organizational relations within and outside the State

·         Emergence of large political parties and economic unions

·         Less fluidity in society

·         Reduced independence of civil society from State involvement

·         Growing significance of civil leadership

·         Decreased autonomy of national markets from the global economy.

·         Gramsci compares the structures of modern democracies to trenches and fortifications, viewing civil society as a robust force, sometimes even stronger than the State. He underscores the resilience of civil society against economic crises, likening it to trench systems in warfare.

 

Gramsci argues against the belief that economic crises alone will lead to a Communist revolution. He asserts that economic turmoil won't automatically unite and empower the exploited classes or weaken the bourgeoisie. He also rejects the notion that the working classes can overthrow the bourgeoisie solely through military strikes. Instead, he emphasizes the primacy of political action, highlighting the importance of achieving hegemony—the class's quest to assume a governing role and act as an educator.

 Gramsci emphasizes that a State's crucial role is to elevate the general population to a specific cultural and moral standard. This standard aligns with the needs of productive forces for progress, benefiting the ruling class. In Gramsci's Italy, and similar Western European states, this ruling class was the bourgeoisie. His ideas can be seen as a potential framework for Communist governance as well.

 

Gramsci suggests that the State, at times, is synonymous with the ruling class (bourgeoisie) itself. It carries out its educational mission through various means, both public and private. Gramsci highlights schools as positive educational tools, and courts as a means of repression and negative education. However, he also notes that many other supposedly private initiatives and activities serve the same purpose. These actions collectively form the apparatus of political and cultural control by the ruling classes.

 

Hegemony, according to Gramsci, is a process where individuals are influenced to consent and collaborate willingly, transforming necessity and coercion into a sense of 'freedom.' This manipulated 'freedom' shapes individuals to meet the demands of the economic foundation, which is the ongoing development of the production apparatus.

 

Gramsci acknowledges the complex nature of this educated 'freedom,' but he underscores its immense political value, especially in the context of political parties. He believes that parties must embody the same principles of moral conduct that are legally mandated by the State. In parties, necessity has already evolved into a form of freedom. The party serves as an example of the collective society to which the entire population must be educated.

 

In the colonial context, Gauri Viswanathan's work "Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India" sheds light on how educative practices, particularly in the field of literary studies, were used to establish hegemony. English literary studies were introduced in colonial settings before being established in England itself. This served the imperial mission of educating and civilizing colonial subjects in English literature and thought, reinforcing Western cultural dominance in complex ways. The process of shaping the moral and ethical values of colonial subjects through the study of English literature was intimately tied to the consolidation and preservation of British rule in India.