T. J. Jackson Lears’ discussion on Hegemony focuses on the concept that the complexity of language and symbols is employed to manipulate the many into following the norms dissented by the elite few. Lears emphasizes the work of Antonio Gramsci, who Lears accredits the original conceptualization of Cultural Hegemony. Lears remarks, “The available vocabulary helps mark the boundaries of permissible discourse, discourages the clarification of social alternatives and makes it difficult for the dispossessed to locate the source of their unease, let alone remedy it” (569-570). Essentially Lears is proposing that the everyday language and everyday discourse is already set by the elites and that essentially stops the disenfranchised from changing social norms, even if they feel marred by them, because their everyday language lacks the ability for them to contextualize their tribulations. Lears extends this concept saying Gramsci model for the lower class to rise up was what he called counter-hegemony. Counter-hegemony being the process where the disenfranchised change the way they use language and conceptualization and shift cultural norms away from the elite, but, of course, the problem inherit with this possibility is the lack of available language for the marginalized to employ in their counter-hegemonical revolution.
Lears summarizes saying that they are many methods to study society, but more often than not they ignore the Human Voice, a key part of society from Lears’ perspective. And Lears believes this is why Gramsci’s method is most relevant for historians, Lears says, “Gramsci recognized that the ground of all culture is the spontaneous philosophy absorbed and shaped by each individual” (593). Hegemony employs the concrete methods used by other, but does not leave the individual behind.
Lears speaks of a plethora of methods that have been attempted when analyzing society. He speaks of functionalism, symbolic interactionism and cultural anthropology, describing these methods as inferior to Gramsci’s Hegemony. Lears comments that Hegemony allows one to analyze systematic features without reducing society to a single system. Further, that, Hegemony is superior to Geertz’s symbolist approach, which reduces symbols into a “cultural system,” because symbols understood in a hegemonic sense realizes that symbols give more power to some groups than others and thus create not a functional system, but dysfunctional conflict, that symbols like language is another method for elitist control. Ultimately Lears sees the flexibility of Gramsci’s Hegemony as the most effective method because it allows for the most versatile analysis.
Lears pulls most of his information for this article from translations of Gramsci’s writings, which Lears comments are not many when compared with the complete works of Gramsci. This possible means there is more to be understood from Gramsci with a better grasp of his works. Lears also pulls from different historians and specifically from those individuals whose work employs the semiotic approach such as Hayden White. Lears seemingly sees promise in using symbols to discern the ebb and flow of society and essentially that is Lears point that prominent symbols in society tend to favor the dominant elite and force the weak into following them.
Hegemony does seemingly seem to be an effective method for describing the way society works. Gone is the time when a king can compel his citizens to do what he pleases. Controlling symbols and language is a more effective and invisible method for keeping the subordinate in their place and maintaining the supremacy of the powerful. The only criticism of Lears piece is that he seems to dismiss functionalism, cultural anthropology and semiotics as by themselves flawed and incorrect, but in many ways Hegemony is a piecemeal approach to those entire concept intertwined into an overarching theory, which supposes they are all correct, but are only parts of a whole.
If hegemony is the prevalent method for societal control it would be interesting to examine, what in our everyday lives do we see as hegemonic language and symbology that is steering our thoughts and ideas?
No comments:
Post a Comment