Today’s blog post will be dedicated to discussing the topic
of hegemony and how it functions in our culture. Hegemony basically pertains
to the social, ideological and cultural influences that a dominant group, entity
or set of beliefs exerts over others. A quick Google search will tell you that
cultural hegemony is a theory that was developed by Antonio Gramsci. While he
did not coin the term himself, Gramsci was known for expanding on the theory;
all while in the comfort of a nice cozy prison cell. Yes, Gramsci was
imprisoned for opposing the Italian fascist government ruled by Mussolini in
1926. Further information about Gramsci can be found here.
Gramsci was concerned with the dichotomy between that of the
working class and the ruling class. At the time, during the late 1920s, working
class movements were dwindling and fascism was steadily on the rise. Gramsci inquired
to why the working class revolution weren’t exactly up-in-arms overthrowing the
capitalist economy? He concluded that the answer was hegemony and that it works
both as coercive control (or direct force) and consensual control, which is
when society as a whole accepts the world views of the dominant group. This can
be achieved through control of the media, legislation, education,
entertainment, medicine, religion, politics, economics and the list goes on and
on.
An ideology undergoes hegemonic status when it becomes common
sense to everyone and is immersed into the culture. An example of this is the “American
Dream,” the belief that if we pull ourselves up by the bootstraps and put in the
hard work we can eventually earn a good living for ourselves. Hegemony does
become problematic when it isn’t at all true for the most part. We can take the
American Dream scenario and based on the reverse of that belief infers that if
you’re struggling in life, it’s because
you are lazy and you didn’t work hard enough, which doesn’t exactly apply to everyone and vice versa if you work hard you will be bestowed great fortune, which again isn't true for everyone.
Some examples of these over-generalizations include the notion
that "bigger is better" as seen in this clip from an AT&T commercial:
The man in the suit uses specific words to elaborate the better choice between the two. He says “would you rather play basketball in a big fancy stadium or in a small driveway?” The commercial further hints at the assumption that playing basketball in a larger arena will lead to having more fans as the little girl suggested, reinforcing why the idea of bigger is better.
Another example is how the institution of marriage should
consist of one man and one woman (slowly changing) or even that marriage itself
should be the ultimate goal of every romantic pursuit.
Take this advertisement
from Tiffany and Co. into consideration:
Tiffany and Co. do a different take on the classic engagement ring and
it works for reeling in their target audience of men, but at the same
time it still means marriage and specifically same-sex marriage should
be the goal of every couple's romantic endeavor. We often see marriage as the next step in a prolonged romantic
relationship between two people. Is it the end all or be all of every couple's relationship?
Does marriage mean that we really really
love that other person? No, of course not, but it is a part of the cultural hegemony
we’ve come to know so well.
Acknowledging hegemony is important so that we can understand
how power works and operates on a cultural level; knowing if the dominant
ideology of a culture it defines is right or wrong. Nevertheless, it’s pretty
evident that most cases of hegemony reflected in our media are mere
generalizations and chock-full of stereotypes. We see them all the time from
movies to commercials that advertise fallacious representations of people that
aren’t always true, especially regarding aspects of race, gender and age.
That’s not all to say hegemony is all bad per se (which is
still just a matter of opinion), but for all the negative aspects, I think a
lot of good has come from cultural and social hegemony in the 21st
century. For starters, the legalization of gay marriage indicates that we’re
not as afraid or rather not ashamed of people in the LGBTQ community as much. Why
getting vaccinations are good for the well-being of children or why everyone deserves
free universal education. Hate it or love it though, we have to live with it
and that what’s most important, to live with it. Are we sure we’re happy with
the status quo?
The issue is that hegemony hits you when you least expect
it; it’s exceptionally omnipresent and tough to recognize, making it difficult
to resist. Forget not knowing what the actual problem looks like; we don’t even know that there is a problem
to begin with. For that reason, when a culture becomes hegemonic; it just
becomes second nature to us. And that’s the big question, is this invisible
veil of influence a threat to society? This is certainly a progressive question
that deserves a progressive answer. Hegemony is always in a state of flux; adapting
to maintain its dominance and in order for that to continue it must consequently
compromise, convert and acclimate in order to convince and persuade subordinate
cultures that its within their best interest to fall in line with the current
hegemonic system. What I just described sounds like the motives for an artificial
intelligence robot programmed to take over the world and tell me I’m not wrong here;
hegemony be a scary mistress.
On the surface, cultural hegemony becomes very broad and with
repetition it continually constructs a narrow framework for how people ought to
look like and behave. It may seem like its common sense and considered best for
society as a whole, but deep down these notions are still stripping people of
their individuality. The media is probably the biggest and most pervasive
form of control that hegemony operates through. We have to be intrinsically precise
down to the miniscule details and fine print with what we decide to accept in
the media if we wish to change the status quo. Bonnie J. Dow wrote a detailed
analysis for what not to do with her 1990
critique on The Mary Tyler Moore Show.
Even though it was considered a “radical” movement in television at its time
for focusing on a female lead who goes against the grain of society where female
roles in television were being characterized in so few roles, such as the docile
kowtowed housewife or the love interest of another man. Yet the show continued
to incorporate the same set of notions of what roles men and women ought to have
and act; ergo contradicting feminist ideology.
Dow’s critique on the TMTMS states that “those who champion the oppositional ideology may be satisfied that their demands are having an impact on television, while those who create the programming [the dominant group] actually have only made cosmetic changes in representation of the disputed group.” Dow also mentions Roland Barthes, who was a French literary theorist and he had a very interesting term he used in his studies to describe how hegemony works sort of like how subtle subliminal messages work, in which he called inoculation. Similar to the way a vaccine functions by sending just a tiny bit of the virus so that our immune system can build up a resilience to the disease; hegemony injects itself into our culture and eventually becomes a part of it.
Ultimately, we have to be careful with the types of messages
we create and share; to think critically and judiciously about the things we
watch or hear, because over time we too can become just as Barthes puts it,
“inoculated” by false attempts for radical social change. We “think” that if the
next big movie or television show that advertises an all-female cast and features all
of their so-called “nonconforming” ways, we’re supposed to think it represents
a vehicle for diversity and equality, but if it’s still portraying the same dominate
patriarchal narratives, it’s not real change. It’s like slapping on a new
license plate and calling it a new car. It’s still the same car with the same engine
and all the dinks, scratches, and marks that were all previously there.
Word Count: 1332
No comments:
Post a Comment