By Phil Chilton
Hegemony is described on the back cover of Noam Chomsky�s latest book as �dominance exercised by one state over others�. Certainly this is the orthodox definition of the word. In his book however Chomsky touches on another kind of hegemony too, � � control of opinion is the foundation of government, from the most despotic to the most free�. Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, while imprisoned by Mussolini�s fascist regime in the 1930�s, wrote on exactly this form of control. Gramsci referred to this �manufacture of consent� as hegemony and described it thus.
"The �spontaneous� consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; 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."
Gramsci�s concept of hegemony is not so much concerned with the dominance of one state over another but of one class over another. The hegemony of ideas, controlled and constructed by one particular social class, is a key component for the maintenance of that class�s rule. Gramsci understood that ruling class to be the bourgeoisie, the owners and controllers of the means of production. Gramsci built upon the intellectual foundation that Marx had laid. Because the bourgeoisie are the ruling material force of society, they are at the same time its ruling intellectual force. �The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production�. The Gramscian theory of hegemony deals with a relation of domination, not by means of force, but by mass consent elicited through political, ideological and intellectual ascendancy. The ruling class cements their rule through the constructed general acceptance of a particular worldview, the worldview of the ruling class. This worldview is diffused through recurrent themes, repeated over and over again and deeply woven into the fabric of society. Hegemony is more insidious and nuanced than just base political propaganda. It goes beyond merely the manipulation of information, lying by omission, biased news reports, or the prevalence of right wing opinion columnists. Popular fiction, �public morality�, customs, manners, �common sense� all operate to reinforce the assertion that the current social order is natural, immutable and the best of all possible worlds.
The ruling class that Gramsci wrote of in the 1930�s still reigns today. In the most secure bastions of capitalism, the �liberal democracies�, the bourgeoisie still maintains its rule through manufactured consent (or acquiescence will suffice) in preference to outright coercion, although it will use coercion when it has to. In fact the use of outright coercion to keep a population down tends to indicate a state�s weakness rather than its resilience. The exercise of hegemony, the spreading of the ruling class�s Weltanschauung, has both institutional and non-institutional means at its disposal. Gramsci saw the education system, newspapers, popular and artistic writers, the theatre and cinema, as means by which hegemony could be transmitted. We could now add to this list radio, television, video games and other forms electronic media, giving the bourgeoisie a formidable array of weapons. Rather than a conscious conspiracy, it is probably more useful to think of hegemony as systemically entrenched in a class-ridden society that operates in a manner that constantly confirms dominant assumptions. As an illustration, children are taught from an early age to compete with each other for marks, for praise, for sporting glory. They are taught by adults who themselves have been taught to compete and this self-perpetuating cycle makes the social structure appear almost natural. The reality of hegemonic domination is manifested in popular consciousness. On a trivial level we see it in bumper sticker wisdom - �when the going gets tough the tough go shopping�, �diamonds are a girl�s best friend�, �I am, you are, we are Australian�! More importantly hegemony buttresses dominant social assumptions. The unity of the nation is set against class identification. Greed, violence and competitiveness are the inescapable inheritance of a savage human nature. When these ruling class prejudices are broadly socially transfused it becomes �common sense�. We see the necessity of immigration controls, we understand that some cultures are incompatible with ours (!), we accept that inequality is inescapable; the poor will always be with us. And hegemony allows us to see the need for preventative war - the defensive first strike! We are a house, or rather a class, divided against itself.
The manipulation of language and expression is a key element of the ruling class�s hegemony. In the novel, 1984, George Orwell described a despotic regime where the language had been re-constructed to eliminate the effective expression of socio/political criticism. Bad became �ungood�, the worst you could say about the regime�s dictator, Big Brother, is that he was �double plus ungood� - not the stuff to fire the masses! Orwell�s nightmare vision has been made real, finessed to a cutting edge not by Stalinist dictatorship but bourgeois democracy. The non-fiction hegemony that we experience broadly determines the limits of mainstream discourse and any contention falling outside the approved ideological playing field can be more easily dismissed as radical, na�ve, idealistic or just plain stupid. Hegemony both posits the problem and offers the solution. We can observe hegemony�s progress. From the highpoints of working class struggle that occurred in the wake of the Russian revolution and the flashes of brilliance that have popped up even after the second world war, the last thirty years has seen the language of class and class struggle steadily disappear from the political terrain. The fall or capitulation of so-called �Marxist� regimes has lent credence to the assertion that no political alternative exists to liberal democracy and the market.
Despite the usual suffocating ideological envelope in which we sometimes feel enclosed it would be a mistake to think of the hegemony of the ruling class as a seamless or monolithic system. Within the bourgeoisie as a class there is a conflict of interests, they are a band of warring brothers (and sisters). Each seeks to out compete the other, to extract more surplus value, to accumulate more capital. While generally there is a vested class interest in maintaining their rule, sectional concerns, perhaps heavy industry or finance capital, vie with each other for political, social and economic supremacy. The competition of the ruling class in these spheres means that hegemony is not unitary but multi-faceted. The multi-faceted nature of hegemony actually makes it more effective. Hegemony encompasses debates, controversies and contradictions. We can see these �alternative discourses� in, for example, the criticisms of conservative ex-prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, speaking out against the current policies aimed at asylum seekers, or in the voices of some of the establishment raised against the war in Iraq. The diversity of hegemony broadens its appeal, allowing people to pick and choose their viewpoint in a �market place� of safe alternatives. People are �free� to adopt an oppositional stance to government policy; they may even develop quite thoroughgoing critiques of our society and put forward palliative reforms without fundamentally challenging the basis of class rule and the foundation of inequality, exploitation and oppression. The Situationists, a radical group that came to prominence particularly during the 1968 Paris uprising, came close to describing this process in what they called �recuperation�, the ability of the Spectacle (The word Situationists used to describe modern capitalism) �to hijack or absorb a real demand, threat or aspiration, make it safe and then sell its shadow back to us�. Sadly we see the reality of this commodification of rebellion all too clearly. Che Guevara and Malcolm X tee-shirts, sweatshirts emblazoned with �Riot�, are increasingly fashionable, sold by trendy clothing shops to young people who are largely broken from the revolutionary traditions that Che and Malcolm articulated.
The hegemony of the ruling class is, however, not unassailable. As much as hegemony would have us believe otherwise, the �safe alternative discourses� offered to us are not the only ones available. Despite its heterogeneous character hegemony does have as part of its function the explanation and garnering of support (or at least acquiescence) for very distasteful facts, distasteful facts such as war, cuts to the health budget, cuts to education funding and so on. The war of 2003 that was launched against Iraq by US imperialism demonstrates how difficult the task of hegemony can be. Yes the war was successfully launched against massive popular opposition but in doing so, in hegemonic terms, a lot of �credibility damage� was sustained. Within the ruling class itself there was discomfort with the risky undertaking of bombing and invading Iraq. Once the war was begun however many of the mainstream critical voices were cowed into submission by the hegemonic imperative of �supporting the troops�. The imperialist drive to war did not leave enough space for the admittance of wholly sanctioned criticism. To criticize the war was to criticize imperialism itself and that tended to open up a critique of the system generally, a worrying development. The mainstream media, while incorporating some dissent largely jumped on board with its national political leaders (reminiscent of the first and second world wars). Hegemony�s success was patchy. Widespread �ordinary� opposition to the conflict still continued even after the massive demonstrations tailed off. The reasons for the war needed to shift and change, first Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, then the war was about finding his weapons of mass destruction, and then it was about the liberation of the Iraqi people. None of these justifications have stood up to close scrutiny; each excuse reeks of hypocrisy that cannot be disguised. For the aggressors in the conflict, chiefly the US, Britain and Australia (as junior partner), the task of exonerating themselves has turned into something of a fiasco. It is quite difficult to find uncritical and credible supporters of the war and the subsequent occupation. Bush and Blair have recently been forced into begrudging admittances that perhaps they were wrong about weapons of mass destruction (they are diverting the blame to their intelligence services). At best (for the ruling class) a brooding acquiescence to a fait accompli may have been achieved. At worst (again for the ruling class) a bitter, unconvinced people await the fire next time. Hegemony cracks.
So where do Gramsci�s ideas fit in for activists today? Gramsci argued that an important task for those seeking �another world� was to move to create a counter to the ideological domination of the bourgeoisie, a counter-hegemony. First and foremost Gramsci was an active revolutionary, not just a pedagogue. Perhaps not surprisingly (if one accepts the insidious nature of hegemony) Gramsci�s ideas have been distorted to argue for locating the arena of struggle in parliament, cultural critique or in intellectual academic circles, some safe place. Contrary to this Gramsci�s experience and involvement with the battles of the Turin working class during Italy�s �Biennio Rosso� - the two red years of 1918-20 - taught him that class consciousness develops fastest in struggle and through workers' self organization. Editing the socialist paper L'Ordine Nuovo, Gramsci argued that the factory councils, which sprang up at that time, embodied the potential of a workers' state, he lambasted the reformists in the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) who helped to derail the movement. Central to Gramsci�s Marxism, and the key to the creation of a counter-hegemony, was the need for people, workers, to be engaged in the active process of their liberation. Gramsci emphasized the importance of the human element in the revolutionary project and the subjective but crucial role of active political knowledge and consciousness. �It should be observed that political action tends precisely to rouse the masses from passivity � .� Perhaps from this we can begin to identify one of the reasons that the huge anti-war mobilizations of 2003 were unable to prevent the invasion of Iraq. In Australia hundreds of thousands of people marched against the war. By sheer law of averages most of these people would, objectively, have been workers. Subjectively however only a fragment would have been conscious of their class identity and of these even fewer would have had a sense that to stop the war required the mobilisation of the working class, as a class. As inspirational as the anti-war demonstrations were business returned to normal on Monday morning. If the working class had stirred to disrupt business as usual, shutting down industries, transport and services, the ruling class would have been placed in a position that would have made the prosecution of the war difficult if not impossible.
Perhaps at the moment the expectation of creating a class conscious, militant workers� movement is a bridge too far, but in current areas of struggle, anti-war, pro-refugee, and even the unions (as depleted as they are), there is an element, perhaps just a smattering of individuals, that realizes that at the root core of their problem is the system. Gramsci�s theory of hegemony should inform, those who claim to be socialists and Marxists especially, of the need to maintain the active struggle and not divert the campaign away to tributaries that allow general passivity to set in. We do not want people merely to be an audience; we should seek to move people to become cohorts of the struggle. The key to a comprehensive shift in the fight against the ruling elite is our success in increasingly enmeshing larger groups of people, and particularly workers, in active and ideologically challenging campaigns driven by grassroots participation. The idea of class-consciousness should be vigorously set against the baloney of Australian patriotism and the myth of aspirational voters. In a struggle infused with these counter-hegemonic ideas the experience gained is much more likely to engender in people conclusions that will begin to confront, not only the detention centers and refugee issues, not just war in Iraq, or the bosses bastardry, but the system as a whole, a system which requires war, racism and exploitation merely to continue its existence. The alternative to carrying forward our fight with this in mind is articulated by a broken Winston Smith at the end of Orwell�s 1984, �But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.�
