Hegemony: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:31, 2 October 2009

Hegemony (leadership) (Template:Lang-el, English: [UK] /hɨˈɡɛməni/, [US]: Template:PronEng) ^[1] is a term originally denoting military dominance (“leadership”) of one nation-state over another nation-state. The term eventually came to be associated with describing political dominance of one nation over another nation via economic and political control rather than military might. (cf. suzerainty). ^[2]^[3]

Etymologically hegemony (leadership) derives from hegeisthai (to lead), hence, the hegemon (leader) dictates the politics of the hegemony’s constituent subordinate states via cultural imperialism — the imposition of its way of life, i.e. its language (the imperial lingua franca) and bureaucracies (social, economic, educational, governing), to make formal its dominance — thus transforming external domination into an abstraction, because power is in the status quo (“the way things are”) not in any leader(s). In the event, rebellion (social, political, economic, armed) is eliminated — either by co-optation of the rebel(s) or by police and military suppression, all without the hegemon’s direct intervention, e.g. the Spanish and the British empires, and the united Germany (extant 1871–1945). ^[4]

Politically, hegemony is the predominance of one political unit over the other units in a political group — a province within a federation (Prussia in the German Empire); one man among a committee (Napoleon Bonaparte in the Consulate); and one state in a confederation (France in the EU).^[5] Since the nineteenth century, especially in historical writing, hegemony describes one state’s predominance upon other states (e.g. Napoleonic France’s European hegemony), and, by extension, hegemonism denotes the policies the great powers practice in seeking predominance, leading, then, to a definition of imperialism.^[6] Moreover, in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (1985), Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe refine hegemony as the strategic combination of discrete political principles (from different systems of thought) to a coherent ideology, like-wise, critic Jennifer Daryl Slack further refines it as “a process, by which a hegemonic class articulates (or co-ordinates) the interests of social groups, such that those groups actively ‘consent’ to their subordinated status”. ^[7]

Sociologically, the political scientist Antonio Gramsci developed cultural hegemony by transposing political hegemony beyond international relations to Class structure and Culture, showing how a social class exerts cultural (“leadership”) dominance of the society’s other classes in maintaining the socio-political status quo. ^[8] Cultural hegemony identifies and explains domination and the maintenance of power and how the (hegemon) leader class “persuades” the subordinated social classes to accept and adopt the ruling-class values of bourgeois hegemony. The imperial State is a mixture of coercion and hegemony — force (arms) and power (coercion and consent), thus, cultural hegemony is in the socio-political powers the ruler(s) derive from the populace’s “spontaneous consent”, given because of the authority (intellectual and moral) that grants leadership to the native leader(s) of the subordinate states constituting the empire. The agents of cultural hegemony are the externally superimposed press (mass communications media), schools (educational curricula), organised religion, and commercial popular arts (cinema, music, literature, et cetera), meant to instill acceptance by the subordinated nation of the hegemon’s (foreign) values as native, in perpetuating the status quo of empire.

Historical hegemony

In the Mediterranean Ancient World, Sparta was the hegemon (leader) city-state of the Peloponnesian League, in the 6th century BC, and King Philip II of Macedon was the hegemon of the League of Corinth, in 337 BC, (a kingship he willed to his son, Alexander the Great); in Eastern Asia, it occurred in China, during the Spring and Autumn Period (ca. 770–480 BC), when the weakened rule of the Zhou Dynasty lead to the relative autonomy of the Five Hegemons (“Ba” in Chinese [霸]) who were appointed, by feudal lord conferences, and were nominally obliged to uphold the Zhou dynastic imperium over the subordinate states. In late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century-Japan, hegemon applies to its “Three Unifiers” — Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu — who exercised hegemony over most of the country.

As a universal, politico-cultural practice, the hegemon’s cultural institutions maintain the hegemony (cf. cultural imperialism); in Italy, the Medici maintained their mediæval Tuscan hegemony, by controlling the Arte della Lana guild, in the Florentine city-state; in Holland, the Dutch Republic’s seventeenth-century (1609–1672) mercantilist dominion was a first instance of global, commercial hegemony, made feasible with its technological development of wind power and sophisticated “Four Great Fleets” for the efficient production and delivery of goods and services, which, in turn, made possible its Amsterdam stock market and concomitant dominance of world trade; in France, Louis XIV (1638–1715) established French economic, cultural, and military domination of most of continental Europe; other monarchies (e.g. Russia) adopted French as their court language, and imitated the French style.

In the twentieth century’s second half, the USSR and the USA fought the Cold War (1945–91) for global hegemony after the Second World War (1939–45) broke the old European empires. The Warsaw Pact and NATO were the regional arms in an ideologic, way-of-life-struggle of Communism versus Capitalism. Fighting directly (the arms race) and indirectly (proxy wars) against any country whose internal, national actions might destabilise its hegemony, the USSR defeated the nationalist Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and the USA precipitated the US–Vietnam War (1965–75) by participating in the Vietnamese Civil War (1955–65) the National Liberation Front fought against the Republic of Vietnam, the US’s client state. ^[9]

In the post–Cold War world of the twenty-first century, the French Socialist politician Hubert Védrine describes the USA as a hegemonic hyperpower, while the U.S. political scientists John Mearsheimer and Joseph Nye counter that the USA is not a “true” hegemony, because does not have the resources to impose a proper, formal, global rule; despite its political and military strength, the USA is economically equal to Europe, thus, cannot rule the international stage. ^[10] Several other countries are either emerging or re-emerging as powers, such as China, Russia, India, and the European Union.

Geographic hegemony

In The Production of Space (1992), Henri Lefebvre posits that geographic space is not a passive locus of social relations, but that it is trialectical — constituted by mental space, social space, and physical space — hence, hegemony is a spatial process influenced by geopolitics. In the ancient world, hydraulic despotism was established in the fertile river valleys of Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia. In China, during the Warring States Era, the Qin State created the Chengkuo Canal for geopolitical advantage over its local rivals. In Eurasia, successor state hegemonies were established in the Middle East, using the sea (Greece) and the fringe lands (Persia, Arabia). European hegemony moved west-wards, to Rome, then north-wards, to the Holy Roman Empire of the Franks. At the Atlantic Ocean, Portugal, Spain, France, and Britain established their hegemonic centres; in due course, geography dictated that the political centre then move to the USA and the USSR; to wit, geography can determine the long- and short-life of an hegemony, e.g. China’s, Pax Sinica and Rome’s Pax Romana in contrast to those of the Mongol Empire and Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere; (see Edward Soja, David Harvey, and Chantal Mouffe).

Resistance and survival

In Mirror for Humanity: A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology (2004), Conrad Phillip Kottak elucidates hegemony ideologically — that an ideology explains why the extant order (politico-military and socio-economic) is in the best interest of everyone; the ideology promises much, and asks the ideologue’s (believer’s) patience (time) for the promises to be fulfilled.

Notes

^ Clive Upton, Wiliam A. Kretzschmar, Rafal Konopka: Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English. Oxford University Press (2001)
^ Ross Hassig, Mexico and the Spanish Conquest (1993), p. 22
^ The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition (1994) p.1215
^ Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (1994), pp. 137-8: “ . . . European coalitions were likely to arise to contain Germany’s Nazis growing, potentially dominant, power”; p.145: “Unified Germany was achieving the strength to dominate Europe all by itself — an occurrence which Great Britain had always resisted in the past when it came about by conquest”.
^ Chris Cook, Dictionary of Historical Terms (1983) p.142
^ A. Bullock, S. Trombley, eds., The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Third Edition (1999), pp.387–8
^ Slack 1996, p. 117
^ K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (1985)
^ George C. Kohn Dictionary of Wars (1986) p.496
^ Joseph S. Nye Sr., Understanding International Conflicts: An introduction to Theory and History, pp. 276-7

References

Joseph, Jonathan (2002), Hegemony: A Realist Analysis, New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-26836-2.
Slack, Jennifer Daryl (1996), "The Theory and Method of Articulation in Cultural Studies", in Morley, David; Chen, Kuan-Hsing (eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, London: Routledge, pp. 112–127.

External links

[1] Clive Upton, Wiliam A. Kretzschmar, Rafal Konopka: Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English. Oxford University Press (2001)

[2] Ross Hassig, Mexico and the Spanish Conquest (1993), p. 22

[3] The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition (1994) p.1215

[4] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (1994), pp. 137-8: “ . . . European coalitions were likely to arise to contain Germany’s Nazis growing, potentially dominant, power”; p.145: “Unified Germany was achieving the strength to dominate Europe all by itself — an occurrence which Great Britain had always resisted in the past when it came about by conquest”.

[5] Chris Cook, Dictionary of Historical Terms (1983) p.142

[6] A. Bullock, S. Trombley, eds., The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, Third Edition (1999), pp.387–8

[7] Slack 1996, p. 117

[8] K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (1985)

[9] George C. Kohn Dictionary of Wars (1986) p.496

[10] Joseph S. Nye Sr., Understanding International Conflicts: An introduction to Theory and History, pp. 276-7

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 '''Hegemony''' (leadership) ({{lang-el|ἡγεμονία ''hēgemonía''}}, English: [UK] {{IPA|/hɨˈɡɛməni/}}, [US]: {{pronEng|hɨˈdʒɛməni}}) <ref>Clive Upton, Wiliam A. Kretzschmar, Rafal Konopka: ''Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation for Current English''. Oxford University Press (2001)</ref> is a term originally denoting military dominance (“leadership”) of one nation-state over another nation-state. The term eventually came to be associated with describing political dominance of one nation over another nation via economic and political control rather than military might.  (cf. [[suzerainty]]). <ref>Ross Hassig, ''Mexico and the Spanish Conquest'' (1993), p. 22</ref><ref> ''The Columbia Encyclopedia'', Fifth Edition (1994) p.1215</ref>
-'''Etymologically''' ''hegemony'' (leadership) derives from ''hegeisthai'' (to lead), hence, the ''hegemon'' (leader) ''dictates'' the politics of the hegemony’s constituent subordinate states via [[cultural imperialism]] — the imposition of its ''way of life'', i.e. its '''language''' (the imperial ''[[lingua franca]]'') and '''bureaucracies''' (social, economic, educational, governing), to make formal its dominance — thus transforming external domination into an abstraction, because ''power'' is in the ''status quo'' (“the way things are”) not in any leader(s). In the event, rebellion (social, political, economic, armed) is eliminated — either by co-optation of the rebel(s) or by police and military suppression, all without the hegemon’s direct intervention, e.g. the [[Spanish Empire|Spanish]] and the [[British Empire|British]] empires, and the [[German Unification|united Germany]] (extant 1871–1945). <ref>Henry Kissinger, ''Diplomacy'' (1994), pp. 137-8: “ . . . European coalitions were likely to arise to contain Germany’s Nazis growing, potentially dominant, power”; p.145: “Unified Germany was achieving the strength to dominate Europe all by itself — an occurrence which Great Britain had always resisted in the past when it came about by conquest”.</ref>
+Etymologically ''hegemony'' (leadership) derives from ''hegeisthai'' (to lead), hence, the ''hegemon'' (leader) ''dictates'' the politics of the hegemony’s constituent subordinate states via [[cultural imperialism]] — the imposition of its ''way of life'', i.e. its '''language''' (the imperial ''[[lingua franca]]'') and '''bureaucracies''' (social, economic, educational, governing), to make formal its dominance — thus transforming external domination into an abstraction, because ''power'' is in the ''status quo'' (“the way things are”) not in any leader(s). In the event, rebellion (social, political, economic, armed) is eliminated — either by co-optation of the rebel(s) or by police and military suppression, all without the hegemon’s direct intervention, e.g. the [[Spanish Empire|Spanish]] and the [[British Empire|British]] empires, and the [[German Unification|united Germany]] (extant 1871–1945). <ref>Henry Kissinger, ''Diplomacy'' (1994), pp. 137-8: “ . . . European coalitions were likely to arise to contain Germany’s Nazis growing, potentially dominant, power”; p.145: “Unified Germany was achieving the strength to dominate Europe all by itself — an occurrence which Great Britain had always resisted in the past when it came about by conquest”.</ref>
-'''Politically''', hegemony is the predominance of one political unit over the other units in a political group — a province within a federation ([[Prussia]] in the [[German Empire]]); one man among a committee (Napoleon Bonaparte in the [[Consulate]]); and one state in a confederation (France in the EU).<ref>Chris Cook, ''Dictionary of Historical Terms'' (1983) p.142</ref> Since the nineteenth century, especially in historical writing, ''hegemony'' describes one state’s predominance upon other states (e.g. Napoleonic France’s European hegemony), and, by extension, ''hegemonism'' denotes the policies the great powers practice in seeking predominance, leading, then, to a definition of [[imperialism]].<ref> A. Bullock, S. Trombley, eds., ''The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought'', Third Edition (1999), pp.387–8</ref> Moreover, in ''Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics'' (1985), [[Ernesto Laclau]] and [[Chantal Mouffe]] refine ''hegemony'' as the strategic combination of discrete political principles (from different systems of thought) to a coherent ideology, like-wise, critic Jennifer Daryl Slack further refines it as “a process, by which a hegemonic class articulates (or co-ordinates) the interests of social groups, such that those groups actively ‘consent’ to their subordinated status”. <ref>{{Harvnb|Slack|1996|p= 117}}</ref>
+Politically, hegemony is the predominance of one political unit over the other units in a political group — a province within a federation ([[Prussia]] in the [[German Empire]]); one man among a committee (Napoleon Bonaparte in the [[Consulate]]); and one state in a confederation (France in the EU).<ref>Chris Cook, ''Dictionary of Historical Terms'' (1983) p.142</ref> Since the nineteenth century, especially in historical writing, ''hegemony'' describes one state’s predominance upon other states (e.g. Napoleonic France’s European hegemony), and, by extension, ''hegemonism'' denotes the policies the great powers practice in seeking predominance, leading, then, to a definition of [[imperialism]].<ref> A. Bullock, S. Trombley, eds., ''The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought'', Third Edition (1999), pp.387–8</ref> Moreover, in ''Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics'' (1985), [[Ernesto Laclau]] and [[Chantal Mouffe]] refine ''hegemony'' as the strategic combination of discrete political principles (from different systems of thought) to a coherent ideology, like-wise, critic Jennifer Daryl Slack further refines it as “a process, by which a hegemonic class articulates (or co-ordinates) the interests of social groups, such that those groups actively ‘consent’ to their subordinated status”. <ref>{{Harvnb|Slack|1996|p= 117}}</ref>
-'''Sociologically''', the political scientist [[Antonio Gramsci]] developed [[cultural hegemony]] by transposing ''political hegemony'' beyond [[international relations]] to Class structure and Culture, showing ''how'' a social class exerts cultural (“leadership”) dominance of the society’s other classes in maintaining the socio-political ''status quo''. <ref> K. J. Holsti, ''The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory'' (1985)</ref> Cultural hegemony identifies and explains domination and the maintenance of [[power (philosophy)|power]] and how the (hegemon) leader [[Social class|class]] “persuades” the subordinated social classes to accept and adopt the ruling-class values of ''bourgeois hegemony''. The imperial [[Sovereign state|State]] is a mixture of [[coercion]] and hegemony — ''force'' (arms) and ''power'' (coercion and consent), thus, cultural hegemony is in the socio-political powers the ruler(s) derive from the populace’s “spontaneous consent”, given because of the ''authority'' (intellectual and moral) that grants [[leadership]] to the native leader(s) of the subordinate states constituting the empire. The agents of cultural hegemony are the externally superimposed  '''press''' (mass communications media), '''schools''' (educational curricula), '''organised religion''', and '''commercial popular arts''' (cinema, music, literature, et cetera), meant to instill acceptance by the subordinated nation of the hegemon’s (foreign) values as native, in perpetuating the ''status quo'' of [[empire]].
+Sociologically, the political scientist [[Antonio Gramsci]] developed [[cultural hegemony]] by transposing ''political hegemony'' beyond [[international relations]] to Class structure and Culture, showing ''how'' a social class exerts cultural (“leadership”) dominance of the society’s other classes in maintaining the socio-political ''status quo''. <ref> K. J. Holsti, ''The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory'' (1985)</ref> Cultural hegemony identifies and explains domination and the maintenance of [[power (philosophy)|power]] and how the (hegemon) leader [[Social class|class]] “persuades” the subordinated social classes to accept and adopt the ruling-class values of ''bourgeois hegemony''. The imperial [[Sovereign state|State]] is a mixture of [[coercion]] and hegemony — ''force'' (arms) and ''power'' (coercion and consent), thus, cultural hegemony is in the socio-political powers the ruler(s) derive from the populace’s “spontaneous consent”, given because of the ''authority'' (intellectual and moral) that grants [[leadership]] to the native leader(s) of the subordinate states constituting the empire. The agents of cultural hegemony are the externally superimposed  '''press''' (mass communications media), '''schools''' (educational curricula), '''organised religion''', and '''commercial popular arts''' (cinema, music, literature, et cetera), meant to instill acceptance by the subordinated nation of the hegemon’s (foreign) values as native, in perpetuating the ''status quo'' of [[empire]].
 ==Historical hegemony==