Talk:Cultural hegemony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


What is the title of the book alluded to by this phrase in the article?

A newer treatise is a book by Noam Chomsky

--Pubul 20:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)While the article is informative, I wanted to respectfully raise a couple of NPOV issues. One is that the article includes a cartoon labelled "Homefront" of the "US propaganda machine" aiming their cameras at anti-war protestors, while to the left of it is a cartoon showing US weapons pointed at Iraq women and children.

Since there is no explanation evident about the meaning of including this cartoon in the article, in the context the reader might well assume the point is that 1)the US media are engaged in a good example of the practice of "cultural hegemony" to manipulate public thinking 2)that the influence the US media wants to exert is in terms of promoting the war in Iraq.

A more remote inference might be that Americans who supported the war in Iraq, are victims of propgandistic manipulation rather then free agents who came to a certain conclusion.

A second issue is that the article as far as I can see contains no references to conservative view points on the topic-all the figures and ideologies mentioned who promote the idea in the article seem to be associated with the left. Furthermore there seems to be no mention of any critiques of the whole theory of "cultural hegemony".

My suggestions are 1)either remove the cartoon or provide an explanation which is clearly neutral and 2)inform readers of critiques of the theory of cultural hegemony.



That was helpful feedback. I will address the concerns over the lack of a caption for the comic, the lack of a critique for the concept, and the lack of examples of conservative theorists using the concept of hegemony. I'll do a quick edit now, and then hopefully come back to add more later.


Chomsky; cultural hegemony in social science[edit]

To begin with, Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" is not a treatise on "cultural hegemony"; instead it analyzes the ways in which, in the view of the author, the US has attempted to maintain its geopolitical hegemony in the Bush II era, drawing conclusions about US government institutions by placing US actions within a context of US interventionism following WWII. That's quite different. It's true that Chomsky often critiques the media from a radical perspective (with strong elements of Gramscian cultural hegemony), but that is not the main thrust of this particular work.

More importantly, Gramscian cultural hegemony is somewhat different than the article implies. Obviously, Gramsci was a Marxist, and his ideas have the most currency among self-described 'leftists.' But his ideas have gained fairly widespread acceptance, and are, by themselves, divorced from Marxism: cultural hegemony is merely a process through which powerful groups use their resources (e.g., money, access to media, etc.) to shape the cultural in ways that legitimize their social position.

For example, while it's true that dictatorships are often brutal and extremely repressive, often they enjoy the support of, at the very least, a sizeable minority of the population. Even in closed societies (such as Russia under Stalin), it's simply not possible for a government to monitor all of its citizens all of the time. At least a sizeable portion of the population must view the ruling group's power as legitimate. 'Cultural hegemony' is the process through which this legitimacy is achieved.

The historian Robert Gellately and others have applied Gramscian cultural hegemony in analyzing life in Nazi Germany. -Joe Pythag3

I agree that the cartoon should be eliminated. - Joe

This is a very good comment and should open the article itself - fred

Bizarre interpretations of Gramsci[edit]

Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people. Western social structures holding society together (i.e. “the hegemony”) include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth. Gramsci's theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message. Exploring the Culture War in America

This paragraph is rubbish Hanshans23 23:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be bold, remove it! Santa Sangre 23:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gramsci in popular culture[edit]

Added section. Would be a good idea to accompany it with an example scanned front page of the Independent. 00:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


I love Chomsky, but does his book belong here? I mean, there are aspects of cultural hegemony in it (9/11 as a tool, etc.) but not a whole lot. Chomsky often uses hegemony in the sense of a dominant political force, not in the sense of a carefully assembled ruling force. I nominate deleting Chomsky from this one. Maybe another author is more appropriately cited?--Dylanfly 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh--I see above that the Chomsky issue was raised a year ago (SEE ABOVE). I'll follow through now. --Dylanfly 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation/Rating -- Beyond "Start class"[edit]

Seems to me this article is beyond a "start class" article. Who should evaluate it and elevate it? --Dylanfly 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

   ...the problem that had bedeviled the American right since Goldwater: how to win electoral support for a domestic programme that was transparently against the economic interest of the great mass of the population, and a foreign policy that appeared both reckless and redundant? ¶ The answer, as we have seen, was to look to the South, both as model and as electoral base, to constructed an anti-statist individualist ideology founded on white supremacy, defence of the patriarchal family and Protestant fundamentalism. It was the Republican right's success in constructing this ideological formula, and in identifying the liberal state as a central threat to the racial status quo and 'traditional family values', that provided it with the wherewithal to contend for power on a brazenly pro-business programme.[2]

The preceding analysis shows both material forces in play (such as class and capital), but also a cultural politics, in which ruling interests seek to find emotional issues with which shift worker loyalties from social programs to those which benefit the largest corporations. Many scholars have used these ideas to explain the rise of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US. The pattern of playing to issues of race, fear, and individualism in the US is sometimes represented by the notion of the "Southern strategy." More recently, many scholars have argued that the complex events of September 11, 2001 were instantly and deliberately conflated with "The War on Terror," a tool with which George W. Bush exploited nationalism, racism, Christianity, and fear so as to pursue corporate profiteering in the energy sector, pharmaceuticals, armaments, telecommunications, and other key sectors.

I don't think this is what the previous poster meant by "conservative viewpoints." Both of these paragraphs are speculative. The author of the first paragraph can barely conceal his disdain for the Republican party. The second reeks of conspiracy theory(It's all about Halliburton!). Seriously, is it really necessary to engage in Republican and Bush-bashing here? At least give equal space to the Democrats. Rspyker (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious?[edit]

"a tool with which George W. Bush exploited nationalism, racism, Christianity, and fear so as to pursue corporate profiteering in the energy sector, pharmaceuticals, armaments, telecommunications, and other key sectors." Needs to be cut out. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Thatcher a Reactionary?[edit]

Biased much? This comment brings down the NPOV of the whole article. I would Really like to ee some citation on that. (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So far, remarkably good[edit]

For such a hot topic. There's been restraint on both sides, and good editing. I would like something I can ethically assign a class, without worrying that I was brainwashing them in either direction. The article makes it clear this is a much cited Marxist theory, not an accepted truth. The article on Gramsci himself could use more of that. Great job, everyone. Profhum (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dense and Impenetrable Writing[edit]

The style is so laconic as to be unreadable. Give people some verbs and adjectives, and examples they can relate to. What is the point in having an article on this subject that only sociologists want to read? Not only that, it fails to talk about any manifest examples of hegemony as displayed in the Internet Age. McDonald's would be an obvious start, for instance.

-- (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)