From hegemony to post-hegemony: Antonio Gramsci and Scott Lash

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

2 PhD student in sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

The concept of hegemony and post-hegemony in the sciences is directly socially recognized and activities are defined according to the field and national context. Hegemony refers to a situation in which a temporary coalition of some social groups becomes the total social authority over other groups. Gramsci believes that the leading theory in this field is that the ruling groups must consider the cause to achieve a logical equilibrium. Lash is also an important researcher in the field of post-hegemony and has changed the description of power that challenges the concept of hegemony. In this article, the views of Gramsci and Lash are compared in terms of historical background, theoretical views, the nature of power, cultural dynamics, and mechanisms of domination with the method of comparing library documents and other types of documents. Modern developments have affected the foundations of power and hegemony and have become thecauses of emergence of dynamics that have emerged from hegemony and post-hegemony. Hegemony is the dominance of class ideologies at the borders. At the same time, post-hegemony is the fluidity of power relations and the role of active individuals and communities in resistance and creativity.
1. Introduction
Hegemony is a concept that is widely recognized and used in the social and human sciences, with different and sometimes contradictory interpretations depending on the field and national context. At the beginning of the 21st century, the relevance and coherence of the concept of hegemony was examined. Various theories of "post-hegemony" have emerged that attempt to provide a realistic political analysis that hegemony once offered. The most important theorist in the field of post-hegemony is Scott Lash. Lash believes that hegemony often works through "symbolic order". This presupposes a high degree of domination by the unconscious. The purpose of this article is to provide a general assessment of "Hegemony as seen by Antonio Gramsci, especially from the book (Prison Notebooks)" and "Post-hegemony as seen by Scott Lash, especially In the article (Power after Hegemony).
2. Literature Review
2.1. Antonio Gramsci
Gramsci, like many theorists of his time, tried to correct the Marxist rules. He believed that culture has relative independence and that the development of thoughts and ideas or intellectual superstructures can simultaneously change both the mode of production and the intellectual superstructures of society. This happens through the forces of government. The ruling class can secure consensus on its power through ideological means. According to Gramsci, this is necessary for the hegemony of civil society and he sets it against the repressive government. Gramsci refers to the hegemonic means of television channels, the family, schools, churches, newspapers, etc., which connect people to the ruling power instead of oppressing them. According to him, oppression and domination belong to the government, but hegemony is specific to civil society. (Anderson 1976:53).
2.2. Scott Lash
The post-hegemony in Lash's theories emphasizes the decentralized and dispersed nature of contemporary society. It challenges traditional concepts of power and control and moves beyond the idea of a dominant hegemony to show how cultural, social, and economic forces operate in fluid ways. Lash's work focuses on the rise of information technologies and their impact on social structures, highlighting the shift from stable hierarchies to dynamic, self-organizing systems. In the post-hegemonic era, the concept is immediate and values and realities are presented to us as raw sensory data. Post-hegemony is better understood under the term "communication". Finally, the positivism of the age of hegemony gives way to post-hegemonic empiricism. (Scott Lash: 2007)
3. Methodology
The method of the present study is studying the documents that were used to collect data from various databases. Recent books and articles, reference works, and articles written by theorists were used to collect accurate and unambiguous data.
4. Discussion and Results
Gramsci developed the concept of hegemony based on the role of culture and ideology in maintaining the ruling class’s power. Hegemony is exercised through consent rather than coercion, and cultural institutions and media play an important role in this regard. Subordinate groups can challenge power structures through cultural and social resistance.
About the fragmentation and decentralization of power in contemporary society, Lash has proposed the concept of post-hegemony. In post-hegemony, power is distributed across different places and networks, digital media and globalization play an important role, and different actors control and compete for power.
5. Conclusion
Despite their similarities, Gramsci's and Lash's theories on power and hegemony have important differences. Gramsci, a Marxist philosopher, proposes the concept of hegemony, according to which the ruling class maintains its ideological power through cultural institutions and the media. He points to the role of centralized institutions and the influence of ruling class ideologies in social control.
Lash introduces the concept of post-hegemony, which deals with the dynamics of power in the digital age. He argues that power in contemporary societies is dispersed and fluid, exercised through networks and digital platforms. These developments offer new spaces for resistance and creativity and challenge the dominant ideology or ruling class.
To summarize, the comparison between Gramsci's hegemony and Lash's post-hegemony shows important changes in the way power is distributed and exercised. Gramsci emphasizes control by centralized institutions, while Lash emphasizes the dispersion of power and the active role of individuals and communities in the digital age. Post-hegemony offers new insights into the challenges and opportunities of social change in the face of decentralization and greater individual agency.

Keywords


  1. استریناتی، دومینیک (2004). مقدمه‌ای بر نظریه‌های فرهنگ عامه. ترجمه ثریا پاک‌نظر(۱۳۸۰). چاپ اول، تهران: گام نو.
  2. اندرسون، پری (1976). معادلات و تناقضات آنتونیو گرامشی. ترجمه شاپور اعتماد (۱۳۸۳). چاپ اول، تهران: طرح نو.
  3. ایگلتون، تری (1991). درآمدی بر ایدئولوژی. ترجمه اکبر معصوم بیگی (۱۳۸۱). چاپ اول، تهران: نشر آگه.
  4. جول، جیمز (۱۹۷۷). گرامشی. ترجمه محمدرضا زمردی (۱۳۸۸). تهران: نشر ثالث.
  5. راثی تهرانی، حبیب (۱۳۸۸). نظریه هژمونی. کتاب ماه علوم اجتماعی. ۱۶، ۹۹−۱۰۸.
  6. ودیعه، ساسان؛ کشانی، سعید و جعفر رجبلو (۱۳۹۶). نظریه نظام جهانی در اندیشه و آرای والرشتاین، پژوهش اجتماعی زمستان، ۳۷، ۲۴−۴۳.
  7. گرامشی، آنتونیو (1971). دولت و جامعه مدنی. ترجمه عباس میلانی (۱۳۸۳). چاپ اول، تهران: نشر اختران.
  8. گرامشی، آنتونیو (1356). برگزیده‌ای از آثار آنتونیو گرامشی کارگر کارخانه. ترجمه روبرت هاکوپیان. چاپ اول، ایتالیا: انتشارات بابک.
  9. نقیب‌زاده، احمد و مجید استوار (۱۳۹۱). «بوردیو و قدرت نمادین». فصلنامه سیاست. دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، ۴۲(۲)، ۲۷۹−۲۹۴.
  10. هالوب، رناته (1992). آنتونیو گرامشی فراسوی مارکسیسم و پسامدرنیسم. ترجمه محسن حکیمی (۱۳۷۴). چاپ اول، تهران: نشر چشمه.
  11. Agamben, G. (1999). Potentialities. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
  12. Alexandros Kioupkiolis (2017). Movements post-hegemony: how contemporary collective action transforms. Hegemonic politics, 17(1), 99-112.
  13. Appadurai, A. (1986). The Social Life of Things. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 
  14. Benjamin, W. (1979). One Way Street and Other Writings, trans. E. Jephcott and K. Shorter. London: Verso. 
  15. Butler, J., E. Laclau and S. Zˇizˇek (2000). Contingency, Hegemony. Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left. London: Verso.
  16. , Lukas K.; Martín, Félix E. (2019). China's hegemonic intentions and trajectory: Will it opt for benevolent, coercive, or Dutch-style hegemony? Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 6(2), 186–207.
  17. Douglas Litowitz, Gramsci (2000). Hegemony, and the Law, BYU L. Rev. 515: 514-551.
  18. Durkheim, É. and M. Mauss (1963). Primitive Classifications, trans. R. Needham. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
  19. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard., A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. NewYork, NY: Internationa.
  20. , A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. NewYork, NY: Internationa.
  21. Heidegger, M. (1978). Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell.
  22. Koolhaas, R. and B. Mau (1995). S, M, L, XL. New York: Monacelli Press.
  23. Lash, S. (2007). Power after hegemony: Cultural studies in mutation? Theory, Culture & Society, 24(3): 55–78.
  24. Lash, Scott (2014). From Library of Congress Name Authority File. Library of Congress.
  25. Mearsheimer, John (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton: 40, 138
  26. Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Chapter 2. W. W. Norton & Company.
  27. Negri, A. (1991). The Anomaly. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  28. Nye, Joseph S. Sr. (1993). Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History, First Publisher, Longman: 276–277.
  29. Oxford Advanced American Dictionary.Dictionary.com, LLC. (2014). Archived from the original. "Hegemony".
  30. Thomas, Peter D. (2020). After (post) hegemony. Contemporary Political Theory, 20 (2), 318-340.