User:Marlon/hegemony
Cultural Hegemony
Cultural hegemony is power not imposed by violence or oppression. It works invisibly: ideas, habits and preferences defined by the dominant minority become the ideas, habits and preferences that adjust the behavior of the majority. A culture that meets the minimum requirements of the majority, but serves the interests and keeps the power in hands of the ruling class.
The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The ruling class, consisting of individuals with intellectual power (thinkers) and material power, produce and distribute ideas. This ideology of classes is how the ruling class maintains or justifies its power. There is the illusion that the predominant "Idea" of a certain period of time exists independently, "a power distinct from the power of the class".
This is succeeded in three steps: by first seperating the ideas from the ruling class, then giving the ruling ideas a "mystical connection" and regarding them as "self determined". Lastly, removing their mystical appearance and applying ideas to a particular person, or persons. They are the "thinkers" that personify these concepts.
History of the Subaltern Classes, The Concept of "Ideology", Cultural Themes: Ideological Material
Antonio Gramsci
Gramsci texts starts with an exploration of the subaltern groups: those of inferior class, excluded from a meaningful role in a power structure ruled by a dominant group. Within these subaltern groups, one social group can exercise hegemony, becoming dominant by exercising power, and "intellectual and moral leadership". For Gramsci, "leadership" results in power, but also maintains it. Ideology, a concept which meaning changed from "science of ideas" to "investigation of the origin of ideas", must be examined historically: "as a superstructure".
Gramsci feels that ideology is used to define a superstructure or the subjective thoughts of individuals. The latter definition he considers the "bad sense of the word", resulting in a changed theoretical analysis of the concept. Ideologies are part of history, because their effect is psychological, in both definitions of the word. Historically, ideology can organize human masses, where arbitrary ideologies only move individuals.
Ideologies and material force are connected: they can both have the same "energy", as Marx proposed. But Gramsci notes that a without ideology (the "form"), material forces would be hard to conceive historically. And ideologies would be "individual fancies" without the material forces, or "content'.
The dominant class has a "ideological structure", in which the press plays the most dynamic part. "Everything which influences or is able to influence public opinion" belongs to it. Gramsci states that by studying how this structure works we become more aware of the dominant forces of a society.
Cultural hegemony in the contemporary world
The Occupy Movement protests against the inequality of wealth and power between the 1% and "the rest of us", the 99%. Occupy feels that this ruling class, while appearing to handle in the interest of the public, manipulates and enforces policies that benefit only them.
Occupy Wallstreet, the first protest, was inspired by the social uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Using social media, like Facebook and Twitter (#Occupy) to grow awareness, the movement spread like a perfect meme. The "We are the 99%"- mantra is almost impossible not to relate to, and easy to copy, edit and paste again. As BBC's economics editer wrote: "In fact if #OWS were a global brand [...] it would have a profile to die for among the super-elite."
The Occupy Movement also attracted a lot of mainstream media attention, which makes it impossible to credit the internet and social media for its large following. Internet is a powerful tool, but to reach the masses political and social movements still need the traditional media. Gramsci has credited the press for playing the most important part in maintaining an ideological terrain that fits within the worldview the ruling class is advancing. Is the Occupy Movement just an acceptable political alternative, or have the protesters really made a global impact on policy?
Is the influence of the traditional ruling class on the (new) media fading? And has this allowed the Occupy Movement to gain a large following? Maybe the new media and those who exploit it (Google, Facebook, etc.) are becoming, in a way, the new ruling class that dictates the norms and values of the information society. Will the traditional ruling class be able to resist this change despite the extreme actions taken by WikiLeaks and the hacktivists of Anonymous that show the ruling class can not fully control the new media?
Program or be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age (2011)
by Douglas Rushkoff
Douglas Rushkoff introduces his book by warning us, the digital users, that simply utilising the tools of the digital revolution is not enough. If we don't learn to program, we will be programmed: the choice is not ours, the world is reshaping with us in it. Whatever your initial motivation, be it commercial, cultural, educational or political, the digital world has been a disappointing adventure for many people. As a society, Rushkoff claims, we had high expectations for the Internet: a place with unlimited opportunities, but instead we're experiencing a sense of disconnection, a lack of meaning.
We do not look beyond the surface level possibilities the Internet offers, we publish our blogs and maintain profiles on social networks, but we're unable to alter the tools that give us the ability to do so. We know how to use a program, but why does it work and how does it use us? We're one step behind. Furthermore, Rushkoff thinks we've become fetishists, we're too obsessed with our own interaction with new media objects to fully appreciate how they work and who made them. We don't want to gain more abilities, make connections with peers, we just want more shiny things to play with.
Like every media revolution, a society is required to adept to the new rules and regulations. These rules are written not by the society as a whole, but by a small elite who is in control of the new medium, those "who have gained new access to the tools of its creation". And we're willingly giving up our control to this new elite, not looking beyond what we want from a machine to what it could want from us. Rushkoff's solution is to change the way we engage with these networks, to gain insight in how these devices are programmed for us. And how they program us. We must create a different "ethical, behavioral, and business template" that can guide us. "Just as we think and behave differently in different settings, we think and behave differently when operating different technology."
Notes on chapter Openness:
Sharing and openness at the core of the internet. In years since, the web has become more commercial, more private, but the desire for things free and for everyone has not changed.
Openness is great, but has been applied in the wrong way: by stealing, editing, using peer's work. Whatever we find online, we see as ours. And "every creation is fodder for every other one."
Most downloaded files: music, software, film. Those industries use DRM-tools to prevent stealing/copyright infringement. strategies: always online, secret programs monitoring users without consent. Also a form of stealing. Punishing the paying customer.
Why pay if you can get something for free? The "devaluating and deprofessionalizing" of work is encouraged by ad companies. In the end, only they will get paid.
Peer-to-peer currencies/ e-currencies: pay those who create. Energy+time spent on creations, how would you like your content to be treated?