Brief for 9/19
Power and Hegemony Brief
In the “Hegemony” section of Marxism and Literature by Raymond Williams, the author talks about hegemony as a lived reality where experience makes the system of dominance a prominent force in our day to day lives. He writes, “It is, that is to day, in the strongest sense a ‘culture,’ but a culture which also has to be seen as the lived dominance and subordination of particular classes” (Williams 110). I thought this was an interesting way to talk about hegemony because it reminded me of the idea of interpellation we talked about last class. I equated “the call” to the moment when someone tries to assert dominance and “the response” to the moment when someone reacts in the subordinate position. The response affirms the dominance is legitimate which makes the relationship mutually accepted as the norm. This made me realize that coercion or brute force is not always the technology for enforcing popular opinion and ultimately makes me question, if people were more aware that their actions can legitimize power, could The System be changed more easily?
Building off of the idea above, if people legitimize dominance through their actions, then it must be a mere mental creation than an actual force. In the Power article specifically, the author talks about how people have an animalistic desire for power (Power 1). Yet despite this need, he alludes to the idea that power in itself is not entirely attainable. Similar to the performance of gender, power is a performance too. He notes, “Most people in most societies adopt behaviors which reflect the relativity of powers amongst roles and the practices defining them” (Power 2). People seem to adopt powerful personalities in order to come across as powerful even though they may not inherently possess it themselves. Again this makes me question the technologies that go into creating The System. If power is not a real force or real attribute, then how can it have such a profound effect on our lives?
It addition to power as a performance, it is interesting how power and dominance can be so fragile. In the Power article specifically, the author mentions that there are many strategies for power. He writes, “On the contrary, any hegemonic process must be especially alert and responsive to the alternatives and opposition which questions or threatens its dominance. The reality of cultural process must then always include the efforts and contributions of those who are in one way or another outside or at the edge of the terms of the specific hegemony” (Williams 113). People with power seem to keep it by incorporating efforts from those without power. That way people without power are less likely to rebel because they believe they have had a say in creating The System. However, if those outside the power have the ability to overthrow it and establish a new power, then what does that imply about The System’s structure? Likewise, if it can be changed so easily, why hasn’t it been?
To answer these various questions I think it is important to have classes like The System. I think one reason why The System has not changed is because many do not realize how it is affecting them nor how their actions are affecting it. Therefore it is important to analyze aspects such as hegemony and power to understand that maybe a solution is not as difficult as we think. The author of the hegemony articles even notes, “[dominance] is a realized complex of experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and changing pressures and limits” (Williams 112). Power changes all the time. Perhaps if understand how it works we can alter the limits to our advantage.