| Boring essay april 2001 Deep in a prison cell in Mussolini’s Italy, Antonio Gramsci theorised about the world outside. Selections of his notebooks were published in 1971 - the ideas finally freed. Released into a world of academia where their influence lives on, adopted and adapted by theorists on differing academic plains. Key to Gramsci’s influence in the field of debate is his concept of hegemony. This has influenced theorises trying to unlock the ideological mechanisms that enforce the social walls of normality. The ideology that dictates the way of society. Ideology is, in general terms, the window of values and ideas through which citizens view reality. A complex concept with it’s roots in Marxism of thought, the ideas are systematically framed by powerful sociological groups, to serve their own interests. Ideology being ‘representive the imaginary relationship of individuals to the real conditions of existence’ (Stevenson 37). People are partially sighted by the values they were born into, captured in an ideological version of 'the Truman show'. The methods in which the ideas are reinforced, formed and maintained by the social hierarchy has spawned academic scrutiny through the established structure of society, which combine to form the impression the natural way to operate is within the set of values. This leads to questions of inequalities for those outside the dominant view. While Marx was concerned with the class system, other theorists have investigated the ideology in terms of race and sexual nature. There is not enough room here to discuss these suspected misrepresentations of these social groups in the conditions of an ideological framework. As Marx himself said ‘The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas’ (Strinati 131) Hegemony suggests the status quo is maintained through cultural influence rather than force. The cultural agencies operate through representing a dominant view and suppressing alternatives, rather than strict enforcement. This involves concent. From the Marxist viewpoint, the dominant world view can be resisted by the weaker economical classes. Considering Gramsci’s communist background it is easy to see him draw this conclusion when he saw peasents siding against, as he saw it, their own interests. The essence of it’s power is that it appears natural and is therefore largely unquestioned by subaltern classes who engage passively to their position in society, manipulated by the cultural influences that form subtly imposed versions of reality. In this way ‘the media appear[s] to reflect reality while actually constructing it’ (Stevenson page 38). The ideolgical influence is asserted because in modern society the primary information extracted is drawn from the channels of the mass media. Through these methods, the drivers of capitalism can only culturally exert ideological pressure to conform to this hidden agenda, meaning consent must be gained. If the subordinate classes reject the consensus that is being subtly passed to them, the results could be violent. Drawing the tame modern example of the fuel crisis or the poll tax riots, when the leaders misjudged the level of consent their subordinates gave their taxation policies and a form of unity grew against the enforcement of the conditions. There may seem specific examples in a fairly settled ideological state, but if the masses didn’t consent to the general ideological view it could trigger similar levels of outrage. In this sense Hegemony is seen as a constant battle for ideals that can never be secure. ‘The concept of hegemony should not be assimilated to a discourse of an ideological cement securing the ‘consensual’ domination of diverse social groups’ (stevenson page 22) Intellectuals also play a part in Gramsci’s framework of ideas. If ideology is a war they are the leaders, the agents between the troops and real commanders. They ‘organise the consent of the masses in support of the dominant class’ (cultsock Internet source need ref properly). A small band of men that represent the consciousness of mankind. ‘Gramsci favoured ‘organic intellectuals’ those who openly identified with an oppressed class, shared its interests and worked on it’s behalf’. (Cultural studies for beginners, Sardar and Van Loon, 1997, page 51). It is ironic that media text discussing ideology conform to academic standards, using complex and established language forms that are only really relevant in the sphere of media theory. If this kind of subtle ideological framework cannot be broken, then I hold little hope for a new society devoid of the human instincts of selfishness and greed (two feats that have polluted the minds of even communist leaders, but may also have been overstated to justify the capitalist outlook). But hegemony leaves this a possibility if the right social forces are mobilised, just as Stuart Hall's encoding/ decoding model recognises that dominant meanings can be rejected. Perhaps it's my ideological desire to be recognised as a free agent, a human bias, that prevents me from seeing myself as a small part of an unstoppable capitalist machine that cannot possibly be derailed no matter how many components resist where it's going. But clearly the organs don’t have equel power, with the drivers It is a theory in the wider context it is not considered mainstream logic and no one I've spoken to outside the world of academia has really passed thought of humanities broad ideological direction. This may be taken as an illustration of the power of ideology or in any way you wish to decode it! There is room for change but attitudes against Suffregetes, Ghandi, Martin Luther King. We all can move our left arm if we want to, lift our hands and talk. Humans have the power to act freely, but there is only one window to reality and that is the senses. The information that passes through the five valves to the world can be constructed through the actions of other human beings. We also have independent thought, are capable of abstract ideas that construct our actions. Truman figured out reality and found a way of escape. But he got helped along the way, and it’s not inconceivable that he could have lived an entire life under the conditions he was brought up into. Not betraying the total of his censory input but following the pattern like a child being fed nazi propaganda and growing into a racist adult. The general ideolgical values of other humans can be asserted because in modern society the primary information extracted is drawn either from limited personal experiences or the channels of the mass media. Not as contained as our ficticous Truman or the manipulated schoolchild, but an influence that should be placed alongside the other components of society and attitudes of those in the world before us. Gramsci ended in that dark prison cell. Flung in there to stop the growth of his ideological outlook by the Fascists in power: the RSIs having their part to play in the formation of ideology as well as cultural influence. Considering the structure that exists, the economic strengh of the ruling classes, the potential for force and a lack of awaireness and activity from the masses (who are often preoccupied with surviving in the aggressive capitalist world), it’s hard to distinguish the cultural influence of the media in terms of the upholding of dominant ideology. I think it’s like a web with several anchor points. |