Hegemony combines coercion with actively won consent, with consent in the lead

Evidence

Despite his continuing stress on experience and intention, this definition of “dominant culture” in Williams clearly owes a great deal to Gramsci’s pivotal and commanding notion of hegemony (Prison Notebooks ). Gramsci argued that “hegemony” exists when a ruling class (or, rather, an alliance of ruling class fractions, a “historical bloc”) is able not only to coerce a subordinate class to conform to its interests, but exerts a “total social authority” over those classes and the social formation as a whole. “Hegemony” is in operation when the dominant class fractions not only dominate but direct or lead: when they not only possess the power to coerce but actively organize so as to command and win the consent of the subordinated classes to their continuing sway. “Hegemony” thus depends on a combination of force and consent. But—Gramsci argues—in the liberal-capitalist state, consent is normally in the lead, operating behind “the armour of coercion.” — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 905 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Under hegemony, organized consent displaces direct coercion as the main instrument; Hegemony is rule achieved through consent rather than coercion — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 626; Hegemony works by winning consent backed by coercion, not by force alone. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 905 (+16 more)

Broader Connections