Hegemony is not equivalent to ideological domination.

Evidence

Once again, in Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony,” for example, we discover the beginnings of a way of conceptualizing how classes, constituted at the fundamental level of production relations, come to provide the basis of the social authority, the political sway and cultural domination of a “class alliance on behalf of capital,” without reducing the idea to what Marx once called the “dirty-Jewish” question of class interest, narrowly conceived. This latter form of economic reductionism, Gramsci argues, conceives of history as “a continuous march é de dupes , a competition in conjuring and sleight of hand. ‘Critical’ activity [i.e., Marxism] is reduced to the exposure of swindles, to creating scandals, and to prying into the pockets of public figures” (Prison Notebooks ). Which of us cannot quickly recall that brand of Marxism of exposure? — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 527 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Hegemony is that state of “total social au thority” which, at certain specific conjunctures, a specific class alliance wins, by a combination of “coercion” and “consent,” over the whole social formation, and its dominated classes: not only at the economic level, but also at the level of political and ideological leadership, in civil, intellectual, and moral life as well as at the material level: and over the terrain of civil society as well as in and through the condensed relations of the state. This “authority and leadership” is, for Gramsci, not a given a priori but a specific historical “moment”—one of unusual social authority. It represents the product of a certain mastery of the class struggle, certainly, but it is still subject to the class struggle and the “relations of social forces” in society, of which its “unstable equilibrium” is only one, provisional, outcome or result. Hegemony is a state of play in the class struggle which has, therefore, to be continually worked on and reconstructed in order to be maintained, and which remains a contradictory conjuncture. The important point, for Gramsci, is that, under hegemonic conditions, the organization of consent (by the dominated classes to the “leadership” of the dominant class alliance) takes precedence (though it does not obliterate) the exercise of domination through coercion. In such conditions, the class struggle tends to assume the form, not of a “frontal assault” on the bastions of the state (“war of maneuver”) but of a more protracted, strategic, and tactical struggle, exploiting and working on a number of different contradictions (Gramsci’s “war of position”). — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 626 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Gramsci’s hegemony concept rejects economic reductionism and reframes power non-coercively. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 906; Hegemony explains class domination without reducing it to narrow class-interest exposure. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 527; Racism is a hegemonic practice that is articulated with, not necessary to, capitalist formations (+9 more)

Related

• Hegemony is achieved by more than mere class dominance (similarity 0.90)
• Hegemony explains class domination without reducing it to narrow class-interest exposure. (similarity 0.89)
• Hegemony requires economic leadership, not just compromise concessions (similarity 0.88)
• Hegemony is not the same thing as ideological domination (similarity 0.87)
• Hegemony explains class rule as cultural and political sway, not just economic interest (similarity 0.86)
• A class becomes hegemonic when its elite transcends narrow corporate interests (similarity 0.86)
• Hegemony is a precarious, ever-rebuilt dominance won mainly through consent plus coercion. (similarity 0.86)
• Domination without leadership constitutes dictatorship without hegemony (similarity 0.85)
• Gramsci’s hegemony concept rejects economic reductionism and reframes power non-coercively. (similarity 0.85)
• Dominance is maintained through unstable equilibria that concede some subordinate interests (similarity 0.85)
• Gramsci’s hegemony concept treats power as non-coercive and culture-based, not class-direct (similarity 0.84)
• Hegemony is coercion combined with consent, won and perpetually reconstructed through class struggle. (similarity 0.84)
• Hegemony succeeds when subordinate groups accept the dominant vision as their own (similarity 0.84)
• Cultural domination has real effects without being all-powerful or all-inclusive (similarity 0.84)
• Dominant groups become hegemonic when subordinates accept their vision as legitimate. (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Hegemony explains class domination without reducing it to narrow class-interest exposure. #corroborates (0.60) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 527
• Gramsci’s hegemony concept rejects economic reductionism and reframes power non-coercively. #expands (0.50) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 906
• Ideological elements like racism and nationalism have no necessary class belonging #corroborates (0.50)
• Hegemony is rule achieved through consent rather than coercion #corroborates (0.50) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 626
• Racism is a hegemonic practice that is articulated with, not necessary to, capitalist formations #corroborates (0.45)
• Marxism is not economic reductionism and requires attending to ideas in their own terms #qualifies (0.40)