Hegemony runs on consent backed by a standby coercive apparatus

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: Hegemony via consent, not domination, gives Orientalism its durability and strength; Domination relies on coercion while leadership wins consent and subordinate interests.; Domination operates through consent won by leadership, not force alone (+16 more)

Broader Connections