Ideological hegemony operates when subordinates internalize the dominant group’s justifications of inequality

Evidence

Recent sociological theories of ideology have made use of Gramsci’s concept of ideological hegemony (Gitlin, 1980; Gramsci, 1971; Williams, 1973). Ideological hegemony is said to exist when the ideas of one group dominate or exert a predominant influence on the major cultural and social institutions (Fermia, 1975, p. 29; Williams, 1960, p. 587). These ideas explain social reality—in particular, inequalities between social groups—in a manner that defends and justifies such inequalities. A dominant group is truly hegemonic when people of all stations in life, dominant and subordinate, accept the vision of society as espoused by the dominant group. In this respect, Gramsci’s notion of hegemony corresponds to Marx’s dictum (1964) that “the ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas” (p. 78). Gramsci, however, added an element of exchange and indeterminancy that elevates the role played by human subjectivity. For Gramsci, the economic base of society creates rough boundaries on ideas but does not predetermine or directly create ideological belief systems (the “superstructure”). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3380 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Group members’ social dominance orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) may be another variable the influence of which can systematically be examined in light of our model of politicized collective identity. We have already indicated that legitimizing myths or ideologies could obstruct, or at least inhibit, the politicizing process. Specifically, hierarchy-enhancing myths can undermine the awareness of shared grievances, foster internal attributions as opposed to external or adversarial attributions, or discourage group members from transforming the in-group/out-group confrontation into a more comprehensive power struggle involving society at large. Research suggests that people high on social dominance orientation are more likely to endorse (hierarchyenhancing) legitimizing myths than people low on social dominance orientation so that social dominance orientation could play an inhibitory role in the politicizing process. However, research also demonstrates that members of low-status groups are generally lower on social dominance orientation than members of high-status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). At the same time, given their relatively disadvantaged social position, members of low-status groups typically have more reason to politicize than members of high-status groups. Taken together, it follows that social dominance orientation and legitimizing myths should not be insurmountable obstacles to a politicized collective identity for those who need it most. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4440 (#complicates, via linked claim)

People talk about “hegemony” for instance as the equivalent of ideological domination. I have tried to fight against that interpretation of “hegemony” for twenty years. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 755 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Financialization establishes ideological dominance of individual profit over collective interests — Aris Komporozos-Athanasiou, Speculative Communities: Living with…, 109; Income distributions reflect actors’ relative bargaining and claimsmaking power.; Sectarian discrimination vertically integrated Protestant workers under Unionist elites. — Nadim N. Rouhana and Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, When Politics Are Sacralized:…, 2092 (+23 more)

Broader Connections

• Dominant groups become hegemonic when subordinates accept their vision as legitimate. #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3380
• Low-status groups’ lower social dominance orientation means ideology does not block their politicization #complicates (0.78) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4440
• Hegemony is not the same thing as ideological domination #complicates (0.76) — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 755
• Subordinate groups strategically deploy difference to resist dominant control and revalue themselves #complicates (0.75) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 115