I decided to have a read of this as a way of critiquing Gramsci and finding some idea to present about the use of his ideas in the internet age. This book is not specifically about the Media, however it does raise some concerns and issues that could be useful for my discussion around the issues of crowdfunding and the influence of the press generally. I think it was probably worth reading the book for the following quote alone, from subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatista movement in Mexico :
‘I shit on all the
revolutionary vanguards of this planet’
Subcomandante
Insurgente Marcos, January 2003
I'm not sure if this quote sums up anything about my project, but it does capture a sense of frustration with the current way of doing things, so at least in that sense I agree with El Subcomandante.
Firstly, there are some nice definitions and background to the concept of Hegemony:
"I proposed a
preliminary definition of hegemony as a struggle for dominance, generally
limited to thesymbolic,
geographical, economic and political context of a particular nation-state or
group of states, but increasingly occurring at a global level...Like so much in the western
tradition, the concept of hegemony originated in Ancient Greece,
where the term Hegemonia signified
the domination of one city-state by
another...In its current usage
the concept of hegemony is deeply tied up with the system of
nation-states that began to form with the rise of European
constitutional monarchies, and was further entrenched by the creation of
institutions of liberal democracy. Thus, hegemony must be seen as very much
a modern European phenomenon." (pg47)
This is an interesting point that I probably will not have time to discuss in this research project, but does the theory of Hegemony only apply to Europe? Only apply to liberal democracies? Some of my reasoning for this project was the thinking that maybe a more independent journalism could help journalists working in areas that are experiencing dictatorships, or even countries without governments at all. The recent spate of kililings of journalists in Mexico for instance. If crowdfunding doesn't have any influence on the industry it operates in then a lack of hegemonic structure would indicate it is more worthwhile whilst if the opposite were true; that hegemonic structures were in place and crowd funding could tackle them, then this would mean that you could structure your crowdfunded programs to fit the particular type of government in particular territories. An interesting idea.
But the book generally doesn't take a positive approach on the idea that Hegemony is something to be concerned with and is littered with criticism of Marxist thinking and often does a decent job of pointing out these repressive structures that Marxist theorists identified are not getting us any nearer to a solution or method for change.
"marxist
revolutionism and liberal/postmarxist reformism have hit their historical limit,
that is, the limit of the logic of hegemony and its associated politics
of representation, recognition, and integration. This is an argument
that will undoubtedly be controversial to those who see hegemonic
practices as the only way in which they can hope to achieve the kind
of social change they desire. However, as the newest social
movements so powerfully show, an orientation to direct action and the
construction of alternatives to state and corporate forms opens up new
possibilities for radical social change that cannot be imagined from
within existing paradigms." (pg 18)
Leaving hegemonic structures to one side and concentrating on direct action and alternatives? That is an interesting idea. Does crowdfunding your own journalistic project because of the limited and closed off nature of the industry fit this concept. Perhaps, however direct action also is perhaps limited by the idea that the audience themselves are probably so shut off to non-hegemonic ideas that there could be no mass market for such niche products. I'm not sure that ignoring the bigger picture just to have your own liberal street party is necessarily the best way forward. How easy is it it just 'construct alternatives to state and corporate forms'? Well with journalism and the internet i guess its pretty easy but would it lead to radical social change? I'm still not convinced.
The book itself takes a damning tone on the state of society and is clearly looking for at least a few reasons for revolutionary change :
Everyone can be included in
the Holy Communion of
postmodern absolute capitalism, provided of course that everyone
is willing to take up the position assigned to them by a racist,
heterosexist, classist, ageist system hell-bent on its own destruction.
Only now in the process of revealing itself, and still preferring secret
talks among elites to open debate, neoliberalism represents a new
incarnation of the logic of hegemony, one that combines the worst
of marxist communist collectivism with the worst of
liberal-capitalist individualism. Where liberalism was supposed to give us freedom,
neoliberalism promises security, which is to be guaranteed by the integration of all human communities within a globalizing system
of state-capitalist control. Thus does neoliberalism hope to attain a
worldwide hegemony of a sort heretofore unknown in human
history... postmarxism has
overcome some of the limits of western marxist
theories of hegemony, but at the cost of a lapse into liberal
pluralism. (p67)
I stopped reading at this point as it went off into revolutionary tactics for social change and offered me little in the way of Gramsci analysis. But an interesting, useful read nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment