Hegemony Theory

The word of hegemony is from Greek, from the word ‘hegeisthai’ meaning ‘to lead’. Cultural hegemony is the philosophic and sociological concept, originated by the Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, that a culturally-diverse society can be ruled or dominated by one of its social classes. It is the dominance of one social group over another, e.g. the ruling class over all other classes. The theory claims that the ideas of the ruling class come to be seen as the norm; they are seen as universal ideologies, perceived to benefit everyone whilst really benefiting only the ruling class. The dominant class controls ideological space and limits what is thinkable in society. Dominated classes participate in their domination, as hegemony enters into everything people do and think of as natural, or the product of common sense—including what is news, as well as playing, working, believing, and knowing.

            Actually, hegemony is a balance between the political Society and civil Society or hegemony of a social group over the entire national society, exercised through the so-called private organizations, such as the Church, the unions, the schools (Gramsci 1994c. ). Hegemony is thus an ideological dominance of society, in which the subordinate levels of society allow the ruling class to exercise social and economic dominance, with the consent of the subordinate classes in the support of the common good. In Gramsci's view, political forces aiming at social change can only gain the upper hand if they are able to mobilize and take charge in society on their own premises (Englestad, 2003).

 The central idea of this theory is the stability of the International System requires a single dominant state to articulate and enforce the rules of interaction among the most important members of the system.

That the concept of hegemony works is evident in that marxism has been able to flourish in the Western Capitalist world and Gramsci's theory of hegemony has been explored further by Althuser, Laclau and Chomsky .

The existance of Hegemony theory nowadays

An example of consent via gentle persuasion and enforcement (force) of a national cultural perspective, could be found in the New Zealand anti-smoking stance, or "Smoke Free New Zealand." Via the media, government departments and places of learning, smoking has been labeled so socially evil, that the idea of smoking in public has become shameful and socially unacceptable. The prohibitive cost of tobacco is punitive and laws have been passed to enforce where people may smoke. (Force). I would argue that the cultural ideology of a smoke free society in New Zealand has been introduced in a hegemonistic way.

Another example is by the fact that we all live in societies where there are power structures. According to Gramsci's theory of hegemony, these systems of power cannot be maintained by force alone. People have to do things, willingly and happily, in their everyday lives that keep the powerful people on top. Coercion alone does not work. If the President of the United States threatened to put to death Americans who did not hang flags from their homes, that president would be overthrown. However, plenty of Americans hang flags from their homes willingly and happily, and this is an everyday behavior that helps the government remain in power.

Hegemony and Marxism

            Hegemony is unavoidable for Marxism; it is either a strong reinforcement of Marx’s theories or a contradiction of them. In an important document, the Preface to A Critique of Political Economy (1859), Marx wrote:
            The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
            This is the classic statement of historical materialism. Does not Gramsci’s notion of hegemony run flatly counter to Marx’s words? Gramsci himself, however, thought that his own ideas improved upon Marx rather than discredited him. He said that the materialism expressed in the words just quoted were not truly Marxist but ‘must be contested in theory as primitive infantilism, and combated in practice with the authentic testimony of Marx.’ This dispute has never been definitively settled; Marxists in the USSR tended to follow the harsher view - that life is determined by material factors; Western Marxists have, on the whole, favored Gramsci’s view that ideas are at least equally important.
            Gramsci, has some very interesting theories about the role of intellectuals, both in revolutionary movements and in society in general. It is, also, fascinating to look at the many examples in History of groups or classes in societies who owe their power in whole or in part to their intellectual and moral superiority. One may think of the Catholic Church down the ages, and of priesthoods in general. There is the hegemony, up to recent times, in the USA of WASPs - White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. There was the British culture in India under the Raj, and the ‘nomenklatura’ of the USSR.  Nomenklatura means a small elite group within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.
            Here are the basic differences between Gramsci’s hegemony and Marx’s marxism: Gramsci supports capitalism, while Marxism is basic theory of modern communism.  Also, Gramsci creates cultural hegemony theory as way to keep the sustainability of capitalism; while Marx thinks that capitalism makes the workers live miserably.

References
Englestad, F. (Ed.). (2003). Introductory chapter. In Power,culture,hegemony. Introduction to comparative social research (Vol. 21) . Oxford: Elsevier science. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from Institute for social research Web site