One should take care applying the concept
too squarely onto our society. In Gramsci’s time hegemony at the level of
statecraft meant a particular class leading a multitude of other classes, each
with distinct political aims. There are not coinciding revolutions any more,
like there were in 1917.
It reminds me, though I’m not sure this is
a perfect analogy, of the observation that socialists should be the best
fighters for reforms. They should, but I have also seen the times when this has
been acknowledged in the sense of “thanks for being the best fighters, don’t
let the door hit you on the way out”. Leading in struggle in itself is not
enough.
Similarly, there is the idea that theory
serves practice, in particular that a good book or pamphlet provides an
overview for activists. It is very difficult for most people to be politically active, at least as as they need to be. Tailoring theory to current
activists carries the danger of reducing party culture to a narrow section of
society. Theory is liable to be degraded and the party becomes in danger of
talking only to itself. This is perhaps how we got to the stage where words
such as ‘feminism’ and ‘autonomism’ no longer refer to political credos but make
do as refined abuse.
Wider society is also left unprepared
should, for example, an unexpected section of the population take up struggle. This
is less that the section lose because of lack of clarity – people are often
very clear about what it is they’re fighting for and how they expect to get it
– but more to do with other groups who might have a secondary interest not
rallying to the cause. What was the meaning of Occupy? What is the meaning of
modern feminism? Why do disability rights matter? Gramsci described
revolutionary activity as the critical renovation of consciousness. Questions
like these must be explained.
No comments:
Post a Comment