Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony in Gramsci

ASIAN PERSPECTIVE, Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring-Summer 1991, pp. 123-156 HEGEMONY AND COUNTER-HEGEMONY IN GRAMSCI Hyug Baeg Im Introduction According to orthodox Marxist interpretation, socialist revolution is an inevitable consequence of the development of contradiction inherent in the capitalist mode of production. Accordingly, the proletariat as the universal class of post-capi­ talist era will necessarily win revolutionary struggles with the bourgeoisie. The historical experience of the West, however, shows us that capitalism has survived even in the period of severe eco­ nomic crises and the possibility of proletarian revolution is neither "permanent" nor universal. After a series of defeats in the Factory Council Movement and other revolutionary movements, Gramsci's main problem­ atic in Mussolini's prison was to explain the resilience of capi­ talism and, at the same time, to find the theoretical basis for the counter-strategy of the proletariat. The main theoretical concept he elaborated in prison was the notion of "hegemony."1 He found that, in the West the dominant class, the bourgeoisie, had ruled with the consent of the subordinate masses, that is, what he called "the hegemony 1. Before Gramsci, Lenin also used the concept of hegemony. But Lenin's idea was restricted to the political telos as defined in terms of the political leadership of the proletariat in its alliance with the peasantry. For further dis­ cussion, see Anderson (1976-77: 15-18), and Buci-Glucksmann (1980a). 124 Hyug Baeg Im of the bourgeoisie." Analyzing bourgeois hegemony, however, could not be the ultimate problematic of Gramsci. The ultimate problematic was a search for the most appropriate revolutionary strategy of the Left under the condition that subordinate classes give their consent to bourgeois rule. Focusing on Gramsci's theory of hegemony, this paper attempts to examine the following questions: 1) How does the bourgeoisie establish and maintain its hegemony in capitalist society and what is the nature and con­ tent of the hegemony? 2) Under what conditions does the bourgeoisie still con­ tinue to rule despite the crisis of hegemony? 3) Given the existence of bourgeois hegemony, what will be the most proper strategy of revolution for the proletariat? Can proletarian counter-hegemony be established only after the objective conditions are changed? The first question is being posed on the grounds that grasping the true meaning of bourgeois hegemony is essential to understand the Gramscian strategy of socialist revolution. The misreading of the Gramscian notion of bourgeois hegemony might result in the misunderstanding of whole problematic of Gramsci. Yet, until recently, the clear understanding of the notion of bourgeois hegemony has not been satisfactorily resolved. Some literature on Gramsci have interpreted the notion of hegemony as ideological "false consciousness" or the Weberian notion of "legitimation." According to these interpretations, the dominant class obtains consent from the subordinate classes through "a process of massive indoctrination" or "ideological predominance over the subordinate classes" or "endless pro­ duction of false consciousness" or "ideological mystification"2 (Miliband, 1969: 180-183). These interpretations come out of the attempts to assimilate Gramsci's thought into a Lukacsian or a neo-Hegelian problematic. But even if we admit that 2. Similar interpretations are found in Carl Boggs: "Hegemony in this sense might be defined as an 'organizing principle' or 'world view' (or combi­ nation of such world views) that is diffused by agencies of ideological control and socialization in every area of daily life" (Boggs, 1976: 39). See also Femia (1975); Bates (1975); and Anderson (1976-77). Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony in Gramsci 125 Gramsci gave much emphasis to the role of superstructures such as ideology, culture, or consciousness, interpreting his notion of hegemony merely in terms of superstructure would likely misdirect complex theoretical problems he posed. Recently, other literature argues that "hegemony has material basis," or economic compromise is the necessary con­ dition for the creation of a hegemonic system (Przeworski, 1980; Texier, 1979; Sassoon, 1987). According to these inter­ pretations, Gramsci was a Marxist in the sense that he assumed that economic structure is indeed "primary" and "conditioning." Hegemony as "intellectual and moral leadership" is understood as an economic compromise in the fundamental relations of production, actualized, and made explicit at political and ideo­ logical...