Hegemony

=** Definition **=

Hegemony has been defined as “leadership, predominance, preponderance; esp. the leadership or predominant authority of one state of a confederacy or union over others: originally used in reference to the states of ancient Greece, whence transferred to the German states, and in other modern applications” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). The word originated from Greek ἡγεμονία, and is thought to have first appeared in English during the sixteenth century (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). In scholarly usage, hegemony has been used in three distinct ways. Hegemony has been conceptualized in the sense of a political ruler which is closely linked to its original etymology; with respect to Gramsci’s notion of ideology and power through negotiating consent; and, finally, to Scott’s use of the term to denote the use of ‘hidden’ and ‘public’ transcripts as a way in which to disrupt Gramsci’s assertion of consent.

Most scholars concede that hegemony can be loosely broken up into two camps – domination and leadership. Lentner (2005) asserts that while hegemony has often been linked to ideology and power, it is autonomy that is what truly distinguishes it. “Hegemony involves leadership of an alliance, not domination by coercion” and it is this alliance that gives in to the notion of “autonomy for both the polity and citizenry… [Which] hinders the tendency towards imperialism” (Lentner, 2005, p.735). So the emphasis on leaders and leadership is geared more towards a political science usage rather than communication.


 * Hegemony in Communication **

More broadly used in communication are the Gramscian and Scott definitions for hegemony. Antonio Gramsci’s hegemony is a theory of how ideology works. Gramsci’s definition of hegemony is not definitive. While writing in his Prison Notebooks, he did not clearly define his use of hegemony and various scholars have tried to clarify his definition. In Selections from Prison Notebooks, Gramsci connects ideology and power with hegemony. He asserts that a “class is dominant in two ways – leading and dominant. It leads the classes which are its allies, and dominates those which are its enemies” (Gramsci, 2009, p. 75). He refers to this as “political hegemony” in the sense that in order to dominate, the ruling class must lead and continue to lead in order to stay in power. Gramsci, however, was more invested in cultural hegemony. It is also this form of hegemony that most communication scholars trace back to Gramsci.

In terms of cultural hegemony, Gramsci is concerned with power that is within defined communities especially where the working-class has the right to vote. He asserts that it is “characterized by the combination of force and consent” (Gramsci, 2009, p.75). It is important to note that force does not exceed consent. Rather, it is the “subtle control exerted over a culture’s ideology by the dominant class” [and] “those who are oppressed by others willingly allow themselves to be oppressed” (Borchers, 2006, p. 181). This is most evident, according to Gramsci, in the way in which the dominant class helps to rhetorically shape the values and beliefs of its citizens through the control over “common sense” (Borchers 2006). According to Hall, “hegemony is never permanent” rather “it is a continual process of rearticulation” (Lewis, 1992, p. 280).

According to Carragee (1993), Gramsci’s frustration with the lack of success of European socialist movements (after being inspired by the Bolshevik uprisings in Russia) enabled him to use the term hegemony to explain why they failed. Gramsci understood the use of physical power to oppress, but found that the use of rhetoric to control “the minds of the people” was more subtle and invited consent (Jasinski, 2001, p. 283). And, many scholars agree that hegemony refers more to everyday cultural practice than it does domination by force ( Cloud, 1996; Trujillo, 1991; Murphy, 1992). Cloud's article of tokenism, Trujillo's discussion of baseball and hegemonic masculinity, and Murphy's article that unpacks the dissent during the civil rights movement by freedom riders note that hegemony is a part of everday life. One special note about hegemony is that it does not always have to occur from the dominant elites. It could also occur from subaltern people. It is this notion of agency that leads to a discussion of James C. Scott.

Often pitted against Gramsci’s notion of the dominant class’ subtle control over the minds of its lower classes through the negotiation of consent is Scott’s definition of hegemony. Based largely on his text, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, Scott (1990) argues that while oppressed members of a society are public in their deference to the dominant class in which there is a “public transcript;” off-stage, there are “hidden-transcripts.” That is, while subaltern people have a public appearance of consent, when they are in private, there is dissent through the use of songs, jokes, et cetera. When a hidden-transcript is revealed in public, it serves as a rallying cry for the collective subalterns. His theory of hegemony seems to be a theory of how power works. For example, enslaved and freed African Americans did not truly consent to their oppression. For safety, they may have publicly consented but as noted historically, there were many instances of uprisings and rebellions. Those forms of rebellions/resistance could be found through direct confrontation, destruction of property, or a “verbal or physical attack against those in power or symbols of domination” (Kelley, 1992, p. 294). Scott’s use of hegemony hints at agency on the part of the oppressed.

Critics of Scott assert that his model is too simple. Wood (2006) does not dismiss Scott’s definition; however, hegemony is far too complex to isolate resistance and domination from each other. He argues that Scott does not take into account historical/experienced domination and the structures that are in place that prevent collective agency because of an “impaired workers’ senses of themselves” (Wood, 2006, p. 44). While he agrees that there may have been sites of agency, that agency has been limited based on the type of domination experienced which Wood asserts that Scott has oversimplified. Kelley (1992) also hints at the assertion that the public and hidden transcripts are inextricably linked rather than parallel and that he does not address the dynamics that race and gender play.

Written by Anita Mixon (August 2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Hegemony" limit="10"


 *  References **

Borchers, T. A. (2006). Rhetorical Theory: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Cloud, D. L. (1996). Hegemony or concordance? The rhetoric of tokenism in “Oprah” Winfrey’s rags-to-riches biography. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 13(2), 115-137.

Gramsci, A. (2009). Hegemony, intellectuals, and the state. In J. Storey (Ed.), Cultural theory and popular culture: A reader (4th ed.) (pp.75-80). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Hegemony. (n.d.) In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from []

Jasinski, J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kelley, R.G. (1992). An archaeology of resistance. American Quarterly, 44(2), 292.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lentner, H. H. (2005). Hegemony and autonomy. Political Studies, 53(4), 735-752.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lewis, C. (1992). Making sense of common sense: A framework for tracking hegemony. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 9(3), 277-292.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Murphy, J. M. (1992). Domesticating dissent: The Kennedys and the freedom rides. Communication Monographs, 59, 61-78.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Storey, J. (Ed.). (2009). Cultural theory and popular culture: A reader (4th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Trujillo, N. (1991). Hegemonic masculinity on the mound: Media representations of Nolan Ryan and American sports culture. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 290-308.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Wood, A. (2006). Subordination, solidarity, and the limits of popular agency in a Yorkshire valley c. 1596-1615. Past & Present 193(1): 41-72.