Talk:Hegemony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Hegemony, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Perhaps adding the concept of hegemony in international relations theory would be a great addition. The school of Offensive Realism has hegemony as its dominant concept.

I'll work over the next couple days to gather my IR notes and try and type something that's coherent.

Contents

[edit] Strict Definition of Hegemony

The use of the actual definition should be used in its central definition. It is also used as a political buzz word, like "racism", "fascism", "chauvinism", and "imperialism", in political diatribe involving examples that don't represent its actual meaning. The derivatives shold get their own pages, along with an explanation of the use or misuse of the word by the theorists that are expounding it.

A true Hegemony is led by a Hegemon, a senior state that acts as the organizer or ruler of an alliance of states that may be composed of willing or coerced members. The Western NATO, SEATO, and CENTO alliances (with the U.S. as the major power) opposing the Warsaw Pact alliance (with Russia as its dominant power) during the Cold War are good examples. Hotspur23

[edit] Hegemonization

I noticed this term is not mentioned in this article anywhere, referring to the (basically) effect of 'mentally enslaving' a group to an ideal to the point where they oppose counter-ideals by themselves. 218.214.138.11 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write about it, but please attribute the information to reliable sources. This article desperately needs referenced fact. Ichibani 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[Editorial suggestion for the following...hegemonization is noun NOT a verb] Not sure the verb "hegemonization" is necessary, but it might be helpful expansion nonetheless. A more serious prpobem is the confusion in the current definition around force: the point of ideology and hegemony is that neither need force at all -- in fact where there is coercion, it is not hegemony or ideology.

An important additional contribution would be to show the difference of hegemony from ideology (as in Raymond Williams excellent chapter in 'Marxism and Literature,' as well as his entries in 'Keywords'. 66.65.115.8 00:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)JBroughton


No such thing as "fact" in social theory.

[edit] "protective right-to-work laws"

controversial right-to-work laws are matter-of-factly described as "protective"

unsigned one, they certainly make union membership more "voluntary", which is the issue in the context in which it is used. Whether they can really protect one in an environment of social ostracism is a matter of how well this and other laws are enforced.--Silverback 15:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
that's the pro-"right-to-work" version of things - it's a single perspective on a controversial issue that's mostly irrelevant to the main article - and it's presented in a manner that gives no indication that not everyone sees it that way. it's unnecessary and one-sided. there should at least be some sort of an indication that a very different view exists, in which "right-to-work" laws are harmful anti-worker legislation masquerading as some sort of counter-hegemonic intervention. really, any sort of sign that "protective" is a very, very controversial descriptor for these laws would be a good thing.

[edit] Merge

Projection of force should be merged here. -St|eve 20:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. The idea of force projection is different in many examples. The Yangtze Patrol of the U.S. Navy before World War II was not hegemony. Projection of force is the ability to realistically sustain or threaten the use of force at a distance from the main country. It is a component of hegemony, but not exclusive of it.--Mtnerd 23:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


I think the implied use of force would be hegemonic, but the actual threat wouldn't be hegemonic. Hegemony is much too subtle to be overt, so the US hegemony in North America is sound, whereas it is attempting to build it in the Middle East, and therefore doesn't have hegemony there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.185.185 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation would be nice.

Someone has added a pronounciation in a rather disjointed way - and it's not obviously the correct pronounciation anyway. I agree pronounciation would be nice, but done more thoughtfully than this 129.67.2.244 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Not sure that Wiktionary has it any better...

I suggest something like: (pronounced hi jem΄ ə nē, hej΄ ə mō΄nē, hē΄ jə mō΄ nē)

Samatva 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

həˈjemənē; ˈhejəˌmōnē

[edit] moved...

Moved to here: to be written: the idea of "hegemony" in Marxist theory.. 212.44.19.62 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed...

I've removed pronounced he-JEH-min-ee pending decent writeup, probably at the start. 212.44.19.62 12:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A little less slanted, please"

This article does not meet the wikipedia standards of objectivity. The assertion that common sense notions of social values can be identified as the Marxist Gramsci's theory, but cannot simply be stated at the opening of the article as if this were undisputed. A little more historical background to the ground of the concept, starting with the Athenian Hegemony, would also be usful.


It's a little hard to believe that someone hasn't included Rome as a hegemon in the history section. Is there a reason this obvious and probably most prototypical example is not included?

The article awaits the results of your broad reading and sense of balance.--Wetman 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Rome could certainly be described as a hegemon before the dissolution of the Latin League in 338 BC, but when people think of Rome they generally think of the later imperial power, so I don't think the addition would be helpful. Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Sentence

This opening sentence isn't clear:

Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group.

I still don't know what Hegemony is. I have no clue what it is getting at, other than powergrasping. JoeSmack Talk 07:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way I think of it is that a society becomes so great, either culturally (Rome), militarily (British Empire) or socially (USA maybe?) that other people want to join or ally with that society. There is a lot of confusion about the Roman expansion where people think that a lot of the territory was conquered by the military - when in fact, outside cultures jumped at the chance to call themselves Roman and the movement of troops through the territory was a mere formality - because the cultural impact of calling oneself 'Roman', and all the benefits and power associated with that title, were very very seductive. Boris_Johnson did a fantastic series for the BBC where he discussed this very aspect of the Roman Empire, but I don't think he referred to it as a hegemony.
Also, the Catholic church could be used as an example of a religious hegemony, and the EEC/EU as an economic one?
My understanding of Johnson's series and book is that he discusses Rome under Augustus. By this time "Rome" was definitely an Empire rather than a Hegemon leading subordinate states. From reading reviews of his book, I am also sceptical of his use of history, but I'm reserving final judgment on that until I read it myself. Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed the opening paragraph to something more clear, without changing much more than grammar. What I did remove was this: "It controls the ways that ideas become "naturalized" in a process that informs notions of common sense." It was bolded, which lends to importance, but really I don't see it contributing to the definition, let alone the lead-in to the article. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Davinatorially

What the heck does "davinatorially" mean in the opening sentence ("often davinatorially pronounced...)? I have searched and searched and can't even find any uses of this word on Google. Is this an attempt to sound smart, or does it actually have a practical use here? -- Renesis (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the user might have been trying to reference a particular type of book louse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Liposcelis+divinatorius
I can't be sure though. It is interesting that this is the only page in Google to reference that "word." That in and of itself is an impressive accomplishment. =) --Yock 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RV Pseudo Pedantic Vandalism

removed:

Throughout what University of Pennsylvannia business professor Roland Barthes describes as the "ninety-degree angles of davinatorial history" in his book Hegemony is from Mars, And Sexy" (1994)'

appears to be no such book,.

That's really funny re Roland Barthes! Keep it in just for the smiles? I creased myself. 66.65.115.8 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)JBroughton

[edit] Erosion of text

The following proposed changes introduce looser grammar and thought, and reject a useful idea that is part of the effective definition of hegemony, of what it is and how it functions in the evolution of the ideas called "common sense":

Old version: "...the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group. Hegemony controls the ways that ideas become "naturalized" in a process that informs notions of common sense.
The italicized sentence has been suppressed in the proposed text; it describes a familiar effect of cultural hegemony, which apparently needs expanding to render it more obvious. Editors shouldn't cut ideas because they don't understand them.
Proposed version: "This can be advantageous in ways such as the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage. In an even more broad sense, hegemony can even result in cultural perspectives becoming skewed to favor the dominant group."
This has a floating antecedent; in ways such as is a disimprovement; more broad does not improve broader; the last thought was apparently obscure, so I suggest this revision: "The cultural control that hegemony asserts even affects commonplace patterns of thought: hegemony controls the ways that new or introduced ideas become "naturalized" or are rejected, in a process that subtly informs notions of common sense." Any objections? --Wetman 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Before I get into other parts of the lead in, lets fix the last sentence which i don't understand (er, or it's inferred as such).

"The cultural control that hegemony asserts affects commonplace patterns of thought: hegemony controls the way new ideas are rejected or become naturalized in a process that subtly alters notions of common sense in a given society."

'new or introduced' is redundant. 'even' is cruft. removed the -s at the end of 'ways': there is only one way for both being rejected and being naturalized (as in, it happens or it doesn't). the quotes around 'naturalized' aren't necessary. switched 'naturalized' and 'rejected' to make grammatical flow a little nicer to the reader. removed unecessary comma. changed 'informs' to 'alters', which is a little more pragmatic. added 'in a given society' unless that isn't the correct bounds for this definition. how do you feel about this new one? JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I really enjoyed your user page. ;)
Due to no objections I am implimenting this sentence. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] definitions of hegemony

seems to me the definition to date fails to account for non-national hegemony - where, for example, is mention of the ideological hegemony that is capitalism? this isn't an american hegemony tho america is the greatest force in it and produces great cultural effects through it. the EU, cited as a competing hegemony with the US is part of a greater capitalist hegemon as is china and russia and india and just about anywhere outside of north korea and myanmar. even countries living in near autarky are respondent to - almost governed by - the external forces of capitalism. the oil regime and iran or venezuala for example. capitalism as the only present hegemony, led culturally and legally and militarily by the US. discuss.

[edit] POV addition

i reverted this passage from the article:

The catholic church is the greatest example of hegemony in the history of the world. They have trampled and killed off any other race, culture, religion which disagreed with them. Reducing some entire civilizations to nothing but a few pieces of pottery. They enslaved and tortured people in order to make them submit.They attempted near genocide of the Muslim population during the crusades. With extreme violence,money, and about a thousand years of propaganda they have convinced a serious amount of the population that the world is only 4,000-6,000 years old which is preposterous. And though modern science proves them wrong on every point it has become such an inbred disease that many unfortunate souls believe such garbage. Adolf Hitler commended them with highest praise for their unshakable foundation. He called his empire the Third Reich after the Roman Catholic church (being the First Reich)and patterned his use of propaganda with what he learned from them. The Roman Catholic Church made the first ever recorded account of propaganda when They planted a piece of wood to be found later and falsely claimed to be part of the Jesus crucifix.Their history is filled with atrocities against humanity from the crusades to the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem witch trials yet no one questions their history their present state or how they came to be so powerful. The Vatican has more gold art and money than some small countries and while poeple starve the world over they do nothing. So I ask how much gold would Jesus horde. Their presence and influence is second to none.Many people from all countries, religions, and backgrounds get married every single day yet they believe they own the institution of marriage and deny certain groups from getting married. This to me is a major hate crime but no one would dare question the so called word of God. this is ridiculous this is unbelievable this is hegemony at it's finest.

it feels extreme POV to me, talk it out here if you feel differently. JoeSmack Talk 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following passage.

Today's most dominant hegemony is constituted of the dominant classes of the United States, consisting of the more powerful politicians and government bureaucrats, international corporations, and military. This hegemony is maintained by global media corporations (such as Time-Warner, Newscorp, etc), by international trade agreements and financial institutions (such as the WTO and the World Bank), and by military and monetary support given to other states by the United States government.

Seems like extreme POV, but correct me if I'm wrong. Ichibani 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is non-NPOV, but I think that removing it outright is a little extreme. There is a certain amount of American hegemony in the world today. SirBob42 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally agree that there is considerable American hegemony. However, this statement is definitely very vindictive and contains almost no objective information; rewording it could not remove the POV, which is portrayed by the choice of information. The paragraph that this one was after ("Since the end of the Cold War...") would no doubt benefit from elaboration on how America is a hegemony (or at least a pointer to the source discussing it), particularly with a solid source. Ichibani 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Many argue that there is an American Hegemony since the end of the cold war (and even beginning since after WOII), though people may also argue that it ended at 9/11 2001. The world is more multipolar now (EU, India, China, Brazil, Russia) and the war in Iraq damaged the appreciation of the US on the world stage considerably, to the effect that they may have lost influence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.244.192.155 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is practically fact that there is American Hegemony. The problem is that this article isn't describing hegemony -- its meaning as well as its ongoing history -- but is trying to criticize hegemony as imperialism. As related as the two may or may not be, the spin it's putting on the topic is in violation of Wikipedia's policy for neutral point of view. Focusing on the US hegemony simply compounds that effect as it is synthesizing criticism of the US. Verifiable criticisms of U.S. hegemony may at some point in the future be a constructive addition to this article, but right now they wouldn't improve it at all. Ichibani utc 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For another POV, I've added an External Link to an essay in the New York Times which discusses declining American hegemony. I have no idea how long the NYT will allow free reading. --Marcusiologist (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

This article completely lacks references and presents a negative connotation POV. Particularly seeing as the word hegemony is thrown around a lot in a editorials and international political contexts, this is not acceptable. Most of the article needs to be rewritten with information from a reliable source. Ichibani 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. The article initial definition of the term is barely comprehensible and does little to enlighten the reader to the meaning of the term. This is then followed by a high degree of POV and a strong ideological bias. Additionally, considering how frequently this term is used in post-modern academia, there are frightfully few references noted.--Turtle585 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's just plain incorrect, let alone biased. This isn't an article about hegemony in context - it's been crafted into rhetoric about imperialism and a theoretical analysis of negative impacts of colonialism in history. Cyril Washbrook 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have edited the introduction to the article. Discussion welcome. Cyril Washbrook 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Is Not a Dictionary

Does this article really belong in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hegemony is a historical phenomenon, like extinction or diplomacy; its course can be traced, as can the usage and changing concept of the term: the history of ideas is the last kind of history to be grasped. Perhaps it's a stretch for the average Wikipedian. --Wetman (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no mention of the British Empire?

Is it not strange that the largest empire in history, longest surviving post-Roman empire, and creator of industrialization and almost everything in the modern world is not mentioned? That such an empire is not even mentioned on an article about hegemony yet such empires as the Dutch Empire gets a whole paragraph is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Signsolid (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why this article needs overhauled - this user has not understood what is meant by hegemony at all. I mean no offence by this, but that is empire building, not hegemony, which is entirely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

During the time of the British Empire, from the Napoleonic Wars to the First World War Great Britain was by far the world's most powerful country with an empire consisting for 25% of the world's land and 25% of the world's people and a navy larger than the next 2 largest navies combined so no I don't think I had misunderstood. Great Britain from 1801-1918 was the greatest global hegemony the world has ever seen yet the article never even mentions Great Britain. Examples of just what a huge effect British hegemony during the 19th and early 20th century still have to this day can be found even here on a large scale with the English language being used on here, the modern internet being a British invention, modern encyclopaedias derived from Encyclopedia Britannica, the factories computers are built in are a result of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, and even the computer itself can be said to be a British invention from British Second World War code breaking machines. So almost every aspect of using Wikipedia can be said to be an effect of the huge influence Great Britain has had on the world and that's just taking Wikipedia as one example of many. Signsolid (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. "It is used broadly to mean any kind of dominance, and narrowly to refer to specifically cultural and non-military dominance, as opposed to the related notions of empire and suzerainty." Suprisingly, it would seem the British Empire was an empire. Geno-Supremo (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany?

Why is it that in the introduction 'united Germany that has existed from 1871 to 1945 and from 1990 onwards.' listed without periods that it was a potential hegemon? France is listed with qualifications, and the introduction has no mention of the fact that the US is a unipolar power and is the subject of debate as to whether or not it is hegemonic or merely hegemonistic. 121.45.79.222 (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted both Napoleonic France and Prussia/Hitlerian Germany. Although both conquered territory, I know of no credible claims that their rule was accepted by those that they dominated. If anyone wants to put them back, they better have good citations. To descibe any state as a "potentially hegemon" or "hegemonistic" is editors' opinion and offends WP:OR. Unless a notable citation can be produced. --Red King (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a longer summary of the Kissinger citation, please? I can see why he would say the text quoted for the period 1870 to 1945, but I strongly doubt the 1990s claim since one of the founding purposes of the Treaty of Rome was to contain any hegemonic impulses among its signatories. Kissinger would certainly have known that. --Red King (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Hegemony in fiction" et al.

These are all Science Fiction examples. This should at least read "Hegemony in SCIENCE fiction". And how does this flow from the classical and neo-Marxist perspective. Really.

BTW, I'm impressed with the quality of the critique so far.

However from a practical viewpoint of someone trying to use these ideas - who themselves will be in a hegemony, I think you are all being quite prudish & harsh.

Does anyone have an issue with the articles concretisation to assist understanding of the abstract??:

"The processes by which a dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition."

The fact that the hegemon determine what is thought of by the subjugated as commonsense, and they automatically defend the hegemon's position is the core modern theme here. The more important fact which no commentator has discussed is why this subjugation happens. What advantage do the dominated gain to permit them to offer no resistance? A provocative example of this is the question "When is slavery a better alternative?" (Jay, 2008)

Isn't there a historical AND critical social theory aspect to be explored? Adhart81 (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)