Cultural Studies, a phenomenon brought to light by the Jamaican scholar Stuart Hall in the 1980s, allows us to address questions and problems of our world in a critical and academic way. It has become apparent that there is a vast umbrella, which the topics of cultural studies fall under, “cultural studies cannot be said to be anything.” (Barker 2011, 5) The following essay will consider the importance and relevance of two terms, in this case Hegemony and Power, to this broad field of Cultural Studies. It is important, therefore, to seek to decipher what it is we mean by these two intricate words, and find the route of these meanings before learning of their importance within this study.
The notion of cultural hegemony originates from the Italian Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, although hegemony itself can be traced back to the Greeks and their verb hēgéomai, translating to ‘I lead.’ Therefore indicating the rule of one body over another as a concept to govern by. Gramsci further delved into the perplexing meaning of the word and thus formulated the conception that hegemony is, in fact, the dominance of one social class over other, and that this concept regards the relations between people and social groups, rather than “prominent military and political leadership” (Haugaard 2006, 25) as formerly believed it. In terms of media, hegemony refers to the way in which the media oblige society to consent to the norm, or status quo.
Moreover, if we look to Karl Marx to divulge the meaning of power, a particularly hierarchical view is held: that power resides within those who lead, thus those in power, for example, the bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat through the use of the power they supposedly held over the subordinates. (Mokuolu 2013, 52) However, this view was purely economical – “people who possessed power were those who control the means of production.” (Mokuolu 2013, 52)
If we regard the above two interpretations the similarities of the words are indisputable – the hegemonic class hold the power in society, which can be observed within Capitalist ideology and within the media. A hegemonic class, who regulate exactly what we consume, and how it is consumed, control much of what we observe within the media today. The hegemonic class within media, or the culture industry, is so designed that we, as consumers, feel we are in charge, but in fact “any spontaneity from the public…is controlled” (Adorno 1979, 122). Therefore the power of consumption lies in the tight grasp of a small handful of people. Journalists sent to uncover the ‘truth’ of wars are controlled in the media they produce and are given strict guidelines (Mills 2003, 72). Therefore the images, which we perceive to be the truth of conflict, are merely “the result of a very mediated and stage-managed series of negotiations” (Mills 2003, 73). It can be therefore discussed that hegemony is an important term to discuss in this academic field due to its somewhat undetected power over society.
The importance of both hegemony and power to the academic field of Cultural Studies today has been changed and adapted, and this can primarily be accredited to the beliefs voiced by the French philosopher Michel Foucault. Foucault interpreted power in a unique fashion, as he regarded it as “omnipresent” (Taylor 2011, 13) – “coming from everywhere and everything” (Mills 2003, 52). Foucault does not believe that power is possessed by a central governing body, but rather is spread through all levels of society, being regarded as productive, not oppressive, of social relations (Barker 2011, 20). Therefore, that the existence of an all-powerful hegemonic class is fictitious. Thus, power is not deemed to be a “tangible thing that one can gain or lose,” (Mokuolu 2013, 52) it is more “a complex strategical situation in a particular society” (Foucault 1981, 93). This view of power, therefore, encompasses hegemony in a disparate fashion since “hegemonic power works through the social bond” (Lash 2007, 65) and therefore the ruling body or state would not be seen to possess power, but construct relations within the state, which result in the subsequent smooth running of the political system (Mills 2003, 46). However, this interpretation can therefore reveal the inherent instability of power as it becomes vulnerably susceptible to scrutiny, due to its inherent existence in all parts of society and all relations (Mokuolu 2013, 52).
Further, due to power residing in all relations, Foucault argues that power relations are therefore “not separate or external to other types of relations…but are in fact immanent and internal to them” (Mokuolu 2013, 52). Foucault claims that there is a direct correlation between knowledge and power and that “knowledge and power operate almost interchangeably” (O’Farrell 2005, 101). However, although knowledge “acts as the vehicle of power” (Mokuolu 2013, 52), and power resides within all relations, in order for us to consume knowledge and know it as truth “it must be subjected to a thorough process of ratification by those in positions of authority” (Mills 2003, 72). This could, therefore, be considered strict control and rule by the hegemonic class, who must possess some power over the rest of the population. Through this example we can see that one of the original ideas of how hegemonic power is used in society, that “a dominant class wins the willing consent of the subordinate classes” (Fiske 1990, 310), is exercised as practice, since we willingly accept what this hegemonic class deem as the truth. “The fusion of knowledge and power produces truth” (Mokuolu 2013, 52): asserted by the fact that we trust the “isolated creative geniuses” (Mills 2003, 67) who create the knowledge we subsequently accept as fact. Consequently, since it is clear that a dominance of the hegemonic class still exists through knowledge and, ergo, power, both of these terms are still relevant in cultural studies today in order to understand how some cultural practices still have a hold on us.
Furthermore, another observation of hegemony and the hegemonic class in our society today is in fact its “psychological dominance” (Mokuolu 2003, 58) rather than physical dominance over the rest of culture. The modern use of a plethora of CCTV in public areas is an example of the hegemonic class’ psychological dominance over society as we subconsciously behave acceptably as we have knowledge that a higher power has the ability to view the footage captured on these cameras. Society “assumes responsibility for the constraints of power” (Mills 2003, 46). Effectively, we co-operate with hegemony and power as power has become passive, as policemen do not have to be physically present to deter crimes, hence, power is “omnipresent” (Taylor 2011, 15) In this way, hegemony and thus the power of the hegemonic class, can be seen to be important with regards to cultural studies through the subject of identity. This constant monitoring and control can lead to questions about ones self and how they identify – as are you really able to express yourself when you are being controlled by cultural norms? One can never feel fully identified since “identities are always subject to destabilization and radical change” (Cortes-Ramirez 2015, 132) due to hegemonic control as now the “ ‘public’ is identified with ‘State’” (Cortes-Ramirez 2015, 135).
“power produces knowledge” (Foucault 1991, 465)
“Power relations are both intentional and non-subjective; power is always exercised with aims and objectives that, sometimes, even transcend those of the individuals/institutions actually exercising the power” (Mills 2003, 52).