Matthew Ordonez POS 131 Reflection Paper #counterhegemony Gramscian Hegemony in the information Age

February 28, 2012 Ms. Carmel Abao

The Gramscian theory of hegemony seems to complicate the possibility of one man realizing the Alexandrian desire for global imperialism as many have throughout history. In reading Gramscian historicism, one would see the shifts in the currency of power from sheer military power to profound social and economic changes in civil society. Coxs reading and translation of Gramscian Hegemony into the field international relations has loyally demonstrated Gramscis historicism filled with empirical historical anecdotes. He references several types of power struggles throughout political eras across history such as the Imperial struggles with caesarism, and Napoleanic strategies, the French and Bolshevik revolutions, up to the more recent struggles between East and West world orders in the cold war(p.54-55). While Robert Cox skillfully connects Gramscian theory with todays modern international relations, times have still radically changed since the writing of his piece. One may ask if the emergence of new media technology and globalization in todays world would either validate Gramscis theory as still relevant or dismiss it as obsolete. I argue, however that the aforementioned phenomena along with recent events have only enriched the theory even more. By the grace of the internet, each person with internet access is connected to any other person in the world. As the currency of power changes, so does the scope of dominion a hegemony may have as well as the complexity of the process in obtaining it. Gramsci confirms this when he says that the movement of hegemony is a passage from the structure to the sphere of complex superstructures (p.57). Simply put, for Hegemony to be established, it must be universally integrated into capillaries of daily life. Political power, in a sense, lies in affecting the machinery peoples interaction. Culture has never been more accessible for manipulation with the advent of social networking sites vis-vis images, blogs, memes all of which can subtly affect the youth even in their political perception. Another characteristic in Gramscian Hegemony is the fact that concentration of power no longer comes from individuals but classes and parties with specific interests, ideologies, and institutions that need to be built upon and elaborated. It would not be a Gramscian analysis if it didnt involve groups, and parties in civil society . Gramsci derives their importance from the Machiavellian view of power as a centaur but translating each part of the creature in terms of social movement, the coercive war of movement and the consensus building war of position(p.52-53). These two movements highlight the importance of civil society both how states can advance or defend itself in Gramscian class warfare. The explicit expansion in the war of movement is no longer sufficient. Here lies the role of organic intellectuals, who propagate the mental images, technologies and organizations which bind together the members of a class and of an historic bloc into a common identity (p.57). Ideas or mental images become the new currency of power age of information technology Within the last decade, the world has experienced several crises ranging from terrorism, war, market failures and just last year almost the end of the European Union. It has been exhaustively repeated by students of globalization, particularly sympathizers of Fukuyama that the time of the stable NationState has come to an end. As manifestations of systems failing gradually increase, so do the emergence of counter-hegemonic ideas, movements, characters and events almost in a dialectical manner. In conjunction with the advent of new media, several counter-hegemonic movements have been spawned as well such as the London riots from BBM , Occupy movements from Twitter , Wikileaks from Wikipedia and the Arab Spring using various media. Whether all of these movements can be considered as part of a genuine historical bloc is still arguable. However these are still effective manifestations on how ideas can easily be disseminated to organize a cause against the established orders. Leaders and individuals the catalyzed these movements can no longer be identified with the exception of William Lasange of Wikileaks. While these movements have been quick to gain numbers, they seem to lack sustainability enough to grab power and establish a new hegemony. The speed of an idea circulating

throughout cyberspace may have been misinterpreted as ripeness for a revolution. In many of the examples, the war of movement overtook the war of position for these movements to gain a lasting base in civil society despite the ideal being a more balanced approach. Despite the various dramatic events that came to pass that seemed capable of forever changing the world, Robert Coxs Gramscian advice would still resonate in hindsight of all the social movements that arose: only changes, and a war of position involves building up the socio-political base for change through the creation of new historic blocs. All these movements from social media, Arab Spring, Occupy and the London riots, were too dispersed and isolated in their to have lasting structural change. Yet the spirit of revolution is particularly strong as a middle-Eastern despots are being overthrown one by one ( ex. Egypt, and Libya). As successful as they maybe , the potential strength of these movements may still be maximized if a Modern Gramscian Prince or a political party can rally the marginalized peasants and the periphery( p.65). This speed of these movements is not conducive to this formation. Social Media may seem like an ideal tool for a war of position however new ideas circulate rapidly and may be easily replaced in the peoples minds. Continuous consensus building and dialogue is still idea for genuine counter-hegemony rather than counter-hegemony as fashionable trends on twitter or facebook. Thus I end with Coxs last words in his text on changing the world: the task of changing world order begins with a long, laborious effort to build new historic blocs within national boundaries.(p.65) Source: Cox, Robert. "Gramsci, Hegemony, and International relations." MIllenium:Journal of Internaitonal Studies. 12. no. 2 (1983): 49-65.