Political hegemony is a new subject to me. Hegemony, in my own words, is when a subordinate group actually admits that they are inferior compared to the superior group making them feel that way. Political hegemony seems similar, but relates more to a political group, or groups. It seems that a big idea or theme in both readings was “hegemony”. Antonion Gramsci defines political consciousness as, “Consciousness is being a part of a particular hegemonic force” (67). In some ways I agree and in some ways I disagree. I agree that the “critical understanding of self” can take place through a struggle of political hegemonies. I disagree that this is the only place that it can happen. I agree that in order to be a part of a hegemonic force you have to be aware that you are AND you have to accept that you are the inferior part of that force. So, being conscious in that scenario is necessary in order for it to be hegemonic.
Michel Foucault believes that “political problems of intellectuals [is] not in the terms of ‘science’ and ‘ideology’, but in terms of ‘truth’ and ‘power’” (42). The idea of truth is very important in this reading. It is almost as if truth leads to the notion of power, or even gives you more power. In regards to hegemony he said that it is important to “detach the power of truth from the forms of hegemony…” (43). To me this means that the idea of truth is too powerful when in contact with something so strong like hegemony. These two practices bunched together can make it sway out of control. Within this chaos, someone could take advantage of this power. The production of truth seems to be the true problem highlighted in this reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment