Sie sind auf Seite 1von 28
The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities T. J. Jackson Lears The American Historical Review, Volume 90, Issue 3 (Jun., 1985), 367-593, Your use of the ISTOR datahase indicates your acceptance of ISTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use. A copy of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use is available at hip:/ewww jstor.ori/ahouvterms hemi, by contacting ISTOR a jstor-into@umich edu, or by calling ISTOR at (888)388-3574, (734}998-9101 or (FAX) (734)998-9113, No part ‘of a STOR transmission may be copied, downloaded, stored, further transmitted, transferred, distributed, altered, or ‘otherwise used, in any form or by any means, except: (1) one stored electronic and one paper copy of any article solely for your personal, non-commercial use, or (2) with prior written permission of ISTOR and the publisher af the article or ather text Each copy of any part of a JSTOR wansmission must contain the same capyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. ‘The American Historicat Review is published by The American Historical Association. Please cantact the publisher for further pecmissions cegarding the use ofthis wark. Publishes contact information may be obtained at butp//ww stor orp/journals/aha hin, ‘The American Historicat Review ©1985 The American Historical Association ISTOR and the ISTOR logo are trademarcs of ISTOR, and are Registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Otte. For more information on ISTOR contact jstar-info@umich.edu, ©2000 ISTOR butp:liwww jstor oral Sun Sep 10 11:48:42 2060 ee The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities OO T. J. JACKSON LEARS ‘TWENTY YEARS AGO THE ITALIAN COMMUNIST Antonio Gramsci was rarely discussed ‘outside his native land; now he has become an intellectual cause célébre and in some quarters a cult hero, Scholars continue to pore over his political journalism and his prison notebooks, reassembling the fragments in hopes of theoretical illumination, Articles and monographs continue 10 multiply. One historian on the Right has conjured up the vision of interdisciplinary programs in Gramsci studies, replete with unreadable journals and reverent textual exegesis. Already, on some European campuses, one poster of the Sardinian hunchback will fetch a whole wall full of Trotskies.? Part of this furor invalves the effort of young intellectuals on the Left to locate 4 moral inspiration. Gramaci’s resistance to Mussolini, his stress on the role of individual action and thought in history, his desixe that workers create their own ‘cultural institutions through devices like Factory councils—all this makes hia an appealing figure. For many he also seems o explain why workers under advanced, capitalism have not behaved the way Marx said they would and (a offer a more successful revolutionary strategy. Yet his work has analytical uses as well, and those are my concern in this essay. I do not mean to turn Gramsci into “the Marxist you can take home to mather."* One cannot ignore his revolutionary vision. But one docs not have to embrace it uncritically to recognize that Gramsci’s social thought contains some remarkably suggestive insights into the question of dominance and subordination in modern capitalist societies. There are intellectual as well s moral and political reasons far the rediscovery of Gramsci. An sate version of his essay was presented atthe Seventy Seventh Antual Mecting ofthe Organization, ‘of American Historians Los Angeles California, Aprl6, 1986.1 amindebd to fra Bern ana Dovey oes, {oe miting ret prevent itandto Thomas Bender and Jahn Carnes far excaoraiatilyhepfol cartes For ache thoughtful ceiicim and advice, Tam gratefol to Karon Pather Lear, Warrea Stam, Richord Wigherean Fox, Dominick LaCapra, David Thelen, Thomas Hoskel, David Hollinger, Lawrence Levine and iy reseurch asian, Terera Prado Torecra " ailecm Kradior, The Radial Peri, 1890-1917: Asa of he naa tory onthe isericgophy of Tiras Ameren Radial Organizations (Baton Rouge, Ln, 181), 3920. 14; and Carls Romano, “Bac Wan Hea Marsist" renew of Arie Showstich Sassoon ed, Appr lo ranse. Vilage Vee, Match 29, S88, B41, For valuable incroductions to Grard, in adeiton to those cted tn the fellowing note, set Joe Cammeu, Anna Gra andthe Origins of Petia Consniatin (Sanford, Cal. 1957), Pham: Nests Grass Pls A Crs Std (Sussex. Roglnd, 1980), and Alea Havson, Ana Cnc Tooarde 2H Itt! Broo (Landon. 1970, S homano, “Bue Was Hea Mate? 41, 567 568 B,J. Jackson Lears Gramsci’s most interesting ideas cluster around the concept of cultural he- _gemony, which he used to address the relation between culture and power under ‘apitalistn, [ will explore the implications of those ideas for historians but do not pretend to give a comprehensive account of Gramsc’s voluminous, chaotic, and mostly untranslated writings. Many scholars are far more qualified than [ara for that ask, and they are hard at work. To me, Gramsci's work suggests starting points for rethinking some fundamental issues in recent interpretations of American history. Studies of Gramsci have nearly always characterized his work as an effort 10 loosen the rigidities of orthodox Marxism, The characterization is accurate, but it leaves the impression that Gramsci’s work is relevant only to self-consciously Marxist scholars, Actually, Gramsci can inspire fresh thought in historians from a variety of intellectual traditions, By clarifying the political functions of culeural symbols, the concept of cultural hegemony can aid intellectual historians trying to understand how ideas reinforce or undermine existing social structures and social historians seeking to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the power wielded by dominant groups and the relative cultural autonomy of subordinate groups whom they victimize, In short, Gramsc’s work, hesides ventilating the ‘Marxist tradition, provides a theoretical framework and a vocabulary for under- standing historiographical problems that have asserted themselves with spec force during the last fifteen years. GRAMSCI'S TRANSLATED WRITINGS CONTAIN no precise definition of cultural hegemony. What comes closest is his oftea-quoted characterization of hegemony as “the ‘spontaneous’ consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is ‘historically’ caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production." To have Gramsci “define” the concept in this way is merely to begin Unraveling its significance, The process sounds mechanical: ruling groups impose a direction on social life; subordinates are manipulatively persuaded to board the “dominant fundamental” express Tc would be a mistake, chough, to rest with chat conclusion. The concept of cultural hegemony can only be understood within a variety of historical and incellectual contexts. To rely ona single “definition” is misleading, To give Gramsci his due, we need first to recognize that the concept of hegemony has litle meaning unless paired with the nation of domination, For Gramsci, consent and force nearly always coexist, though one or the other predominates. The tsarist regime, for example, ruled primarily through domination—that is, by monopolizing the instruments of coercion. Among parliamentary regimes only the weakest are forced to rely on domination; normally they rule through hegemany, even though * Grams, Sens fiom the Pith Notebs, ed and tran. Quensin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York 1971), 12

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen