The way in which the organization and mode of functioning have made the capitalistic societies to adapt to new changes has raised concern in political, social movements, and social sciences. The term hegemony was used by Gramsci to refer to the state politics that preserves control by a dominant or leading group on one hand while instituting economic, social, political, and ideological changes on the other. Transformational capitalism lead to the formation of civil societies and subordinate groups that were incorporated into by the dominant project of transformational capitalism in order to prevent the legislation crisis that later contributed to counter-hegemony forces. This essay tries to relate the strategic objectives and the goal of Gramsci’s conceptual hegemony theory and its application to real life situation. In combination of various analytical thoughts of various scholars to explicate the crisis of hegemony and counter-hegemony under transitional capitalism, this essay tries to find out the relationship and the awakening of the transitional capitalism in the society.

Hegemony is defined as the political, cultural, geopolitical, economic, or military dominance or a form of predominant influence practiced by one state or city-state, group or class to rule the other states, groups, or classes for its objectives, values and interests (Chernow and Vallasi 1215). Hegemony is a concept based on the Antonio Gramsci’s theory. Hegemony is mostly expansionism and aggression by large nations to acquire world dominance and supremacy. In Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985), Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Moufe defined hegemony as a political relationship of power, wherein a subordinate society or class performed social tasks that were culturally unnatural and not beneficial to them, but that were in exclusive benefit to then imperial interest of the hegemony.

The hegemonic power or state, or a group ensures that it financially, culturally, militarily, and intellectually finds its way through the target group, state, class, or society to stabilize its power and dominance. There are two intellectual theories that promote hegemony (Gramsci 215). These theories were derived by Antonio Gramsci, who said that all men on earth were intellectuals. His first intellectual theory was to bring a clear distinction between “traditional” and “organic” intellectuals. As for “traditional” intellectuals, they separate themselves from the rest of other classes since they are not interested in other classes that force them to rise in the truth and in the name of reason above topical interests (Gramsci 216). This happens because “traditional” intellectuals are based on institutions of former hegemonic orders. Unlike “traditional” intellectuals, “organic” intellectuals do not venture so much on social life based on scientific rules, but instead, they speak for the interests of specific class through articulations of the ideas that cannot be expressed by the people and try to find a way on how to get the approval to counter-hegemony ambitions and ideas. Through education, Gramsci is interested in formation of intellectuals who will be organic with working class ability. Some intellectuals are there due to academics (Borg et al. 48). Despite the fact that Gramsci is against academics as a way of producing thinkers, he encourages intellectuals from other classes and societies to engage themselves in political activities to enlighten the way education and change are viewed as opposed to the brutality of anti-intellectualism of some societies (Gramsci 56). The non-Marxist theory of intellectuals explains the condition of work and life, and at the same time, it shows the relationship between life and work in politics of truth. This theory was explained by Michel Foucault, who believed in dispersed nature and use of power in modern society and the way knowledge played a role in it (Buttigieg 42).

An example of Gramsci’s idea of hegemony towards his capitalistic state whereby is that his views are on dominant ideology. According to him, the dominant classes tend to incorporate their thoughts and behavior within the limits of their interests. In the capitalistic state, he groups it into two groups that should rule using consent and force (Buttigieg 40). In his capitalistic state, he consolidated it into coercive institutions (political society) and non-coercive institutions (civil society). Political society entails government, armed forces, police, and legislature. Civil society or non-coercive institutions involve systems like churches, family, social clubs, trade unions, and schools. According to Buttigieg, a liberal international economy needs a very strong political leadership by the dominant economic power.

There are numerous institutions that promote hegemony. The International Monetary Funds (IMF), The World Bank and The International Trade Organization like United States Congress should play a role in administration and promotion of the world economy to finance and control the economy of the whole world (Bullock and Trombley 388). This means that they have dominance power over the world. This American system has incorporated both the relationship with Western Europe and the American relationship with Japan, Asia, and China among others, leading to the formation of the Soviet Union (Chernow and Vallasi 182). To some extent, some of the people did not accept the concept of hegemony. Resisting the dominance leadership concept in the family was common because most of the people in the family did not want to share their interests, values, and objectives to their fellow people because they were not interested (Gramci 215). According to some researchers, hegemony is not complete because the societies exercising authority will evidence a number of situations where subordinate groups have resisted the total dominance (Gramsci 440).

Counter-hegemony is defined as the attempts in which people develop ideas and discourse to challenge and comment on the dominant assumptions, beliefs and established patterns of behavior. There are a number of criticisms towards a dominant position such as the Marxists’ and Gramsci’s critiques. A good example here is the anti-globalization movement (Borg et al. 46). Anti-globalization movement is an international social network that obtained a widespread media attraction after protesting against the World Trade Organization in late November and early December 1999 due to its world dominance that increased inequality and poverty. The movement included environmentalists, indigenous rights and land rights activists, trade unionists, anarchists, and organizations that fight for human rights and sustainable development (Cohn 131). Some characteristics distinguish counter-hegemony from hegemony. Among those characteristics is the following one - counter-hegemony undergoes specific transformations in the transition process that requires recalling from the hegemony theory. Another characteristic is that it challenges the dominant assumptions or beliefs.

In conclusion, counter-hegemony is paramount in the family because it helps in reducing poverty and ensuring equality of resources and services. Due to counter-hegemony situation, people are encouraged to share their views, opinions, and objectives to fight hegemony through war as a form of raising awareness (Mertes 39). As long as these persons have unity and support each other, they have the capability of overthrowing the government or the ruling party to avoid mistreatment. Through the anti-globalization movement, many things were put into consideration to reduce the dominance aspect. Through the counter-hegemony concept, the family was able to get the required education that will lead them have good leadership qualities.
The article was written by the https://essays-panda.com/body-paragraph support.

Works Cited

Borg, Carmel, et al. Gramsci and Education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Print.

Bullock, Alan, and Stephen Trombley. Eds. The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. 3d ed. London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999. Print.

Buttigieg, Joseph, A. “The Contemporary Discourse on Civil Society: A Gramscian Critique.” Boundary 2 32.1 (2005): 33–52. Print.

Burawoy, Michael. “For a Sociological Marxism: The Contemporary Convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi.” Politics and Society 31.2 (2005): 193. Print.

Chernow, Barbara and George Vallasi. Eds. The Columbia Encyclopedia. 5th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. Print.

Cohn , Theodore E. Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selection from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971. Print.

Mertes, Tom. A Movement of Movements. London: Verso. 2004 Print.