After reading both Gareth Williams’s The Other Side of
the Popular: Neoliberalism and Subalternity in Latin America and excerpts
from Jon Beasley-Murray’s Posthegemony: Political Theory and Latin America, I
have noticed important differences in the ways that both writers discuss the
concept of hegemony. While Williams questions
and deconstructs the use of the term hegemony and any kind of hegemonic binary,
Beasley-Murray seems to take Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony and run with
it. In the Introduction of his book, Beasley-Murray
defines his use of the words hegemony and posthegemony as follows:
“By ‘hegemony,’ I do not mean mere domination. To say ‘posthegemony’ is not to say that
domination is at an end. Command and
control, exploitation and oppression, still manifestly continue… Nor by
hegemony do I mean the concept in International Relations of a single dominant
world power. It may be that such a power
no longer exists, but this is more a symptom of posthegemony than the main
issue. By hegemony I mean the notion,
derived from the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, that the state maintains its
dominance (and that of social and economic elites) thanks to the consent of
those it dominates. Where it does not
win consent, this theory suggests, the state resorts to coercion. By contrast, in stressing the role of habit
(rather than opinion) I point to processes that involve neither consent nor
coercion” (x)
Here, Beasley-Murray is defining his use of these words and
fleshing out his perspective on hegemony and posthegemony within the context of
Antonio Gramsci’s model. Clearly, these
terms prove to be productive and useful in Beasley-Murray’s discussion—they form
the foundation for his theory in regards to what he terms as “habit” but also
to his opinions on the larger subjects of power, politics, order, society, etc…
In fact Beasley-Murray goes so far as to admit to advancing the concept and term posthegemony on the next page: “I am
not the only person to have advanced a concept of posthegemony, though this
book is the first to define it at such length and in these terms” (xi). This open agenda runs in sharp contrast to
that of Williams, who problematizes the use of the terms and concepts of
hegemony and posthegemony. Over and over
again Williams shows the instances in which political moments in Latin America
cannot be confined to such terms and binary lines of thinking. Williams problematizes not only the use of
these terms, but the entire approach that such analysis would tend to
advance. Especially in the first section
of his book, “Closure,” Williams provides a long catalogue of failed analyses
of Latin American socio-political life in his quest for a viable discourse and
approach to this subject. The question
that I would posit is this: to what extent are these terms helpful and to what
extent are they stifling? Is there a
possible alternative paradigm that is missing from the equation? What would the alternative look like?
Hi Vanessa- I just wanted to say again how useful and well done your presentation on posthegemony was today. I'm not sure how you would think of Williams versus Beasley-Murray after our class discussion. How the two converged and differed was kind of confusing for me, but they seem to have a similar theme just different focuses or projects.
ReplyDeleteI would say the difference lies within the examples they focus on. I would argue that Beasley-Murray takes the terms as defined by Gramsci to different countries in Latin America, exposing how different each country's relation to its state is. The terms are useful insofar as they can define particularities in each situation.
ReplyDelete