On Hegemony, Post‐Ideology and Subalternity

Abstract

The task of delimiting eras is certainly a difficult one. How and when exactly we say that a certain epoch begins or ends will vary according to the possibility of separating it from some other era. Nevertheless, we are continuously faced with proclamations of new dawns. Recently, there have been claims that we are at present experiencing a 'posthegemonic' period. Though hegemony was once a successful and popular theoretical tool used to explain the structuring of social relations, today, it is said, we find it weak in deciphering contemporary social manifestations. The concept of hegemony, as portrayed by these critics, has become particularly inappropriate to explain social order. I would like to contribute to the debate in response to Jon Beasley-Murray's article 'On Posthegemony' (2003), which raises not only questions concerning hegemony as a theoretical tool, but also implications for a new era. The main argument that Beasley-Murray conveys is that we are entering a 'posthegemonic' period, in which 'the theory of hegemony (as advanced by Antonio Gramsci, and more recently refined and developed by Ernesto Laclan and Chantal Mouffe, and by cultural studies in general) no longer helps to explain contemporary social order' (Beasley-Murray, 2003: 117). Beasley-Murray advances four theses about what is entailed as posthegemony and how it 'has become our lived experience': the decline of ideology; a shift from conscious discourse to unconscious affect; the multitude emerging as the privileged subject of society; which in turn means that organisation has become a central issue. Here I shall question the line of reasoning behind Beasley-Murray's theses by looking at the assumptions and tensions over the main aspects they postulate. In questioning the proclamation of posthegemony, I will basically be defending hegemony as an important theoretical tool to explain socio-political order. The objective of this defence is not to discredit any other theoretical framework within which social formation and social elements can be understood, but just to affirm the potentialities of the concept of hegemony. By way of conclusion, I will add some comments on the nature of subalternity, since this is a central aspect of the debate. I will start by treating the first two theses together, then I will turn to the last two, as the four theses seem to converge into two sets.