Domination and subordination are often seen as coming about through physically violent means. When we see for instance depictions of dominance we envision perhaps a slave owner lashing a slave or a man physically restraining or harming a woman. To subordinate could then be defined as the ends that dominance requires, as a physically harmful act. Marxist Antonio Gramsci wrote about domination and subordination not exactly as physically violent. Of course, power dominates through bodily violence but it can also and perhaps more effectively achieve its end, namely of a subordinated mass, through a far more implicit almost trivial form of violence. This violence does not take the form of the whip, the baton, or the stock of a rifle, but instead, it actively engages as much as it suppresses.

Gramsci calls this hegemony, which we can see explored in one of the many texts he wrote whilst in an Italian Fascist prison; The Formation of Intellectuals.  He starts off with a question and it is quite a provocative question we must all ask ourselves. Are the people who “know” more or who are more “qualified” than us simply just that, or are they part of a bigger socioeconomic context? Gramsci, the great Marxist that he is, sees intellectuals in a bigger picture. He speaks particularly of ‘ idealist’ philosophers and how they saw themselves as “ ‘independent’, autonomous, endowed with a character of their own,etc”. These are the “traditional class’  of intellectuals which operate outside the bounds of dominant culture, in the sense that they do not particularly belong to a specific class, rather they are remnants of previous historical stages. They are not instrumental to any productive class, whilst the ‘organic’ intellectuals are exactly that.

The organic intellectual does not belong to an ahistorical elite but emerges from contingent productive classes. Take doctors or lawyers, who emerge from certain classes. In this sense, the ‘organic intellectual’ has a much more vested interest in the furtherment of its own class rather than their individual selves. These processes are of course not the ‘natural way’ of things exactly, but they are integral parts of the formation of intellectuals and social classes. Gramsci clarifies this when he says “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals” and then states “homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens”. The separation or differentiated “intellectual”, the maker and the thinker are one in the same. Similar to Marx’s famous declaration that;

 “While in communist society…each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic”(Marx 1845).

Yet with the division of labor and specialized labor, we see that this goal of Marx is skewed. That there are so many fields that are created in which intellectuals burrow into, that many a person are made to be “experts” or “specialist” in this or that, leads to as Gramsci says“Vast cries of unemployment for the middle intellectual strata, and in all modern society this takes place” (Gramsci 934). For Gramsci it could be seen how the intellectuals are imperative for hegemony. He says that hegemony creates two levels of society; that of the state and that of “civil society”, which is the sphere concerning the relations of individual subjects. The intellectual serves the ‘subaltern function’ meaning they dictate what discourse can be brought about. In other words, the intellectuals, referring back to our traditional conception of violence, coerce the subjugated masses (workers and non-intellectuals) to accepting certain ideas as natural. In this way, violence is not connected brutally but consistently, as certain ideas are wrenched from the minds of the masses, before they could even be allowed to be conjured. Gramsci lays it out wonderfully when he says of these ‘subaltern functions’ ;

“1. 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… 2. The apparatus of state coercive power which ‘legally’ enforces discipline on those groups who do not consent either actively or passively” (Gramsci 935).

One can see this perhaps most brazenly in something like the U.S. judicial system where laws are bound “by unalienable, god-given rights”. These things are positioned as natural and innate fibers of American society, most people agree to not kill other people, to drive according to traffic laws, to steal, etc, because it has been generally ‘consented upon’ by the masses. Coercively might I add, but it is justified by certain ideals or figures. Hegemony is not just about predominant ideologies, it is not simply about values, but about a self-regulatory subjugation. A slave who’s chains appear to be a part of our very hands.

Note:

All though I did not delve too deeply into this idea of “unskilled labor” which Gramsci briefly talks about in the text, I would like to direct anyone who is interested in the topic and particularly on a certain discourse being had on this idea that there are “unskilled” laborers to this great video made by one of my favorite theory video essayist. Give it a watch 🙂 :

The Proletariat and the Problem of Unproductive Labor

No Description

In “Marxism and Literature”, Raymond Williams expands upon Anthony Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. The initial or more conventional definition of this word involves relations between states, where one state rules over another (108). Gramsci’s conception of hegemony pertains to elements of social, cultural, and political forces which lead to effective coercion of the masses indirectly through concentrated power and domination. Through a Marxist lens, the definition illustrates interactions between social classes, where a ruling or dominant class shapes the culture of that society. A concept meant to be purely political has now extended into the social sphere and aspects of everyday life, creating an intense imbalance between classes within a capitalist state. It also asserts that the ruling class is a uniform and indivisible faction of society. This imbalance shapes the culture of the society it is within, normalizing capitalist values that ultimately exploit the lowest denomination of that society.

Hegemony goes beyond Marx’s initial portrait of idealogy. While ideology may be seen as something only inside your head or within class parameters, it can affect every aspect of that society and culture. Williams brings up an important point, where the upper class just has a certain ideology as a result of their own lived experiences and values, whereas the lower class has nothing but the ideology of the upper class, which shapes practices in everyday life. The ideology of the ruling class is more widely accepted as a form of “culture”, presenting the idea that the ideals of the dominant are the only way toward the cultural formation. Williams describes hegemony as a “realized complex of experiences, relationships, and activities, with specific and changing pressures and limits” (112). While hegemony is not an established system like capitalism, it serves as an example of ideals put in place by fixed systems that can inform our everyday lives and how we see ourselves and others. The class that is most affected by this concept (the subordinate class) struggles to break away. Williams also reminds us that both hegemony and the ruling class are ever-changing processes that have “continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified” (112).  In modern times, the ruling class is no longer as uniform as it once was during the time of Karl Marx. He also argues that it may be a bit restrictive to only think of culture and society strictly in terms of hegemony and that it should be adapted to more modern everyday practices.

 Marx’s way of thinking about ideology is “men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura.” Where he compares ideology being a “camera obscura” because ofits “phenomenon arises” as a literal of a “dark chamber” and the history on how it processes in their “physical life-process.”  Ideology is like a camera obscura because of the use of lens that goes through the image projected it “the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process”(pg#660). The secret from another of Marx’s metaphors of “Hieroglyph” do to what bound up commodity from Where then the secret is that “Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as lan-guage”(pg#670). Marx explains the bound in commodity that scientist  had found “the products of labour, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production”.These products indeed have an “epoch in the history of the development of the human race, but, by no means, dissipates the mist through which the social character of labor appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves”(pg#670). On how Robinson Crusoe thought about commodity and market-based that “as commodation, and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of commodities, have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of social life, before man seek to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning”(pg#671).  Where the prices that are analyzed determine that magnitude of value and the “common expression” this forms of production and exchange of examples that will allow Marx to to show the types of productions it has and how they function and how it will help them know about the production. “The fact, that in the particular form of production with which we are dealing, viz., the production of commodities, the specific social character of private labour carried on independently, consists in the equality of every kind of that labour, by virtue of its being human labour, which character, therefore, assumes in the product the form of value-this fact appears to the producers, notwithstanding the discovery above referred to, to be just as real and final, as the fact, that, after the discovery by science of the component gases of air, the atmosphere itself remained unaltered”. As well as to how it says that “These different articles are, as regards the family, so many products of it’s labour, but as between themselves, they are not commodities.” Which makes these labour function as a family as a society. The production of commodities as “possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labour”

Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric combines and redeems the terms “procedure” and “rhetoric” to explain how interactive rules and systems are used in video games to persuade players and affect their thoughts and actions. His framework acknowledges the special qualities of video games as a medium for communication and persuasion, expanding the concept of rhetoric beyond conventional forms. Bogost extends the definition of procedure beyond what is typically thought of to include the systems, rules, and algorithms that control how a game is played. He argues that policies are not neutral; rather, they represent ideas, values, and beliefs. According to Bogost, a game’s mechanics and rules themselves can represent a certain viewpoint or argument. For example, a game that mimics a specific political or social structure subtly conveys information about that system through the player’s experience. Beyond only persuading players intellectually, video games can also affect their actions and behaviors within the game environment. This can also apply to forming viewpoints and attitudes that they carry with them outside of the gaming environment. He discusses the daily life simulator “Animal Crossing’s seemingly straightforward and lighthearted gameplay and illustrates how its underlying themes and mechanics provide players the chance to consider a variety of life, society, and global issues. The “Bells” that are used as cash are the center of the in-game economy. This simulates real-world economic ideas and might make players consider wealth, consumption, and materialism-related issues. By helping players obtain house loans, the character Tom Nook introduces the idea of debt. Despite its lighthearted presentation, it might make players consider their actual financial obligations and the effects of debt on their lives. “Animal Crossing’s underlying themes and mechanics provide players the chance to consider a variety of life, society, and global issues. The allure of the game as a mode is its capacity to elicit thought without being preachy, letting users make their own links between the virtual environment and the more tangible situations they encounter.

One of my favorite games to discuss is Silent Hill 2. The game centers around James Sunderland, who gets an invitation to see his late wife Mary in the town of Silent Hill via letter. The problem is that Mary died three years before the game’s events. James visits Silent Hill, which is enveloped in a dense fog and a foreboding gloom, feeling intrigued and bewildered. He comes across unsettling animals and terrifying settings that make him question his sanity. The story reveals layers of psychological trauma, shame, and suppressed memories as James explores Silent Hill further. The characters’ unresolved traumas and inner demons appear to be reflected in the community. The decisions the player takes during the game impact the story, resulting in a variety of endings that present various angles on James’s adventure and the town’s evil influence. Deeply exploring the psychological and emotional dimensions of loneliness and hopelessness is Silent Hill 2. The game’s characters battle their inner demons and anxieties. James’s sense of guilt and his desire for atonement are at the center of the story. The town of Silent Hill represents his guilt-ridden brain and subconscious. As according to Ian Bogost, “Silent Hill 2” uses procedural rhetoric by influencing players’ opinions and delivering persuasive messages through the game’s interactive features. The game’s several endings, which are determined by decisions made by the player during the story, provide an argument against the objectivity of guilt, atonement, and the results of one’s deeds. It invites players to consider their choices by implying that moral decisions may affect the story’s resolution. Players are encouraged to interpret the plot in various ways due to the narrative’s ambiguity and open-ended nature. This procedural decision supports the characters’ subjective experiences and allows for individual introspection and interpretation. Through the ambiguity of the story, the flexibility of character interpretations, and the moral ramifications of the player’s decisions, the game subtly pushes players to consider the validity of its processes. In addition to provoking psychological terror, Silent Hill 2’s procedural rhetoric invites players to consider the nature of guilt, the intricacies of interpersonal relationships, and the subjectivity of reality.

1. AG argues that “traditional” intellectuals are distinguished, in part, by an “esprit de corps,” a sense of themselves as “autonomous and independent.” Why is this? What is the basis for this collective sense?
2. On p. 932, AG asserts that “homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens.” What does this mean? How does Gramsci link thinking with working? What implications does this have for Gramsci’s definition of “intellectual” as a social type?
3. Why, for AG, can intellectual no longer be defined in terms of “eloquence”? What is the new ground AG suggests for defining the intellectual?
4. Why are education and educational institutions so crucial to modern society, according to Gramsci? What would AG think about Hunter College? CUNY? Your local P.S.? What, in other words, is the social function of education?

          In the passage from Capital Karl Marx analyzes how embedded commodities are within our society. Marx argues that it is within our nature to participate in a capitalistic society that places not only an outrageous amount of monetary value on a product but also an association with social status. I believe that this analysis still holds for today as within the new age of social media and influence, people are now more than ever being shown and marketed as commodities. FOMO is a major proprietor of this as social media promises a certain lifestyle that the buyer with have or a life that the buyer will eventually have when they buy the advertised product, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” Under the umbrella of capitalism, the human element is lost as laborers and buyers focus on the exchange of products rather than interacting amongst themselves.

          Our entire being is centered around acquiring capital and maintaining that capital in every facet. With leading that lifestyle, everyday commodities are assigned a numerical value based on the products used and the labor that went into that product. Marx argues that in many instances, the labor that goes into a product is more costly than the product itself, “A commodity is, therefore, a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labor appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labor.” We see this today, as companies tend to hype up the materials used in their product in a way that makes the products seem special, different, and exclusive. The exclusivity of the materials is a huge marketing factor in today’s world as people tend to want the best of the best, the best product offered, now if they can afford the heavy price tag that product is different. The capitalistic structures that are in place that obscure the path from laborer to consumer have always been polluted as there is no free labor market. In conclusion, Marx’s analysis of set social and economic structures aims to shed light on our perceived social consciousness and control over social relationships.