scholarly journals ANATOMI TEORI HEGEMONI ANTONIO GRAMSCI

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-33
Author(s):  
Endah Siswati

Antonio Gramsci adalah seorang intelektual besar di kalangan kaum kiri, yang disebut sebagai pemikir terbesar setelah Karl Marx. Pemikiran-pemikiran Gramsci  tertuang dalam banyak artikel yang dimuat di media massa, dan dalam buku-buku karyanya seperti; Prison Notebook, The Modern Prince and Other Political Writing,   Selection from the Prison Notebooks, Letters from Prison, Selection from Political Writing,  Selection from Cultural Writing, dan sebagainya.Dari seluruh karya dan tulisannya, hegemoni dinilai sebagai ide sentral dan orisinal yang dikembangkan Gramsci. Teori Hegemoni dipandang telah membawa perubahan besar dan menimbulkan perdebatan pemikiran atas teori-teori perubahan sosial, terutama bagi yang menghendaki perubahan radikal dan revolusioner.Konsep-konsep pemikiran Gramsci tentang hegemony, civil society, political society, counter hegemony, war of position, war of movement, intelectual organik dan perannya dalam transformasi sosial, adalah gagasan-gagasan yang dinilai brilian, dan memberi sumbangan penting pada perkembangan teori-teori sosial, dan menumbuhkan kesadaran politik kritis.  Konsep pemikirannya tentang hegemoni juga mendorong perumusan kembali watak kelas, kekuatan-kekuatan sosial dan makna sejati dari kekuasaan dan dominasi.  Hal-hal inilah yang antara lain mendasari penulisan artikel ini.

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Kremers ◽  
Shunsuke Izuta

AbstractAnmerkungen zu Übersetzung und Zitationsweise: Namen werden mit dem Vornamen voran wiedergegeben. Die Umschrift japanischer Begriffe in lateinischen Lettern (The history of ideas is a history of translations and interpretations, of finding new words for old phenomena and attributing new phenomena to old words. In this commented translation from a Japanese source text, this historical process is demonstrated for the term civil society and the languages German, French, Italian and Japanese. In his 1989 article “On Gramsci’s notion of civil society”, Japanese Marxist Kiyoaki Hirata compared the use of the term by Georg W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci, while translating it to Japanese as


2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-248
Author(s):  
Daniel Kremers ◽  
Shunsuke Izuta

Abstract Anmerkungen zu Übersetzung und Zitationsweise: Namen werden mit dem Vornamen voran wiedergegeben. Die Umschrift japanischer Begriffe in lateinischen Lettern (rōmaji) erfolgt nach dem Hepburn-System. Alle typografischen Sonderzeichen innerhalb der Übersetzung entsprechen Hervorhebungen des Autors im Original. Anmerkungen und Kommentare der Übersetzer befinden sich in den Fußnoten.The history of ideas is a history of translations and interpretations, of finding new words for old phenomena and attributing new phenomena to old words. In this commented translation from a Japanese source text, this historical process is demonstrated for the term civil society and the languages German, French, Italian and Japanese. In his 1989 article “On Gramsci’s notion of civil society”, Japanese Marxist Kiyoaki Hirata compared the use of the term by Georg W. F. Hegel, Karl Marx and Antonio Gramsci, while translating it to Japanese as shimin shakai 市民社会, today a highly popular term in Japan. After having published a translation of the first part of Hirata’s article, in which he endeavors on the connections and differences between Hegel and Marx, we have now translated the second part, in which Hirata reconstructs how Gramsci relied on Hegel and Marx in redefining the concept of civil society (società civile). We have pointed out why the global resurgence of the term civil society during the 1990s was accompanied by the invention of the neologism Zivilgesellschaft, while the classic term bürgerliche Gesellschaft almost fell into disuse in the German language. As both the English and the Japanese discourse on civil society (shimin shakai) continued unaffected by this translative-turn however, we have decided to translate shimin shakai in this pre-1990 text as bürgerliche Gesellschaft. This way we are able underline the fact that Hegel, Marx and Gramsci were writing on and further developing the same concept and that just because they have highlighted different aspects and attributed different functions to it, we do not necessarily need different words for each concept in order to properly understand these continuities and differences. More so we argue that neologisms like Zivilgesellschaft and Bürgergesellschaft have in the German discourse obscured continuities in the history of ideas on civil society. Hiratas text – despite of its weaknesses, such as a neglect of scientific documentation standards and a highly metaphoric and speculative language – is therefore a valuable contribution to highlighting such continuities and worth to be made accessible to a non-Japanese speaking readership. By pointing out the dialectic heritage in Gramsci’s writings, Hirata – much differently from many post-1990 authors – shows that Gramsci’s civil society is not constituted by a set of more or less organized so-called “non-state” actors that enclose and limit government authority, but rather forms an integral part of the state in which a government’s political force is bolstered by an ethical hegemony. It is in civil society that leading groups stabilize their authority over the whole society by educating and persuading the subaltern groups to an active consent to social and economic rules that benefit the interests of the leading group, while on the other hand no subaltern group can ever become politically leading before having established ethical hegemony in civil society.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 243
Author(s):  
Rosemary Dore ◽  
Herbert Glauco de Souza

Antonio Gramsci formulou o conceito de hegemonia e Raymond Williams o de contra-hegemonia, pois considerava o primeiro lacunar. Seria mesmo? Essa pergunta orienta a abordagem aqui realizada, por meio da qual objetiva-se mostrar que o conceito de hegemonia de Gramsci explica a configuração do Estado, depois da segunda metade do século XIX, e novas estratégias de luta social. Em momento algum, Gramsci refere-se à ideia de contra-hegemonia, mesmo analisando situações que Williams interpretaria como contra-hegemônicas. O conceito de contra-hegemonia ganhou enorme difusão em âmbito internacional, em vários campos do conhecimento, de modo que se chegou a afirmar que foi produzido por Gramsci. O exame do tema utilizou como metodologia uma revisão bibliográfica de textos clássicos e de comentadores, possibilitando concluir que a ideia de contra-hegemonia é de Raymond Williams e demonstrar o não entendimento do conceito de hegemonia. O acréscimo ao corpus teórico gramsciano da categoria de contra-hegemonia manifesta também retrocesso e contradição. Retrocesso porque tal ideia se insere no contexto de guerra de movimento, da “fórmula de 1848” e aplica-se à conjuntura europeia da primeira metade do século XIX, analisada por Gramsci, quando o Estado era sinônimo de sociedade política e a sociedade civil era incipiente. Então, não havia espaço para os grupos subalternos se organizarem e influírem sobre a política estatal. Contradição porque hegemonia e contra-hegemonia se excluem mutuamente, pois, enquanto a luta pela hegemonia apenas se configura em um contexto de desenvolvimento da sociedade civil, a ideia de contra-hegemonia remete ao contexto de guerra de movimento, ao Estado-força, em que predomina a sociedade política, a coerção.GRAMSCI NEVER MENTIONED THE CONCEPT OF COUNTER-HEGEMONYAbstract: Antonio Gramsci formulated the concept of hegemony and Raymond Williams the counter-hegemony, considering the first incomplete. Was it really? This question guides the approach taken here. It is shown that Gramsci's concept of hegemony explains the configuration of the state after the second half of the nineteenth century and new strategies of social struggle. At no time, Gramsci refers to the idea of counter-hegemony, even analyzing situations that Williams would interpret as counter-hegemonic. The concept of counter-hegemony gained enormous diffusion in an international scope, in several fields of knowledge, coming to claim that it was produced by Gramsci. The examination of theme used as a methodology a bibliographical revision of classic texts and commentators, allowing to conclude that the idea of counter hegemony is of Raymond Williams and demonstrates the non-understanding of the concept of hegemony. The addition to the Gramscian theoretical corpus of the category of counter-hegemony also manifests retrogression and contradiction. Retrogression because such an idea fits into the context of war of movement, the "formula of 1848". It applies to the European context of the first half of the nineteenth century, analyzed by Gramsci, when the state was synonymous with political society and civil society was incipient. So there was no political condition for subaltern classes to organize themselves and influence state policy. Contradiction because hegemony and counter-hegemony mutually exclude each other. While the struggle for hegemony only takes place in a context of civil society development, the idea of counter-hegemony refers to the context of war of movement, characterized by the prevalence of coercion, in which political society (which rules through force) predominates.Keywords: Antonio Gramsci. Raymond Williams. Power. Hegemony. Counter-hegemony.GRAMSCI NUNCA MENCIONÓ EL CONCEPTO DE CONTRAHEGEMONÍAResumen: Antonio Gramsci formuló el concepto de hegemonía y Raymond Williams el de contra hegemonía, pues consideraba el primer incompleto. ¿Sería mismo? Esta pregunta guía el enfoque aquí adoptado, por medio del cual se objetiva mostrar que el concepto de hegemonía de Gramsci explica la configuración del Estado, después de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX, y las nuevas estrategias de la lucha social, sino que, en ningún momento, Gramsci se refiere a la idea de contra hegemonía, incluso analizando situaciones que Williams interpretaría como contra hegemónicas. El concepto de contra hegemonía ganó enorme difusión en el ámbito internacional, en varios campos del conocimiento, llegando a afirmarse que fue producido por Gramsci. El examen del tema utilizó como metodología una revisión bibliográfica de textos clásicos y de comentaristas, posibilitando concluir que la idea de contra hegemonía es de Raymond Williams y demuestra el no entendimiento del concepto de hegemonía. El acrecimiento al corpus teórico gramsciano de la categoría contra hegemonía manifiesta también retroceso y contradicción. Retroceso porque tal idea se inserta en el contexto de guerra de movimiento, de la "fórmula de 1848". Se aplica a la coyuntura europea de la primera mitad del siglo XIX, analizada por Gramsci, cuando el Estado era sinónimo de sociedad política y la sociedad civil era incipiente. Entonces no había espacio para los grupos subalternos se organizar y influir sobre la política estatal. Contradicción porque hegemonía y contra hegemonía se excluyen mutuamente, pues la lucha por la hegemonía sólo se configura en un contexto de desarrollo de la sociedad civil, la idea de contra hegemonía se remite al contexto de guerra de movimiento, al Estado-fuerza, en que predomina la sociedad política, la coerción.Palabras clave: Antonio Gramsci. Raymond Williams. Poder. Hegemonía. Contra hegemonía.


Author(s):  
Andrew Davies

This chapter examines the August 2011 New Delhi fast against corruption conducted by Anna Hazare. The fast was the largest political mobilisation in India for many years, and attracted widespread coverage. It is argued that approaching this fast as a protest camp has the potential to create a more contextually grounded and nuanced understanding of the events surrounding the fast. The chapter does this by examining the conceptual debate about civil society that structured many commentaries on the fast. These were often based on Partha Chatterjee’s concept of ‘political society’, in which ‘civil’ society is seen as an élite zone which excludes marginal communities who instead occupy ‘political’ society. Whilst conceptually useful, the chapter argues that a protest camps-based approach helps to interrogate the divide between civil/political society, and that such an approach to the Anna Hazare fast would create space for more ethnographic, grounded accounts of political practise.


Author(s):  
Andre Ikhsano ◽  
Yolanda Stellarosa

Restriction on the broadcasting  of 17 western songs considered full of sexual aspects in the Indonesian province of West Java has given rise to  polemic and criticism. Various reactions, both negative and positive, emerged. Instead of supporting the restriction the Indonesian public appeared to blatantly oppose the policy made by the West Java  Regional Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPID). It is interesting to analyze and study this phenomenon more deeply through the great concepts of Gramsci’s counter hegemony.  Of course, a mature and strategic counter hegemony is needed  to counter   western music hegemony in the  country. The study of counter hegemony has not been widely discussed, especially when it comes to the counter of the counter hegemony itself and this can be the novelty of this study. This phenomenon is analyzed through critical perspective by conducting literature study in several online media sites  related to the topic of this research. The results show that the counter hegemony which was not carried out systematically and strategically with regard to  the restrictions on the broadcasting of 17 western songs in the province of West Java did not yield a fruit in the form of  the hegemony’s downfall. The hegemony of western songs remains strong.  The failure of counter hegemony will strengthen the hegemony of  western songs in Indonesia. For its part, it is necessary to have mature planning and strong collaboration  between political society and civil society to make the counter hegemony run well in an attempt to undermine the hegemony.


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Lucio Oliver Costilla

Resumo Este artigo aborda as atuais mudanças em curso na América do Sul, desde uma sociologia política crítica a partir de uma análise das interconexões entre sociedade política e sociedade civil, em especial gramsciana. Ela propõe ser a chave para construir um campo de problemas teóricos e metodológicos vinculados à teoria crítica e a questão do Estado em sentido integral, que permitam entender o que acontece na sociedade política (a disputa de projetos políticos) e, sobre tudo, na sociedade civil (o universo de ideologias, valores, visões de mundo em jogo). A questão não se trata aceitar a ótica dos autores políticos que dirigem as mudanças em marcha, se não configurar teoricamente a problemática das mudanças. Sugiro que este enfoque de estudo permita valorizar a capacidade de intervenção institucional e político-social das forças progressistas e perguntar se estão apostando, ou não, a elevar os níveis de organização e consciência das massas populares, questão chave na construção hegemônica. Conclui-se que a questão central a elucidar na última década e meia de governos progressistas na América do Sul é saber qual o Estado que se precisa para uma sociedade em expansão e empoderamento, e qual a sociedade civil necessária para sustentar, aprofundar ou consolidar as novas políticas em um sentido emancipador. Palavras-Chave: Crises e reconfiguração da América Latina. Ruptura epistemológica. Construção de problemáticas sociológicas. Crítica e política nas mudanças da América Latina.---ResumenEste articulo aborda las actuales mudanzas en curso en América del Sur desde una sociología política critica a partir de una análisis de las interconexiones entre sociedad política y sociedad civil en clave gramsciana. Propone que clave construir un campo de problemas teóricos y metodológicos vinculados a la teoría crítica y a la cuestión del Estado en el sentido integral, que permitan entender lo que acontece en la sociedad política (la disputa de proyectos políticos) y sobre todo en la sociedad civil (el universo de ideologías, valores, visiones del mundo en juego). La cuestión no pasa por aceptar la óptica de los actores políticos que dirigen los cambios en marcha, sino configurar teóricamente la problemática de los cambios. Sugiero que este enfoque de estudio permite valorar la capacidad de intervención institucional y político-social de las fuerzas progresistas y preguntarse si están apostando , o no, a elevar los niveles de organización y conciencia de las masas populares, cuestión clave en la construcción hegemónica. Se concluye que la cuestión central a dilucidar en la última década y media de gobiernos progresistas en América del Sur es saber cuál es el Estado que se precisa para una sociedad en expansión y empoderamiento, y cuál la sociedad civil necesaria para sustentar, profundizar o consolidar las nuevas políticas en un sentido emancipador.Palabras Clave: Crisis y reconfiguración de América Latina. Ruptura epistemológica. Construcción de problemáticas sociológicas. Crítica y política en las mudanzas de América Latina.---AbstractThis article covers the current changes taking place in South America, from a critical political sociology to an analysis of the interconnections between political society and civil society, especially Gramscian. This may be the key to building a field of theoretical and methodological problems linked to the critical theory and the issue of the State, which enables an understanding of the political society (the dispute of political projects) and, above all, of the civil society (the universe of ideologies, values, worldviews at stake). It is not a question of accepting the perspective of political figures that drive the ongoing changes, but to establish, theoretically, the issue of change. I suggest that this study approach will allow develop the ability of institutional and political-social intervention of the progressive forces and question if they are trying, or not, to raise levels of organization and consciousness of the masses, the key issue is in the hegemonic construction. I conclude that the key issue, from the last decade and a half of progressive governments in South America, is to know which is the state that is required for a society in expansion and empowerment and, in an emancipatory sense, which is the civil society needed to sustain, strengthen or consolidate the new policies. Keywords: Crisis and reconfiguration of Latin America. Epistemological rupture. Construction of sociological issues. Critical and political changes in Latin America.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 87-113
Author(s):  
Lisdey Espinoza Pedraza

This paper will attempt to answer what the current state of contemporary democracy in Mexico is after the return of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) to the presidency by analysing the role of Civil Society, Political Society and the Rule of Law from 2012 to 2018. This paper will also explore if the party’s return was indeed a step backwards in the process of Mexican democratisation, or whether it was simply another step on a long road in which the various political parties alternate power. In 2018, Mexico elected its new president for the next consecutive 6 years along with a fair number of congressional seats and local gubernatorial posts, an election that again put Mexican democracy through a difficult test.


2008 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris DeWiel

The idea of civil society has undergone a renaissance in recent years, but missing from this literature is an explanation for its historical transformation in meaning. Originally civil society was synonymous with political society, but the common modem meaning emphasizes autonomy from the state. This paper traces this historical transformation within the context of the history of ideas, and suggests that the critical event was an eighteenth-century reaction against the rationalistic universalism associated with the French Enlightenment. The continued significance of the question of universalism is suggested by the fact that universalistic Marxist Leninist theories provided the ideological underpinnings for the destruction of civil society in Eastern European nations. The paper concludes that three elements are essential to the modern understanding of civil society: its autonomy from the state, its interdependence with the state, and the pluralism of values, ideals and ways of life embodied in its institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document