Lears on Cultural Hegemony

5/14/2018 Lears on Cultural Hegemony - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lears-on-cultural-hegemony 1/28

The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and PossibilitiesAuthor(s): T. J. Jackson Lears

Reviewed work(s):Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jun., 1985), pp. 567-593Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860957 .

Accessed: 19/01/2012 13:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and American Historical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aha

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860957?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1860957?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aha

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress



The Concept f CulturalHegemony:Problemsnd Possibilities

T. J.JACKSON LEARS

TWENTY YEARS AGO THE ITALIAN COMMUNIST AntonioGramsciwas rarely iscussedoutsidehisnative and;nowhehas become n intellectualausecelebre nd insomequarters culthero.Scholarsontinueo poreoverhispoliticalournalismand his prisonnotebooks,eassemblinghe fragmentsn hopesof theoreticalillumination.rticlesndmonographsontinueomultiply.ne historianntheRight as conjured pthevisionf nterdisciplinaryrogramsnGramscitudies,repletewith nreadableournals ndreverentextual xegesis. lready,nsomeEuropean ampuses,neposterf he ardinian unchback ill etch wholewall

full fTrotskies.1Part fthis uror nvolveshe ffortfyoungntellectualsn theLeft o ocatea moral nspiration. ramsci's esistanceoMussolini, is stress n therole ofindividualction ndthoughtnhistory,isdesire hatworkersreate heir wnculturalnstitutionshrough evicesikefactoryouncils-allthismakeshim nappealing igure.ormany e also eems oexplainwhyworkers nder dvancedcapitalismave notbehaved hewayMarx aidtheywould nd to offer moresuccessfulevolutionarytrategy.ethiswork as nalyticalses swell,ndthosearemy oncernn this ssay. donotmean oturnGramscinto theMarxist ou

cantakehome omother."2ne cannotgnore isrevolutionaryision. utonedoes nothave o embracetuncriticallyo recognizehatGramsci'social houghtcontainsomeremarkablyuggestivensightsnto he uestion fdominancendsubordinationnmodernapitalistocieties. here re ntellectuals well s moralandpolitical easons or herediscoveryfGramsci.

An earlier ersion fthis ssaywaspresentedt theSeventy-SeventhnnualMeeting f theOrganizationofAmerican istorians,osAngeles, alifornia,pril , 1984. am ndebtedo ra Berlin ndDorothy ossfor nviting etopresentt ndtoThomasBender ndJohn ammettor xtraordinarilyelpfulomments.For other houghtfulriticismnd advice, am gratefuloKaren Parker ears,Warren usman,Richard

Wightmanox,Dominick aCapra,David Thelen,ThomasHaskell, avid Hollinger, awrence evine, ndmyresearch ssistant, eresaPradosTorreira.

1AileenKraditor, heRadical ersuasion,890-191 :Aspectsf hentellectualisto7yndthe istoriographyofThree mericanadicalOrganizationsBatonRouge,La., 1981),332n. 14; and CarlinRomano, ButWasHe a Marxist?"eview f Anne Showstackassoon, d.,ApproachesoGramsci,illage oice,March29, 1983,p. 41. Forvaluable ntroductionso Gramsci,n addition o thosecited n the following otes, eeJohnCammett, ntonio ramscind theOrigins f talianCommunismStanford, alif.,1967); Thomas Nemeth,Gramsci'shilosophy:CriticaltudySussex, ngland, 980);and Alastair avidson,Antonioramci:Towardsan IntellectualiographyLondon,1970).

2 Romano, ButWas He a Marxist?"1.

567



568 T.J. Jackson ears

Gramsci'smost interestingdeas cluster around the concept of culturalhe-gemony,whichhe used toaddressthe relationbetween ulture nd power undercapitalism. willexplorethe mplications f those deas for historians utdo not

pretendtogive a comprehensive ccountofGramsci'svoluminous, haotic, ndmostly ntranslatedwritings.Manyscholars re farmorequalifiedthanI am forthat ask, nd they rehard atwork.To me,Gramsci'swork uggests tarting ointsforrethinkingome fundamental ssues in recent nterpretationsf Americanhistory.

Studiesof Gramscihave nearlyalwayscharacterizedhis workas an effort oloosentherigidities forthodoxMarxism.The characterizationsaccurate,but tleaves the impressionthatGramsci'swork is relevantonly to self-consciouslyMarxist cholars.Actually,Gramsci an inspirefresh hought n historians roma variety f intellectual raditions. y clarifyinghepoliticalfunctions f culturalsymbols, heconceptof culturalhegemony an aid intellectual istorians ryingounderstandhow deas reinforce r undermine xisting ocial structuresnd socialhistorians eeking to reconcilethe apparent contradiction etween the powerwieldedbydominantgroupsand the relative ultural utonomyof subordinategroups whom they victimize. n short,Gramsci's work,besides ventilating heMarxist radition, rovides theoretical rameworknd a vocabularyforunder-standinghistoriographical roblemsthat have assertedthemselveswithspecial

forceduringthe last fifteen ears.

-GRAMscI'S TRANSLATED WRITINGS CONTAIN no precise definition of culturalhegemony.Whatcomes closest s hisoften-quoted haracterization fhegemonyas "the spontaneous'consentgivenbythegreatmassesof thepopulationto thegeneraldirectionmposedon social ifebythedominantfundamental roup; thisconsent s historically'aused by theprestige and consequentconfidence)whichthedominantgroup enjoysbecause of itsposition nd functionn the world ofproduction."3 o haveGramsci define" heconcept n thisway smerely o beginunraveling ts significance. he process sounds mechanical:rulinggroups imposea direction n social ife;subordinates re manipulatively ersuaded toboard the"dominantfundamental" xpress.

It would be a mistake, hough,to rest with thatconclusion. The concept ofculturalhegemonycan only be understoodwithin variety f historical ndintellectualontexts. o rely n a single definition"smisleading.To giveGramscihisdue,weneed firstorecognize hat heconceptofhegemonyhaslittlemeaning

unless paired with the notion of domination. For Gramsci,consent and forcenearly lways oexist, houghone or the other predominates.The tsarist egime,forexample,ruled primarilyhroughdomination-that is, by monopolizingtheinstruments f coercion. Among parliamentary egimesonly the weakest areforced orely ndomination;normally hey ulethroughhegemony, ven though

3 Gramsci, electionsrom he risonNotebooks,d. and trans.QuentinHoare and Geoffrey owellSmith(NewYork, 1971),12.



Concept fCulturalHegemony 569

thethreat fofficiallyanctionedforce lwaysremains mplicit.Ruling groups donot maintain heirhegemonymerely y giving heirdomination n aura of moralauthority hroughthe creation and perpetuationof legitimating ymbols; they

must also seek to win the consent of subordinategroups to the existing ocialorder.4

The ambiguities re immediately pparent. Whatcomponentsof a dominantculture require the consent of subordinates?Gramscihad in mind the values,norms, erceptions, eliefs, entiments,nd prejudices hat upport nd define heexistingdistribution f goods, the institutions hatdecide how thisdistributionoccurs,and the permissible ange of disagreement bout thoseprocesses.Andwhatwas the precisenatureof subordinate onsent?AttimesGramsci mplied anactive ommitment othe established rder,based on a deeply held belief hat herulers re indeed legitimate. his iswhat has persuaded some critics f Gramscito linkhimwithHerbert Marcuse as a prophetof"one-dimensional ociety."ButGramsci aid other,more nterestinghings boutconsent. n keypassagesof thePrisonNotebooks, e illuminatedthe ambiguities f consentby focusingon theconflict hat sometimes arises between a person's conscious thoughts nd theimplicit alues embedded in his actions.This conflict ointsto thecomplexity fpopular consciousnessundercapitalism.The working lass had "itsownconcep-tionof theworld,even ifonly embryonic; conceptionwhichmanifests tself n

action,butoccasionally nd inflashes." et thad also "adopteda conceptionwhichis not its own but is borrowed fromanothergroup." The consequence was that"man-in-the-mass" ad

two heoreticalonsciousnessesoronecontradictoryonsciousness):ne which s mplicitinhisactivityndwhichnreality nites imwith ll hisfellow-workersn thepracticaltransformationftherealworld; ndone, superficiallyxplicitrverbal,which e hasinheritedromhepast nduncriticallybsorbed. ut his erbalonceptions notwithoutconsequences.tholds ogether specificocial roup,t nfluences oral onductndthedirectionfwill,with aryingfficacityut ften owerfullynough oproduce situation

inwhich he ontradictorytate f onsciousnessoesnotpermitf ny ction, ny ecisionorany hoice, ndproduces condition f moral ndpolitical assivity.5

From thisperspective, he maintenance of hegemonydoes not require activecommitmentysubordinates o the egitimacyf elite rule. Less powerfulpeoplemay be thoroughly isaffected. t times heymayopenlyrevolt hrough trikes,factory takeovers, mass movements, and perhaps the creation of acounterhegemony. utnormallymostpeople find tdifficult,fnot mpossible, otranslate heoutlook mplicitn their xperience nto conception f theworld hat

will directly hallenge the hegemonic culture. The problem is partlyone oflanguage,and hereGramsci nticipatedMichelFoucault'semphasison the role of"discursivepractice"in reinforcing omination.Gramsci realized that "everylanguage contains the elements of a conceptionof the world." The available

4 Ibid., 5-60, 80 n., 238-39; Walter . Adamson,HegemonyndRevolution:Study fAntonioranmci'sPoliticalndCulturalheoryBerkeleynd LosAngeles, 980), hap.6, esp. pp. 170, 173;andPerry nderson,"The Antinomies f AntonioGramsci," ewLeft eview, 00 1976-77): 5-78.

5 Gramsci, electionsromhe rison otebooks,26-27,333.



570 T.- . Jackson ears

vocabularyhelpsmarktheboundariesof permissible iscourse,discouragestheclarification f social alternatives,nd makes it difficult orthe dispossessed tolocate the source of theirunease, let alone remedy t.6

Consent, for Gramsci, involves a complex mental state, a "contradictoryconsciousness"mixing pprobationand apathy,resistance nd resignation.Themixvariesfromndividual o ndividual; ome aremoresocializedthanothers. nanycase, rulinggroupsnever ngineer onsentwith omplete uccess;theoutlookofsubordinategroups salwaysdivided and ambiguous.Gramsci'spreoccupationwith consent led him to recast the "base-superstructure"model of classicalMarxism. He narrowed the economic base to include only the material andtechnical nstrumentsfproduction;he broadened thesuperstructureo includepoliticalsociety, ivilsociety, nd the state. For Gramsci,"The State,which isusually thought fas political ociety-i.e., a dictatorship r- ome othercoerciveapparatus used to control hemasses nconformity ith given ype fproductionand economy-[is] a balance betweenpolitical ociety nd civilsociety, ywhichI meanthehegemony fone socialgroup over the ntirenation, xercised hroughso-calledprivate organizations ike the Church,trade unions,or schools." Thestate, n otherwords, s "hegemonyprotectedbythearmour ofcoercion."Whilehis anguage suggests hat the masses" are still n thegripof a monolithic ulingclass, Gramsci departed in importantwaysfromclassical Marxism.He notonly

allowed for morecomplex uperstructureut alsoreconsideredtsrelation othebase. For Gramsci mental life is more than a pale reflection f more basicdevelopments n material ife. The linkbetween the two realms is not linearcausalitybut circular nteractionwithin n organic whole.7

In his effort o formulate more flexibleapproach to "base" and "super-structure," ramsci egantobroadenanddeepen Marxistnotions f deology.ForGramsci, deology is not merelya system f beliefs that reflects pecificclassinterests;tsdevelopment smorecomplex.The starting ointforunderstandingitis

the spontaneoushilosophy"hichsproper oeverybody.hisphilosophyscontainedin: 1. language tself, hichsa totalityf determined otions ndconcepts nd not ustofwords rammaticallyevoid fcontent; . "commonense" conventionalisdom] nd"good ense" empiricalnowledge];. popular eligionnd,therefore,lso nthe ntiresystemfbeliefs,uperstitions,pinions, ays fseeing hings ndofacting,which recollectivelyundled ogethernder henameof"folklore."

Spontaneousphilosophy mbodies all sorts fsentiments nd prejudicesthathaveprivate, ubjectivemeanings apart from he public realm ofpower relations,yetit anneverbedivorced ntirely rom hat ealm.Some values such as kinship ies)are more ikely oremainrelativelyutonomous; others suchas attitudes oward

6 Gramsci, s quoted inJosephV. Femia, Gramsci'solitical houghtOxford,1981),44. I am deeplyindebted oFemia's houghtfulnalysis fthe mbiguitiesnGramsci's otion fconsent; bid., 5-50. Fortheclearest ntroductionotherelevance fFoucault'swork orhistorians,eeMarkPoster,Foucault ndHistory,"ocialResearch,9 (1982): 116-42.

7 Gramsci, ettersromrison, d. and trans. . Lawner NewYork,1973),204, Selectionsromhe risonNotebooks,62-63; andAdamson,HegemonyndRevolution,79, 215.



Concept f CulturalHegemony 571

work rpatriotic uty) re more ikely obe mobilized nthe service f a particularsocial group. In Gramsci's scheme a given group or class, as it develops in theeconomic sphere,finds ome values more congenialthanothers,more resonant

with tsown everyday xperience.Selectively efashioning he available spontane-ous philosophy, group maydevelop itsown particularworld view-an ideologythat ements t ntowhatGramsci alled a "historical loc" possessing othculturaland economic solidarity. he idea of historical loc departs significantlyromnotionsof class embedded in the Marxist radition: t promotes nalysis f socialformations hat ut acrosscategories f ownership nd nonownership nd that rebound by religiousor other deological ties as well as those of economic nterest.A historical bloc may or may not become hegemonic, depending on howsuccessfullyt forms llianceswith thergroups or classes.The keys o success areideological nd economic: to achieveculturalhegemony, he eaders of a historicalbloc mustdevelopa worldview hat ppeals to a wide rangeofothergroupswithinthe society, nd theymustbe able to claim with t least some plausibility hat heirparticularnterests re those of society t large.This claimmay requireselectiveaccommodationto the desires of subordinategroups.The emerginghegemonicculture s notmerely n ideological mystificationutserves he nterests frulinggroupsat the expense of subordinateones.8

The overall picturethatGramsci provides is not a static, losed systemof

ruling-classdomination.Rather, t is a society n constantprocess,where thecreationof counterhegemonies emainsa live option.As one ofGramsci'smostthoughtfulritics bserved,hegemonys "a processof continuous reationwhich,given its massive scale, is bound to be uneven in the degree of legitimacy tcommands and to leave some room for antagonistic ultural expressions todevelop."9Gramsci'svision fsociety nvolvesnot a mechanicalmodelofbase andsuperstructure uta complex nteractionfrelativelyutonomous pheres publicand private; political, ultural, nd economic)within totality f attitudes ndpractices.And yethe remainedfaithfulotheMarxist raditionngranting ausal

priority o the economic sphere under most conditions. The base does notdetermine pecificforms f consciousness, ut itdoes determinewhat forms fconsciousnessare possible.The processof interaction etweenspheres is char-acterizedby theformationnd reformationf historical locs,which,dependingon their uccess n forming lliancesand disseminating coherent deology,mayor maynotcome to exerta hegemonic nfluence.

This vision is manifestlymore complex than most anti-Marxist riticshaverealized: it rejects the economic determinism f the Second International; t

broadens the notion of ideology, rooting t in spontaneous philosophy whatRaymondWilliamsmight all "structure ffeeling"); tredirects heobsessionwithobjective determinants f class by introducingthe idea of historicalbloc; itacknowledges he role of thestate s a complex political ntity, otmerely tool

8 Gramsci, electionsfromhe rison otebooks,23; Adamson, egemonyndRevolution,70-79; and RogerSimon,Gramsci'solitical hought: n ntroductionLondon, 1982),58-79.

9 Adamson, Hegemonynd Revolution,74. For a similarview, see RaymondWilliams, Base andSuperstructuren MarxianCultural heory,"NewLeft eview, 2 (1973): 3-16.



572 T. J. Jackson ears

of the bourgeoisie; tpointsus towardculturaldefinitionsf race, ethnicity,ndgenderand toward n exploration f theways hosedefinitionsjustifyrchallengeexisting owerrelations.To resort otheconceptof culturalhegemony s totake

a banal question-"who has power?"-and deepen it at both ends. The "who"includesparents,preachers, eachers,ournalists, iterati, experts" fall sorts, swell s advertising xecutives, ntertainmentromoters, opular musicians, portsfigures, nd "celebrities"-all of whomare involved albeitoftenunwittingly)nshapingthe valuesand attitudes f a society. he "power" ncludes ultural swellas economic and political power-the power to help define the boundaries ofcommon-sense reality" itherby ignoringviewsoutside those boundaries or bylabeling deviant opinions "tasteless" r "irresponsible."UnlikeMarx's epigones,Gramscirealizedthat class nterpretationfhistory oes not entail fixation nthestruggle etweenoppressors nd oppressed; rather, s Eugene Genovesehasobserved, itmayreveal processbywhich givenruling lasssuccessfullyvoidedsuchconfrontations."'0 nd thesourceof thatsuccessmaywell be in the realmof culture.

The conceptofculturalhegemony ffers ntellectual nd culturalhistorians nopportunityoconnect deaswith he "socialmatrix" hat hey reconstantlyeingurged to locate,without educingthe deas to mereepiphenomena. Not thatoneshould ransackGramsci'swritings or foolproof chema.Anyone,forexample,

who looks closely at Gramsci'scelebrated distinction etween traditional ndorganic intellectualswill find it incoherent." Still,his work offers point ofdeparturefortrying o understand how ideas actuallyfunctionn society.Hisconceptof hegemonic consensusacknowledgesdifferencesnwealth and powereven in "democracies" and seeks to show how those inequalitieshave beenmaintained or challenged in the sphere of culture. It provides a convenientvocabulary orbeginning oidentifyhose elements n the dominant ulturethatserveexisting owerrelations nd thosethat ubvert hem.Unlike iberalnotionsofconsensus,Gramsci'svision cknowledges he social and economicconstraints

on the esspowerful, hen ims tosee the ways hat ulture ollaborateswith hoseconstraints.

The conceptofhegemonysalso superior othe more sophisticated ersions fconsensus embodied in functionalism, ymbolic nteractionism, nd culturalanthropology.'2Unlike functionalistheory, Gramscian pproach does nottryto match all cultural manifestations iththe demands of "the social system." tallowsone toanalyzethesystemiceatures f a society haracterized y nequalitiesofpowerwithout educing hat ociety o a system.Nor does Gramscireifyociety

intoa being that has needs and interests part fromhuman agency; rather,he'0 Williams, heLongRevolutionLondon, 1961),48-71; andGenovese,AQuestion fMorals," nhis n

Redand Black NewYork, 1970),369." Foran incisiveritique, ee JeromeKarabel, Revolutionaryontradictions:ntonioGramsci nd the

Problem fIntellectuals,"oliticsndSociety, (1976): esp. 146-56.12 For ome xcellent ritiques ffunctionalism,ee Maurice tein nd Arthur idich,ds., ociologynTrial

(New York, 1963). For the best tatementf the symbolicnteractionistosition, ee PeterL. Berger ndThomas Luckmann, heSocialConstructionfRealityNewYork, 1966). For an early ritique, ee RichardLichtmann,SymbolicnteractionndSocial Reality: omeMarxist ueries," erkeleyournal f ociology,5(1970): 75-94.




stresses he humancreators f culture,with heirparticular,ocially haped needsand interests. urther, Gramscian pproach allows one tointegrate he nsightsof symbolic nteractionismnd cultural nthropologywith n awarenessof power

relations. Many historianshave used CliffordGeertz's work, for example, toilluminate the integrative ignificanceof cultural symbolswithin particularcommunities, uttheyhave often ailed o ink hose ymbolswith arger conomicor politicalstructures, llowing inequalitiesof power to be subsumed by animplicitly unctionalistcultural ystem."'3From a Gramscianperspective, hatpitfall s avoidable. People indeed create their wn symbolic niverses Gramsci'sspontaneous philosophy)to make lifeunderstandable nd tolerable, nd thosesymbolic niverses o come to have an apparently objective" alidity, articularlyover generations s they pread from cattered ndividuals o broad social groups.But a given symbolic niverse, f tbecomeshegemonic, an serve the nterests fsomegroupsbetter han others. ubordinategroups mayparticipatenmaintain-ing a symbolic niverse, ven if tservesto legitimate heirdomination. n otherwords, hey an share a kindof half-consciousomplicityntheir wn victimization.

This complicitys a crucial mplication f theconceptof culturalhegemony, ndit accounts formuch of the hostilityoward Gramsci's workamong Americanhistorians f all political tripes. he idea that ess powerful olkmaybe unwittingaccomplices n the maintenance f existing nequalitiesruns counterto much of

thesocial and culturalhistoriographyf the ast fifteen ears,whichhas stressedtheautonomy nd vitalityf subordinate ultures.4Discovering early nexhaust-ible resources for resistanceto domination,many social historianshave beenreluctant o acknowledge hepossibilityhat heir ubjectsmayhavebeenmuddledbyassimilation o thedominantculture-perhaps even to thepointofbelievingand behaving against their own best interests.There is a certainironyhere.Historianshave long been willingto evaluate the behaviorof elite leaders asmistaken, nappropriate,perhaps even perverseor irrational. Think of thepummeling Woodrow Wilson takes every few years.) But to apply similar

standardsto "the people" is somehow "elitist."n part,thisdouble standard s areaction gainstC. WrightMills and HerbertMarcuse,who inveighedagainstanarcotizedpopulationof "cheerful obots" nd "one-dimensionalmen."'5Theseslogans were variationson the familiar theme that nonradical workers werelaboringin the dim lightof "false consciousness."The flexibilityf Gramsci'sconceptofhegemonymakes t uperiortosuchformulationsnd compatiblewiththerecentemphasison distinct nd vigorousworking-classultures.

To clarifythat flexibility,ne might imagine hegemonic cultures placed

anywhereon a continuum from "closed" to "open." In the closed version,13 Geertz'smost nfluential ork s collectedn his The nterpretationfCulturesNewYork, 1973).For a

thoughtfulvaluation,ee RonaldG. Walters,Signs f the Times: Clifford eertz nd Historians,"ocialResearch,7 (1980): 537-56.

14 For three utstandingxamples among nnumerable ossibilities),ee HerbertR. Gutman, heBlackFamilynSlaveryndFreedom,750-1925 NewYork,1976);Carroll mith-Rosenberg,The FemaleWorldof Love and Ritual," igns: ournalfWomennCulturendSociety,(1975): 1-29; and David Montgomery,Workers'ontroln AmericaNewYork, 1979), sp. chaps. 1,4.

15 Mills,White ollar:TheAmerican iddleClassesNewYork, 1951); and Marcuse,One-Dimensionalan(Boston,1964).



574 T.J. Jackson ears

subordinate groups lack the language necessaryeven to conceive concertedresistance; n theopen version, hecapability orresistance lourishes nd may eadto the creationof counterhegemonic lternatives. he place of a cultureon the

continuumdepends on specific ircumstancest a particularhistoricalmoment.For muchof Americanhistory,ertainlyor hosepatches f tuncoveredbyrecentstudies ofworking-class ulture, moreopen versionof hegemony eems moreaccurate.

Whether ne imagineshegemony o be relativelypen or relatively losed,theessenceof theconcept snotmanipulation ut egitimation.he ideas,values, ndexperiences of dominant groups are validated in public discourse; those ofsubordinategroups are not, though they maycontinue to thrivebeyond theboundaries of received opinion.Where Gramscidiffers rommany"new" socialhistorians s in his recognition hat the line betweendominant and subordinateculturessa permeablemembrane, ot n impenetrable arrier.By developing henotion of "contradictoryonsciousness,"Gramsci opened possibilities ormorecomplex approaches to popular culture, houghhe neverfully ranscendedhisLeninistheritage.But,before turn to thelimitations f his approach I want toexplore itsutility y surveyingome recent tudies ofworking-classulture.

How DOES A RULING CLASS RULE? The historianwho has mostpersistently osedthat uestionfrom GramscianperspectivesEugeneGenovese.Amonghismanyworks, hemonumentalRoll,Jordan,Rollmostdirectly xaminesa subordinategroup consciousness. n analyzing lave culture,Genoveserejected nynotionoffalseconsciousness.He emphasizedthe richness nd variety f slaveculture, heresources t providedfordignity,olidarity,nd resistance. ethe also recognizedthat elementsof the master'spaternalisticworld view penetrated the slave'sconsciousness s well. Slavescould appropriatepaternalism ocreatea limited etof rights orthemselves-forexample,therightnot tobe workedtoo hard and

not tobe worked t all on Sundays.But paternalismmay have also promoted theslaves' sense of attachment o a particular lantation; t imited nd shaped slaveprotest nto"pre-political" orms, irectedagainsta particularmaster'spracticerather han against lavery s a system f domination.Prepolitical rotest such asbreakinga plough blade or runningoffto the woods after beating) providedslaveswitha valuable breathing pace and even a sense of dignity.But it alsoreinforced he master'spaternalistic eliefthathe was dealing with rresponsiblechildren. To oversimplify complex argument: powerlessness ombined with

paternalismto influencethe slave's consciousness n ways that reinforcedthemaster'shegemony.Slaves were by no means reduced to Sambos; theirconductreveals a complexcombination f accommodation nd resistance.'6

One can finda similarrelationshipwithinwhitepopular cultureduring thenineteenth entury.n theworks fEricFoner,BruceLaurie, Alan Dawley,StevenHahn, Sean Wilentz, nd others, vidence can be found of thehalting,uneven

16 Genovese,Roll, ordan, oll: TheWorld he lavesMade New York, 1974),esp. 585-665.



Conceptf CulturalHegemony 575

emergenceofa historical locofartisans,killedworkers, mallfarmers,nd pettyproducersof all kinds.Despiteregional, thnic, nd occupationaldifferences,heysharedenough social experienceand perceptions fcommon nterest o develop

a coherentworldview.This "producer deology"wasenergizedby egalitarian ndcommunalcurrents hat hallengeddeveloping nequalities fwealth nd power.A labor theoryof value promoted disdain for bankers,brokers, and other"parasites," s well s protestsgainst hetransformationf abor nto commoditycontrolledby an abstractmarketratherthan by customary elationships.Theproducers'republicansuspicionof luxuryencouraged criticism f conspicuousaccumulation, nd their ustoms f moraleconomy nd mutualobligation ed todistrust fanyeffort opursue ndividual ainat theexpense ofcommunalwelfare.And all thesesentimentsweregiven politicalforceby theegalitarianrhetoric ftheDeclaration of Independence. By thelate nineteenth entury, heproducerideologyanimated mass movements romtheKnightsof Labor to the People'sparty.7

Yet theproducersnever became hegemonic.There were obviousreasons: theother side had more guns, the Populists made a mistaken alliance with theDemocrats,and so on. But this s not thewhole story.The producer ideologycontainedcontradictorylementsthatpromoted nternaldivisions nd pointedtoward ccommodation swell s resistance. s early s theRevolutionaryWarera,

Foner observed, the debate over price control egislationrevealed thatmanyPhiladelphia artisanswere abandoningthe communal traditions f moral econ-omyfortheentrepreneurial ision fAdam Smith.The drivetoprosperthroughindividualeffort,he horrorof anyformofdependence, sparked challengestodomination but also eased assimilation to the dominant individualistethos.Evangelicalrevivalists,nterpretingconomicdepressionsas moral udgments,responded to and reinforced hatethos. Individualismblurredclassdistinctionsand propelled workers nto the arms of middle-classradicals who focused onfinanciers ather thanemployers nd workedthrough xistingpolitical nstitu-

tions. That strategywas understandable. Dawley observed that the earliestgenerations fworkerswonpolitical emocracy efore hey xperiencedtheworsteffects f industrial apitalism; t is not surprising hattheyviewedvotingas apanacea and the government s "theexecutive committee f the people." Theproblemwas thatworking-classeaders grew unable to ookbeyondvictoryt thepolls toward programsthatwould infringeupon the rightsof property ndeffectivelyedistributewealth to bringabout the equality they] o passionatelydesired."18

17Foner,Tom aineand RevolutionarymericaNew York,1976), sp. chap. 5, and "Abolitionismnd theLaborMovement"n hisPoliticsnd deologyn the ge f he ivilWarNew York,1980), sp.74-76; Laurie,TheWorkingPeoplef hiladelphia,800-1850 Philadelphia, 980);Dawley, lass ndCommunity:heIndustrialRevolutionnLynn Cambridge,Mass., 1976); Hahn,TheRoots f outhernopulism: eoman armersnd theTransformationf he eorgia pcountry,850-1890 NewYork, 983); nd Wilentz, hants emocratic:ewYorkCitynd theRiseoftheAmerican orkinglass, 788-1850 (NewYork, 1984).Also see, amongmany therstudies, aul Faler,MechanicsndManufacturersn heEarlyIndustrialRevolution:ynn, assachusetts,780-1860(Albany,N.Y., 1981); and MiltonCantor, d., American orking-ClassultureWestport, onn.,1979).

18 Dawley, lass nd Community,2,207; Foner,Tom aine ndRevolutionarymerica,1, 157; andLaurie,Workingeople fPhiladelphia,19, 172,197-203.




Entrepreneurialmbitions, vangelicalreligion, preoccupationwith lectoralpolitics-none of these was a mistaken athfor n individual o follow.But theyconstituted owerful ountertendencies ithin heproducer deology,which ften

subverted ts egalitarian nd communalaims. It is possibleto see the producerideology as evidenceforGramsci's contradictoryonsciousness."This is not todenythatworkersfelt lasshatred,or to imply hattheywereonly dimly wareof what their employerswere up to. Nor is it to suggest that the dominantentrepreneurial thos was foreign o workers' veryday xperience,as Gramsciapparentlywould have claimed. It does suggestthatsubordinategroups couldidentify ith hedominant ulture-oftenfor ound reasons-even as they oughtto challenge t. And the challenge could be underminedbythat dentification.

To make this sort of argument s to resurrect he much-malignedghostof''consensus history."One does not have to embrace the fantasticvision of aconflict-free merican past to acknowledgethe power of the currents n theAmerican mainstream. he mostpenetrating istoriographyf the 1950s-thework of Richard Hofstadter,for example-was less a celebration than anunsparing critiqueof theconsensus and itsabsorptive apacities.To escape thedualisms of progressivehistoriography, ofstadterwanted to show how oftenchampions of "the people" collaborated in the entrepreneurialculture theyclaimedto transcend.For Hofstadter,who admired authentic issent n the rare

occasionshefound t, heAmerican onsensuswasnotpluralistic uthegemonic. 9NotthatHofstadterwas a Gramscianmalgre ui. Deft as he was at exploring he

assimilative owersof theentrepreneurialthos,he nevergraspedtheseriousnessof the effortso create alternatives. owhere s thisclearer than n hisdismissivetreatment f Populismin TheAgeof Reform, here the onlyalternative o the"commercial ealities" f ruralexperience s a treacly agrarian myth" oncoctedby Eastern literati nd imbibedby fuddled farmers. n recentyearsLawrenceGoodwyn has revealed the depth and vigor of Populism as a mass-baseddemocratic hallengeto a hierarchical olitical ulture.His argument spowerfuland convincing, ut itmighthave been rendered more theoretically oherent na Gramscian idiom. Goodwyn knewthat class analysisdoes little o illuminatePopulist nsurgency, e knew twas an extraordinaryocial formation ith ulturalas wellas economicroots, nd he knewthat hefailure f the movement nvolvedmore than an uneven power struggle.To be sure, one must give an accountofstolenelections, ace-baiting emagogues,and intransigentankers-the sortofaccountC. Vann Woodwardofferedwith legance and authoritynOrigins ftheNew South.But Goodwynalso stressed hecriticalmportance f hegemonicand

counterhegemoniccultural patterns.Wherever the plain people could "'seethemselves'experimenting n democratic forms" as in Texas), the Populistmovement lourished.Wherever t was largely n affair f local political lites asin Nebraska), the movementwas far more easily assimilatedto the "receivedculture"of entrepreneurial spiration, sound money," ectional nimosity,ndinherited artyoyalty. y 1896 thereceived ulture withhelp fromforce, raud,

19This is especially pparent n Hofstadter's heAmericanolitical raditionNew York, 1948).



Conceptf CulturalHegemony 577

and Populist actical lunders)had blunted he Populist hrust owarddemocraticcultural ptions.The central opulist enet-the idea of a democraticallymanagedcurrency-had been rendered"culturallynadmissible" o public discourse. The

constrictionf debate was not theresult f systematicepression. Martial aw wasnot declared, no dissenting ditors were exiled, and no newspapers censored,"Goodwynwrote. Yet among manydissenters fter 1896 there was "a kind ofacquiescence that matured into settled resignation," tendency to accept ahierarchical oliticalculture as somehow "inevitable."Goodwyn has provided asubtle ccount of the role played by"divided consciousness" nthe rise and fallofa mass democraticmovement.20

In the twentieth entury,working-class ttitudes eem to approximate evenmorecloselyGramsci'snotionofdivided consciousness.Mostsociological tudies

of working-classAmericans in the post-World War II era suggest that theirparticipationna national onsensushasbeen limited nd ambiguous. Summariz-ing survey ata in 1970, MichaelMann concluded, It s notvalue-consensuswhichkeeps theworking lasscompliant, ut rather lack f consensus nthecrucial reawhere concrete xperiences nd vague populism might e translatedntoradicalpolitics." chools and mass media, mplicitly enying lass or group conflict, avepresented picture fcompetitivetrivers ithin benevolentnation-state. atherthan engage in indoctrination, the liberal democratic state" has perpetuated

"values that do not aid the workingclass to interpret he reality t actuallyexperiences." n otherwords,valuesrooted n the workers' veryday xperiencelack egitimacy.2' s Gramsciunderstood, hehegemonic ulturedepends not onthebrainwashing f "themasses"buton thetendency fpublicdiscQurse omakesome formsof experience readily available to consciousnesswhile ignoringorsuppressingothers.

One result f thisprocess, ecently ocumentedbyPaul Kleppner, sthatduringthe twentieth enturyworking-class mericans have become progressively is-engaged fromnational elections. This is not to say thattheyhave developed

immunityo dominantvalues. Accordingto Mann, working-classeople tend toembrace dominantvalues as abstract ropositions ut oftengrowskeptical s thevalues are applied to their verydayives.Theyendorse the dea that veryonehasan equal chance of success in America but deny it when asked to comparethemselveswith he lawyer r businessman crosstown.22

RichardSennett and JonathanCobb explored thepsychic ignificance f thisambivalence nTheHidden njuries fClass.Theirrespondentsknewquitewell thatthere wereclass inequalities n America,that rewardswere distributed nfairly.

And theyhad theirown resourcesfordignity nd solidarity. et they ould not20 Hofstadter,heAge fReformNewYork, 955),23-59;Goodwyn, hePopulistMomentNewYork, 978),

xxix, 66, 270; and Woodward, riginsf heNewSouth, 877-1913 Baton Rouge, La., 1951). For a moredetailed ccount, ee Goodwyn's emocraticromise: he opulist omentnAmericaNew York,1976).ValeriaGennaro erda nterpretedopulism n an explicitly ramscian rameworks a developinghistoricalloc."See Lerda, I populismomericanoGenoa, 1981).

21 Mann, The SocialCohesion fLiberalDemocracy," mericanociologicalReview,5 1970):423-39.Alsosee JamesD. Wright, heDissent f heGovernedNew York,1976).

22 Kleppner,WhoVoted? he ynamicsfElectoralurnout,870-1980 NewYork,1982);and Mann, SocialCohesionofLiberalDemocracy," 35-39.



578 T. J.Jackson ears

escape the effect fdominantvalues: theydeemed their lass nferiority signofpersonal failure, venas manyrealizedtheyhad been constrained yclassoriginsthat hey ouldnot control. n one breath, garbagecollector old the nterviewer:

"Neverlearning o read good ... itwasout ofmyhands ... I mean I wantedto,but I got bad breaks." n the nextbreath, he same man said: "Look, I know t'snobody's faultbut mine that got stuckhere where am, I mean ... ifI wasn'tsuch a dumbshit. . . no, it ain't thatneither .. if 'd applied myself, know gotit nme to be different,an't say anyone did it to me." Even if thisman was simplysayingwhat he thought college professorwantedto hear,thatdesire to pleasewould itselfbe evidence for divided consciousness.Hidden njuries mpliesthatworkers have internalized a class struggle in their own minds, punishing

themselves ortheirfailure o acquire the culture'sbadges ofability ven as theyrecognize hat hosebadges are often sham. Gramsci's onception fsubordinategroup consciousness eems to be borneout bymuchavailable evidence.23

But itwould be a mistake odismissGramsci's ritics oo quickly.Gramsciwas,after all, a revolutionary trategist.Despite the complexityof his view ofworking-class onsciousness,he did not entirely xorcise the demon of falseconsciousness. He distinguishednvidiously etween the existing ultural com-mitments f workers nd those theywould form n an imagined revolutionaryfuture. He believed that the working class would somehow generate its own"organic ntellectuals" ho wouldacknowledge heir lass tiesand cooperate withworkers in transforming nchoate discontent nto revolutionaryproletarianconsciousness.This "rational" utlookwould be based on the"authentic" nterestsofworkers,whichhe thoughtwoulddictate struggle oreconomic and politicalpower. Despite his assaulton "economism,"Gramsci till ssumed that the needforpower n thepublic sphere was more fundamental han needs fulfilledn the"so-calledprivate" phereand that he social bondsofclasswereultimatelymoregenuine thanthose offamily, ommunity,nd religion.His notionof "contradic-

tory onsciousness"was hobbled by a rationalist sychology nd a revolutionaryteleology.He could notapproach workers' iscontent s historical videnceopentoa varietyf nterpretations;e saw t s a signof"embryonic"lassconsciousness(just as Genovese viewed slave protest as "pre-political").His revolutionarycommitment othenergized and narrowed his vision.24

These difficulties ave led some historians ocharge thatGramsci's onceptofculturalhegemony s not a "falsifiable ypothesis."f one assumes that workersought to be class-conscious revolutionaries, then all evidence of their

nonradicalism an be fittedntothesame mould as a demonstration f the successofruling-class egemony.From thisviewthe concept of culturalhegemony s anairtight cheme notsubjectto disproofby contrary vidence. Between thepoles

23 Sennett nd Cobb, TheHidden njuriesfClass NewYork,1972), 77-96, 151-53. Forsimilar vidence,see Eli Chinoy, utoWorkersnd theAmericanream New York, 1955).

24 Adamsoncogently ddressed some of these issues;Hegemonynd Revolution,35-45. Gramsci'srationalismlso helps xplain ome spects fhis houghthat he ontemporaryeftmight ind isagreeable,such as hisenthusiasm orTaylorized scientific anagement"r his statist ision f a "regulatedociety"emergingafter herevolution."



ConceptfCulturalHegemony 579

of revolution nd falseconsciousness,Marxist eleology loses off wide rangeofcounterevidence.This argumentdeservessome attention.25

THE PHRASE "FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS"jars immediatelyecauseit allstomindthesilly nalogieshistorians ave long been tempted o makebetween heir raft ndthe physical ciences. Strictfalsifiabilitys virtuallympossible n the writing fhistory, speciallywithrespect o questionsofconsciousness.But I willgrant hatthehistorian hould be open to the possibilityf "bad news";evidencecontraryto his interpretationhould at least be conceivable. f Marxist eleologypreventsthe falsificationf hegemony, hen we can drop the teleology nd askwhat kindof empiricalbad news would discreditthe concept of hegemony?The firstpossibilitysrule through orce ather hanconsent.There is evidencefor his iewscattered hroughoutAmerican history.At particular imes nd places,one canargue thatthe dominanthistorical loc had not established hegemoniccultureand therefore urnedto violencetoprotectts nterests. he periodfrom1877 to1919, for example, offers bundant evidence thatsubordinate groups did notconsent to the hegemonyof industrialcapitalism.But this is consistentwithGramsci's arger scheme: ruling groups resort to force when theirhegemonybreaksdownorwhen thasnot yetbeen established. o discredit egemonyfrom

this conflict" erspective,newouldhaveto assert hat ven during imes fsocialpeace subordinategroupswereentirelystrangedfrom ominantvalues and keptfrom ebellion nlybythe superiorpowerof their ppressors.This argumentmayapplyto closed caste systems r to police states even there t slights he role of

acquiescentconsciousness),but,whenapplied todeveloped capitalist ocieties, tis absurd.

A more formidable lternativesthepossibilityfgenuineconsensus, haracter-ized by open debate on fundamental ssues. From thisparticularperspective, llinterests re articulatedn publicdiscourseuntilconsensus emerges; individuals

choose freelyto support the consensus in pursuitof their own self-interest,registeringheir ecision nelections.Recently arlDegler applied thisview o theantebellumSouth. His argumenthighlights he ambiguities f terms ike "con-sensus" and "interest."Degler attackedGenovese's notion that the southernplanterclass, havingachieved culturalhegemony,was able to identifytsowninterests ith hoseofsociety t large."Whatwehavenotbeentoldby proponentsofhegemony showwe know t was theplanting lass'shegemony hat ccountedfor the identification f interest rather than the actual self-interestf the

nonslaveholders,"Degler complained. "To someone who does not accept he-gemony as an explanation, it seems quite plausible that the interestsof

25 Kraditormadethisrgumentmost ointedly;adical ersuasion,5.Also ee CarlDegler, laceOver ime:TheContinuityf outhernistinctivenessBatonRouge,La., 1977),73. RobertWestbrook'shoughtfuleviewof Kraditor as nfluenced y hinkingn a number f points. eeWestbrook,Good-byeoAllThat:AileenKraditor nd RadicalHistory,"adicalHistoryeview, 8-30 (1984): 69-89. Strictlypeaking,hecriticsrecorrect: very rganized ocietys directed y hegemonic roup, hough ome forms fhegemonyanbemore emocratichan thers. ut learlyhe ritics'argets narrower eaningfhegemony:hehypothesisthat heelite xercise ultural s well s economic nd political ower veran entire ociety.




nonslaveholdersand planters,as each definesthem for himself, re at leastparallel,notantagonistic." ne has toprovethe existence f class antagonism, otassume it, nd, to showthe existence fhegemony, ne has to produce empirical

evidencethat lternativeoursesofactionwould havemoregenuinely ervedtheinterests f nonslaveholders.26

There are several problems with this argument.Assuming the economicrationalitynd freechoice of nonslaveholders,Degler sidestepped the thornyquestion ofhow culture nd psychologyhape definitionsf self-interest,s wellas the inner and outer constraints on human action. How free werenonslaveholdersto oppose slaverywhen the subject was beyond discussionin

nearlyevery southernstate?Their outlook was shaped not only by economic

rationalityut alsoby the spontaneousphilosophy f their ime nd place-racial

pride and fear,deference and democracy, southernhonor." Even grantingmeasureofrationality, hat ooks ike the pursuit f self-interest ayonly make

a virtue f necessity.In any case, one does not have to deny that slavery erved nonslaveholder

self-interest.ramsci'snotion fa hegemonichistorical loc mplies hat ts eaders

forged alliances based on economic as well as cultural ties. Many yeomen,

particularlyn the Black Belt,had an interestn preserving ependentrelationswith he planters.27 he problemturns n the ambiguity f "interest"-is itshort

or long term, ndividualor collective, conomic or somethingmore complex?Degler did not address thatquestion.

On the matter f counterevidence, here s a greatdeal (particularlyn WPA

narratives) o suggestwidespreadclasshostility etweenyeomenand planters s

well as to induce a belief monghistorians hatoppositionto slaverymighthave

better erved the nonslaveholders' nterest-howeverone defines that slippery

term. As Hahn observed,"Politicaldemocratizationwas possible onlybecause

slaverydid not presentitself s an issue." To explain why slaverybecame a

nonissue,historians ave usuallygestured oward he planters'power n the statelegislatures.The concept of hegemonyhighlights heir power in the cultural

realm. If antislaverywas placed beyonddiscussion,the narrownessof political

discoursewould serve toprotect he property ase ofthe rulinggroups-slavery.That, as Genovese observed, s "all a hegemonicpolitics s supposed to do." But

how was the task accomplished?Alongside systematicuppression ofdissent,subtlerprocesses may have been at work-ambivalent self-censorshipmong

planters, rudging cquiescenceamong small andownersof the Piedmont.And

thesemayhave contributed o theclosingof counterhegemonic lternatives.2826 Degler,PlaceOverTime, 0-81. To demonstratehe existence f freedebate,Deglermentioned he

Kentuckymancipationeferendumf 1849,which oes show hat lavery as notbeyond iscussionn thatstate, ut tmaybe the xception hat roves herule. n any ase, using lections s examples f consensusdoes not confront heotherproblemsmentionednthe following aragraph.

27 Hahn, Roots f outhernopulism,0, 52,84-85, 90-91.28 Ibid., 110; ElizabethFox-Genovese nd Eugene Genovese,"Yeomen Farmers n a Slaveholders'

Democracy,"ntheir ruits fMerchantapitalNewYork, 983), 62; andGeorgeP. Rawick, d.,TheAmericanSlave:A Compositeutobiography,9vols. Westport,onn., 1972),7: 354, 18: 215, 15: 273-74,319, 17: 13,328.




The largerpoint s this:historians o not have to assume falseconsciousness osuggestthe possibility f false or hegemonic) consensus. Degler's argumentforgenuine consensus rests on the unproven assumption that action reveals free

choice and individual preference.29 rue consciousnessreplaces false conscious-ness but remains ne-dimensional.Neither iewrecognizes heproblematic atureof human interests.

When we turn fromyeoman and planter o labor and capital, t s less difficultto establish a clear conflictof economic interests.As Dawley said: "In anymarketplace ransaction, uyers nd sellershave opposing interests. s buyers flabor, manufacturershad a common interestamong themselves which wasopposed to thecommon nterest f workers, s sellers. f thewage bargainbetweenmanufacturers nd workershad been mutuallybeneficial, hen the conflict finterestwould have been historicallynsignificant.ut thebargainwas unequal."30The question then arises: were thereother,more compelling nterestsutsidetheeconomicsphere?

Aileen Kraditor hought o and argued thepoint n TheRadicalPersuasion.Muchofher animus is directedagainst the concept of culturalhegemony. n her viewthe concept denies thesegmented,discontinuous haracter fAmericansociety,substituting monolithic ystemwhoseparts re subsumed na hegemonicwholedirectedby a rulingclass.3'The charge may applyto some of the sectarians he

skeweredin her footnotes, ut not to Gramsci.Even thoughhe devalued theprivate ealmand stressed tspenetration ydominantvalues,themajor tendencyof hisprison notebooks s to reject ystem nd emphasizethe relative utonomyof cultural, conomic, and political pheres.

But Kraditorhad other rrows n herquiver.Announcing hathegemony s nota falsifiable ypothesis, he then attempted o falsifyt in twoways. First, hearguedthat1890-1917 was a "shake-upperiod"whenmassive ndustrial ombina-tionsrose topowerbutbyno means exercised ulturalhegemony.The arroganceand brutalitymbodied ncorporate apital provoked widevarietyfAmericans

intoorganizing o limit he new forms fpower.32 his argument s accuratebutnot nconsistent ith Gramscianviewof the ate nineteenth entury s a periodwhencorporate eaders constituted historical loc in the processofovercomingpotential counterhegemonies Populists, Socialists, Knightsof Labor) and ofnegotiating ross-class lliances n order to createa newhegemonicculture.

Kraditor'sother criticism f hegemony nvolvesa-variation n the theme ofconsensus. She argued that workers chose to accept dehumanizationin theworkplace nexchangeforautonomy n theprivate phere. Havingdecided that

their emotional and spiritual interestsoutweighed their economic interests,workersremained deaf to socialist ppeals. Viewingtheir work nstrumentally,they willinglymbraced the dominant social order because it allowed them to

29 On theweaknesses f he heoryf revealed reference,"eeCraigCalhoun, heQuestionfClass truggle(Chicago,1982),211.

30 Dawley,Class ndCommunity,74.31 Kraditor, adicalPersuasion,6-71, 88,90.32 Ibid., 3-64, 71-85, 95-96.



582 T.J.Jackson ears

preserve theirmostcherishedvalues in the "mediating nstitutions" f family,community, nd religion.33- The argumentraises mportant oints.Kraditorrightlytressed hatthereare

subjectiveneeds thatmaybe more "real" than class interests nd that not allculturalforms an be pigeonholedas accommodation r resistance ocapitalism.Even the remnantsof the idea of falseconsciousness n Gramsci can make itdifficultoexamine"the ntrinsicruth r appeal ofthe dea inquestion"-that is,the subjectiveneeds cultureactuallyserves.34Kraditorrejected the quest forembryonic lassconsciousness nd tried otaketheprivate phereon its wnterms.

But she could have given the argument further urnbyacknowledging hepossibilityhat heprivate phere cando morethanprovide haven na heartlessworld.It can also nurtureradicalchallengesto capitalism.The sociologistCraigCalhoun hasarguedthat, s capitalist-styleodernizationncroachedoneverydaylife n England, customary ocial bonds and nonrational mpulses proved moreeffectivenpromoting esistance hantherationalperception fclass nterest. heshiftfromcommunal to class consciousnessattenuated social bonds and en-couraged reformismather han radicalism.His conclusionhas globalreach: themostradicalanticapitalist rotestshave been rooted not in Marxistuniversalismbut in local traditions nderminedby industrialization.35his findinghas beenimplicit n much of the social history f the last fifteenyears. It suggests that

Gramsci'spersistent ationalismmayhave led him to misperceive he roots ofradicalism, verlooking hemessiness fexistentworking-classulture nhiszealfortheclean, bold lines of theproletarianfuture.

Although Kraditor ettisoned her Gramscian baggage, she, too, remained arationalist. nsisting that workershad a conscious choice, she overlooked thepossibilityhat their refusal to embrace a vague and threatening evolutionaryfuturemaynothave impliedembraceofthe established rder; theymaysimplyhavebeen making he bestofa bad lot.AttackingGramscifordenying JohnQ.Worker'sfullconsciousness f whathe was doing,"she replaced false conscious-ness with rueconsciousness.Her naive voluntarism eglected onotethatpeoplemay be confused or ambivalent nd still etain"rationalitynd purposefulness."JohnQ. Workerwas notfully onsciousofwhathe was doing; no one iS.36

There isa further roblem.Reacting gainst System-thinking,"raditor alongwith some of the social historianson whose work she relied) displayed anextraordinaryaithnpeople's capacity ocompartmentalizexistence.Althoughshe referred o the "partialautonomy"of the private phere, t is apparent sheregardedthat errain s a sanctuary ndefiledby thedominant ulture.One does

not need toregardworkers s passivevictimsoreject his iew. fCalhoun is right,the ncursions fcapitalistnstitutionsnto theprivate phere have provokedthemostvigorous formsof resistance.A glance at Jane Addams on generational

33 Ibid., 6, 279,294,301-17.34 Ibid., 6, 369-70 n.28.35 Calhoun,QuestionfClass truggle,sp.chap.8. For a thoughtfulffortoformulatelass onsciousness

inhistoricalatherhan essentialist"erms, ee SeanWilentz,Against xceptionalism:lass-ConsciousnessandtheAmerican aborMovement, 90-1820,"nternationalLaborandorkinglassHistory,6 1984): 1-24.

36 Kraditor, adicalPersuasion,6, 152.




conflict etween mmigrants r Robertand Helen Lynd on "the ong arm of thejob" in Middletownfurther evealshowdifficult,f not mpossible, t has been forworking-class eople to preservean autonomous culturaldomain.37

Kraditor'swork, ikeDegler's, hows hatneither onsensusnor hegemony saneasily falsified ypothesis. n that ense the empiricist ritiquehas a point,but itapplies toalmost ny historical nterpretationhat ries o illuminate wide rangeofhuman experience.And yet he conceptof hegemonymay t eastbe falsifiablein principle.John Gaventa argued thatcase in Power nd Powerlessness:uiescenceand Rebellionn an AppalachianValley.

Gaventa began by observing hat lack of expressed grievancesmay notmeangenuine consensus;the mosteffective se ofpower may be to preventgrievancesfrom rising n the first lace. "A consistentlyxpressedconsensus s not requiredfor the maintenance of dominant interests, nly a consistency hat certainpotentiallykey issues remain latent issues and that certain interestsremainunrecognized-at certaintimesmore than at others."But how can one observenondecisions, nalyze nonissues, nd studywhat does not happen?38

Gaventawanted o answer hat uestionyetkeephisempiricistredentials ntact.Focusingon the dominationof the Yellow Creek Valley nWest VirginiabytheAmericanAssociation a British nd latermultinational oal company),he beganwith a testablehypothesis:the quiescence of Appalachian miners,far from

reflecting onsensus, resulted fromthe exercise of culturalhegemony by coalcompaniesand local elites. He needed to show thatpoliciesofdevelopmentwerepromoted by a powerful minority atherthan the powerless majority, hat theminerswere not free o acceptor reject he new economic onditions hosepoliciesproduced, and that theywould have thought nd acted differentlyut for thepower arrayed againstthem.39

The first wo claims are easilydemonstrated; he third s more problematic.Gaventa elaborated itby investigating hatthe Yellow Creek minersdid whencompany power weakenedor thirdparties ntervened nd whatminers n other

Appalachian localitiesdid when facedwith similarconditions. n each case hefound resistance.During the 1890s,when the companywas forced nto bank-ruptcy nd internalreorganization,he prodevelopment onsensus broke down.Duringthe1930s,when the Communist arty nd theACLU intervened n behalfofunemployedminers,widespread nticompany rotestsurfaced.The samewastrueofthe 1960s,whengovernmentgenciestriedto ensure"maximumfeasibleparticipation"by local communities n the distribution f federal antipovertyfunds.Throughoutthecentury, esistance lared ntermittentlyn othervalleys

outside Yellow Creek. Yet at nearly every point the miners' protestswereineffectual nd short-lived. hey failed,Gaventa claimed,not onlybecause theotherside resorted o forcebutalso because theexperienceofpowerlessness ad

37Addams,Twentyears tHull-HouseNewYork,1910), 31-50,252-53;and Lynd ndLynd,Middletown(New York, 1929),chap. 7.

38 Gaventa, ower nd Powerlessness:uiescencend Rebellionn anAppalachian alleyUrbana, II., 1980),chap. i, esp. p. 19.

39 Ibid., 5-29.




inculcated a spirit of acquiescence within the miningcommunities.Like theworkers nterviewed ySennett nd Cobb, the miners nternalized he dominantculture even as they saw through ts pretensions. Although the mountaineers

suggest hat their orefathers']andwas stolenbythe coal company] gents, heyconsiderthese matters obe examplesnot ofexploitation ut oftheirforefathers''ignorance' or 'poor doings."40

In exploring his ersion fa Gramscian contradictoryonsciousness,"Gaventarecognized the difficulty f definingthe miners' interests. f free to do so,subordinategroupswould choose theirreal interests, hich,he declared,do nothave to be identifiedn order to study the culturaldimensionsof power. Thehistoriancan postulate a variety f plausible interests or a given subordinategroup, then how that hegroup was prevented rom cting n orevenconceivingthose interests. hat, in Gaventa's view, s sufficiento show that an apparentconsensusdoes notexpress he ctual nterests fsubordinates,venthough tmayserve their mmediateneed formaintaining ood relationswith xisting lites.4'

Unavoidably, tseems,we are returned o the diomof"interests" nd "needs."Andhere even Gaventa's pproach, for ll its trengths,sthinner nd flatter hanitmightbe. Like mostsocial scientists, e is more interested n groups than inindividuals,moreconcerned with elf-interestationally onceivedthanwith heunpredictabledepths of the human psyche. So it is not surprisingthat he

overlooked the questions posed by Dostoevskii'shalf-mad but preternaturallyprescientnarrator n Notes rom heUndergroundver a century go.

Whennall these housands fyears as there een timewhenmanhasacted nly romhisown nterest? hat sto be donewithhemillionsf facts hatmen, onsciously,hat sfullynderstandingheir eal nterests,ave eft hem n thebackgroundnd haverushedheadlong n another ath, o meetperil nddanger,ompelledo this ourse ynobodyandby nothing, ut, s itwere, imply islikinghebeaten rack,nd haveobstinately,willfully,truck ut another ifficult,bsurdway, eekingtalmostnthedarkness.o, Isuppose, his bstinacynd perversityerepleasantero them han nyadvantage....

Advantage!What sadvantage?42

Like therationalists f Dostoevskii's ime, ontemporaryocial scientists ave beeninclinedto take their whole register f humanadvantages from heaverages ofstatisticaliguresnd politico-economicormulas." heir listshavealways ncluded"prosperity, ealth,freedom,peace" butrarely heperversity hatmightunder-minea person's willingness o secure thosegoals even as he consciously alutesthem.

It is a bitmuch, though, orequire everyhistorian o cultivate heimagination

of a Dostoevskii.Within he imits f tsgenre,Gaventa's onception f the miners'interest oes overcometheshortcomings f mostMarxist r liberalformulations.

40 bid., 5.41 Ibid., 9.42 FedorDostoevskii,otesfromhe nderground,nConstance arnett,rans., hree hortNovelsf ostoevsky

(New York, 1960), 196-97. The wholequestionof "needs" and "interests"equires ome imaginativerethinking.ora comprehensiveeview f the iteraturerom lato othepresent,ee Patricia pringborg,TheProblemfHumanNeeds ndthe ritiquefCivilizationLondon,1981).




The narrowness f thoseapproaches becomesapparentin Gaventa's accountofoutsider nterventionn the 1930s. The Communists ssumed that the militantresponse of the miners to economic conditions mplied an equally vehement

rejection f theirfundamentalistrotestantulture.But forminers, eligionwasnotan opiate; itwas theonlyform f collective rganization heyhad beenallowedfordecades. Communistswerefixated n economic ssues, iberals n civil iberties.Both groups held the miners' ulture n contempt.Local elites realized that theminers' nterests nvolvedmore than free peech and economicredistribution;ncombatting he outsiders, heycould address local pride,fears of communism,longings for a righteous community.The hegemony of Appalachian elitesinvolvedan appeal to resonantcultural ymbols.43

Despite thecare Gaventa devoted to developinga testable onceptofcultural

hegemony,his argumentremains omehowunsatisfying. he whole debate overfalsifiabilityften seems to rest on the empiricist allacythat what cannot beprecisely bserved nd measureddoes notexist.The empiricistradition ancheckdogmatic assertionbut also impoverishhistorical magination.To assess thesignificancef a given event, he historianmayneed to rethink he argerprocessinwhich toccurred. Thoughts,sentiments, rejudicesare all "events"frommyperspective.)By imaginingwhat mighthaveoccurred nthe absence or variationof the event, he historian an morefully ppreciate tsplace intheconfiguration

thatactuallyformed.A fullerunderstanding f thepast"as itreallyhappened"may ometimes equire nquiryntounrealizedor resisted ossibilities.n the caseof culturalhegemony, ne doesnotneed to magine heonlyunrealized lternativetobejurgen Habermas's "ideal speechsituation"-wherecommunicationsopen,transparent, ndistorted y hierarchies. hat notion can hardlybe considered apossibilitynanysense.Staying losertotheempiricistradition,he historian anexploreunrealized past possibilitiesythinking hrough text rbodyofthoughtto ts unthought" mplications. his ispartof the genda behind BarbaraTaylor'sexaminationof the feminist train n Owenite socialismthat was ignored or

repressed in later formsof socialism.My own desire to think the unthoughtpossibilitiesfantimoderndissent nimatedmyexploration fan often-inchoateantimodernism mong middle- and upper-classAmericans at the turnof thecentury. his approach can degenerate nto a searchfor usable past.But it canalso lluminate hegemonic ulture yrecoveringlternativeshatwereno less realbecause theywere submergedor silent.44

Gaventa, ower nd Powerlessness,15-16.

44 On theuseofhypotheticalonoccurrences,ee Max Weber, Criticaltudiesn theLogicof theCulturalSciences,"n EdwardShils' nd HenryFinch, ds.,TheMethodologyf he ocial ciencesGlencoe, ll., 1949),esp. 164-88.On "thinkingheunthought,"eeMartinHeidegger,dentityndDifference,d. and trans. oanStambaughHarperTorchbook dn.,New York,1974), sp.48. I amindebted o Dominick aCapra's ucidcommentsn these- roblems. ee LaCapra,"Rethinkingntellectual istorynd Reading Texts," n hisRethinkingntellectualistory:exts, ontexts,anguageIthaca,N.Y., 1983), 31-32. The examples mentionare inBarbaraTaylor's veand the ewJerusalemNew York,1983)and myNoPlace ofGrace:Antimodernismand theTransformationfAmerican ulture,880-1920 (New York,1981). For Habermas'smostsuccinctsummary fhis dealspeech ituation,ee his "What s Universal ragmatics?"n his CommunicationndtheEvolutionf ociety,rans. homasMcCarthyBoston, 979), sp. 63. For a valuable eview f the ssues, eeMartin ay, Should ntellectual istory ake a Linguistic urn?Reflectionsn the Habermas-Gadamer




If the social history f the last fifteen ears has taughtus anything,t is theambiguity f that ilence. What official r publicdiscourse eftunmentionedwasoften loquently iscussed roundkitchen ables, nsaloons, n slavequarters.Yet

too frequently hosediscussionshave been treated n isolation.What is needed,Thomas Benderobserved, s"a simultaneous mbraceof thepublicand private-and the way meaningsmoveback and forth etween hem.... We must xaminewith reater ocus hanwehave the nterplayfprivate alk nd publictalk,privatetalkand public silence, publictalkand private ilence."45Bender's observationsuggests recasting f the problemof falsifiability.ocial historians ave shownthat wide rangeof culturalmeanings-derived from hegemeinschaftlicheorldsof family, ommunity,nd faith-was oftendenied entry ntopublic discourse.What needs to be exploredwithgreaterprecision s how thishegemonic processoccurred at crucial moments, uch as thefinaldebate over American entry ntoWorld War I, when the vastmajority f congressmen hose to disregardtheirconstituents'pposition o thewar andvotedwith hepresident.46n this nd otherpolicymatters, ne way to falsify he hypothesis f hegemony s to demonstratetheexistence f genuinely luralistic ebate;one way o substantiatet s to discoverwhat was leftout ofpublic debate and to account historicallyorthosesilences.

Yet even if theconceptof culturalhegemony an be rendered falsifiablenddisentangledfrom rude notionsof falseconsciousness, therproblemsremain.

Some stemfrom he schematic astofmind that ometimes urfaced nGramsci:thebipolarmodel of hegemony nd domination, herationalist sychology hatstressed ntentionalitynd slightedunintendedconsequences.Other difficultiesinvolve the ambiguities urroundingcertain key implications: he relative au-tonomy fspheres,thevariety fwaysthathegemonicvaluescan affect ifferentcultural exts.By considering heseproblems, hope tosuggestpossibilities ormore flexible onceptof culturalhegemony.

GRAMSCI EGLECTEDHEVARIETY F CONSTRAINTSsuch as the fearofunemploy-ment) that could exist between the poles of forceand consentand sometimesformulated iscase sostarkly hathe provided warrant or versimplified odelsofclassdomination. venGenovese,for llhis ensitivityndeveloping heconceptof hegemony,has been criticizedforpresenting static,monolithic mage ofplanter-class ule in the Old South. Gramsci'sown emphasis on the constantformationnd reformation f allianceswithin istorical locspoints owardmoredynamic pproaches. Rhys saac, though nspiredbyGeertzrather hanGramsci,

Debate," nDominick aCapra andStevenL. Kaplan, ds.,Modern uropeanntellectualistory: eappraisalsandNewPerspectivesIthaca,N.Y., 1982),86-1 10.

45 Bender, "Comment," n T. J. JacksonLears, "The Conceptof CulturalHegemony:Problems ndPossibilities,"aper presented t the Seventy-Seventhnnual Meeting f the Organization f AmericanHistorians, eld nLos Angeles,Calif.,April -7, 1984.

46 To myknowledge, o congressionalupporter f American ntry ntoWorldWar ever laimed hata majorityf the population upported t, nd even historiansympathetico Wilson, uchas Arthur ink,have cknowledged hat popularreferendum ight ellhavegone against hepresident. ee Link,Wilson:CampaignsorProgressivismndPeace, 916-1917 Princeton, 965), sp. 429 n. 103.Also ee David P.Thelen,Robert . LaFollettend the nsurgentpiritNew York,1976), 131-32.




transcended he implicit unctionalismf Geertz n a brilliant xample ofhow ahistorianmayanalyze a hegemonicculture n transition.n The TransformationfVirginia,740-1790, Isaac showedhow a traditional ulture anctioning eference

and displaygavegroundbefore popular evangelical thospromoting ontractualsocialrelations, scetic elf-denial,nd domesticprivacy. he processwas gradual,halting, nd nevercomplete.Vestiges f theold culture urvived n thenew. Yeta new historicalbloc emerged, successfully hallenged traditional ources ofauthority, nd promoted more democraticand bourgeois forms of culturalhegemony.47

The compatibilityf the Isaac and Gramsciviewpoints hould dispel the ideathathegemony s a model of socialcontrolfrom hetop down.On thecontrary,new formsof cultural hegemonycan bubble up frombelow,as historical locs

fashion world view withwide appeal. The Virginia vangelicals ranslated heirspiritual utlook nto a regenerative reed,whichtook ts mostdramaticpoliticalform n the speeches of PatrickHenry. n Religionndthe ecline fMagic, KeithThomas described a similar process in seventeenth-centuryngland, as anantimagical deologyof self-help mergedamongthe middling ort nd graduallybecame the cornerstone fa developinghegemonic ulture.The declineofmagicwas thework not onlyof a scientific litebut also of theshopkeepersand smallfarmers,ike theman whodeclared"hismarewillmakeas good holywater s any

priest can." Other, more oblique influencescan also be traced from below.Dominantgroupscan revitalize hegemoniccultureby ncorporatingwhattheyimagineto be the nstinctual italityf the owerorders-as, for xample,duringthe ate nineteenth enturywhenneurasthenicAmericanswereurged toadopt amore relaxed pace of life byemulating Orientalpeople, the inhabitants f thetropics,nd thecolored peoples generally."No top-downmodelof domination an

explain the complex growth, issolution, r transformationf hegemoniccul-tures.48

Yet the tendency o confusehegemonywith ocial controlpersists.t ispossible

for Stuart Ewen to invoke Gramsci'sname in support of his conspiratorialinterpretationf Americanadvertising,wherein ad executivesbecome mastermanipulatorsof mass culture.49The problemwith this view is not that it iscompletely alsebut that t providesan easy targetforthosewho want to denyhegemonyaltogether.To avoid getting hot down, proponentsof hegemonyshouldbewareofattributingsinglementalityo arge nstitutions.n universities,newspapers, venadvertisinggencies, heremaybeconflicts etween ommercialand culturalobjectives nd internecine owerstruggles hathave little o do with

ideology.Closerattentiono these nternal rocesseswould revealmoreabouthow

47Anderson,AntinomiesfAntonioGramsci,"5-26; interview ith erbert utmann HenryAbelove,Betsy lackmar, eterDimock,ndJonathanchneer,ds.,VisionsfHistoiyNew York,1983),209-10; andIsaac,The Transformationf Virginia,740-1790 (ChapelHill, N.C., 1982). Isaac referredo the"culturalhegemony"f thegentryn page 137.

48 Isaac, TransformationfVirginia,66; Thomas,Religionnd the ecline fMagic NewYork,1971),147;and Lears,No PlaceofGrace, 2.

49 Ewen,CaptainsfConsciousness.dvertisingnd the ocialRoots f he onsumerultureNewYork,1975),133.



588 T. J.Jackson ears

hegemonic values are produced in thecomplex organizations hat have shapedmodernculture.

Anotherway to escape from he dead end of social control s to abandon any

assumption hat here sa straightine linking ntentions, ctions, nd effects. nemphasison theunintended onsequencesofpurposive ocial actionwaspopular-ized byRobertMertonhalfa century go; it also pervades the ronist radition fAmericanhistoriographyromHenry Adams to PerryMiller. But David BrionDavis was thefirst oadapt it toGramscianpurposes. In TheProblemfSlaverynthe geofRevolution,avis showed how antislaverygitators nwittinglyromotednew formsof culturalhegemony.By ignoring he emergent wage slavery" nfactoriesand defining abor exploitationsolely in termsof the master-slave

relationship, bolitionists elped legitimize hecapitalist rganization f aborandreinforce he pread of bourgeois ulturalhegemony. hiswasnottheir onsciousgoal, Davis insisted,but an unintendedby-product f actions aimed at otherends.50

One cangivea furtherurn othe dea ofunintended onsequences by tressingthe importance f half-conscious sychicneeds that eem farremovedfrom hepublicrealmofclassrelations utmay erve orevitalize rtransform hegemonicculture.Racial and sexual fearsoffer ome pervasive xamples of thisfunctional

"irrationality";o do the fictive nd fantastic lements n the consumer culturepromotedby advertising nd massmedia.Andfin-de-sieclentimodernism, hichwas oftenrooted n idiosyncraticongingsforauthentic xperience,neverthelesshelpedaccelerate he spreadof a therapeuticworldviewwell uitedto thesecular,corporatesociety mergingaround the turnof the century.Privateneeds hadpublicconsequences: theyhelpedaccelerate heriseof a newhegemonic ulture.51

If privateneeds have publicconsequences,howautonomous are thespheresofsocial life?Their boundaries seem discernible nly n specifichistorical ircum-stances. Personal frustrationr fulfillmentan resonate in a varietyof ways,promoting hangewithin dominant ultureor challengesfromoutside it.Thedesire to preserve customarybonds withneighbors and kin,the yearningforsalvation, he onging opleaseparental uthorityrrebelagainst t-these privateconcerns anhave radicalorreactionary esultsnpublic.Yetmany ultural ormscan also havea vigorous nd complex ife partfrom ccommodation rresistanceto the dominant social order.

50Davis, TheProblemf laveryntheAgeofRevolution,770-1823 (Ithaca,N.Y., 1974), esp. 349-50. Forthe classicformulation,ee R. K. Merton, The Unanticipatedonsequences f Purposive ocial Action,"

Americanociologicaleview, (1936): 894-904. Alsosee hisSocialTheoy ndSocial tructureLondon, 1957),51, 61-62, 66, 128, 563, 597.5 Lears, No Place of Grace, sp. chaps. 3, 4, 6. For a similar rgument,ee my"From Salvation o

Self-Realization:dvertisingnd theTherapeutic oots f theConsumer ulture, 880-1930," n RichardWightman ox and T. J.Jackson ears,eds.,TheCulture fConsumption:ritical ssaysnAmericanistory,1880-1980 (NewYork,1983),30-38. RonaldT. Takaki stressed hehegemonic oleof racism. ee Takaki,IronCages:Raceand Culturen Nineteenth-CenturymericaNew York,1979). On advertising,ee my SomeVersions fFantasy: oward a CulturalHistory fAmericanAdvertising,"n Jack alzman, d., Prospects:AnAnnual fAmericanulturaltudiesNewYork, 984),349-405. StevenWatts as providedmany uggestiveinsightsnto heunintended egemonic onsequences f half-conscioussychic eeds; Watts, heRepublicReborn:War ndtheMaking fLiberal merica,790-1820 (Baltimore, orthcoming).




To chart the largely unexplored territorywhere public and private meet,historiansmayneed to devote moredetailed ttention o theacculturation rocess.One model study is Steven Stowe's account of planter-classfamilies n the

antebellum outh. Informedbut not mprisonedby the psychoanalyticradition,itprovidesvaluable nsights ntohoweliteboys nd girlsbecame men and womenunder particular istoricalircumstances. he French ociologist ierreBourdieu,in his workon public education and popular taste,has opened less ntimate reasof cultural reproductionto critical crutiny. loser to home, David Tyack andElizabeth Hansot have effectivelyocused on the intersection etweenAmericanpublic education and business culture, tracing the emergence of "scientificmanagement" neducational administrationnd observing hat whatwasnot onthe agenda" ofprofessional ducators"wasoften s importants whatwas." AndWilliamR. Taylor, focusing n thetransformationf public space in New YorkCity during the Progressive ra, has shown how the builtenvironment an bedesigned to serve acculturatingpurposes, for example, the assimilation ofimmigrants hrough xposure togargantuan cons ncavernousrailway tations.52The successof such acculturation rojects, s always,remains n open question.We still need to know more about how students actually experienced the"scientifically anaged" classroom or how immigrants nterpreted he publiccultureembodied in Grand Central.

In trying o catch the complexity f theacculturation rocess,historiansmayneed totakea linguistic urn.That would be entirely ppropriateforproponentsof hegemony, since Gramsci's linguistic tudies played a decisive role in theformation f the concept. Even his earliest writings tressed the centrality flanguage incementing given group's prestige nd cultural eadership.The keytaskwould be toexaminetheways ulturalmeaningemerges nvarious historical"texts":sermons, advertisements, olklore, opular ritual.The investigation fculturalmeaningsmight nvolve he historical thnography ioneered by saac inhisaccounts fdancing nd cockfightingnoldVirginia. or ntellectual istorians

itmight uggest he close attention o rhetorical trategies hatSacvan Bercovitchbroughtto thePuritaneremiad. By reaffirmingsense of mission, ven as thespeaker seemed todespairof tsfulfillment,nd reinterpretingocialproblems sthe product of individual moral failings, he eremiad, Bercovitchsuggested,revitalized hehegemony fPuritan lites.BothBercovitch nd Isaac decipheredmeaningswithin framework f powerrelations.53

52 Tyack nd Hansot,Managers fVirtue:ublic chool eadershipnAmerica,820-1980 New York,1982),110; Taylor, Public pace, PublicOpinion, nd the Origins f Mass Culture," ecture elivered o a joint

meeting f the American ouncilof LearnedSocieties nd theHungarianAcademy f Science,Budapest,Hungary, ugust 4, 1982; Stowe, heRelationsf ife: amily, itual,ndCulturentheAntebellumlanter lass(Baltimore,.forthcoming);ourdieu ndJ.C. Passeron, eproduction:n Education,ociety,ndCultureBeverlyHills,Calif.,1977); and Bourdieu,Distinction:SocialCritiquef he udgmentf Taste, rans.RichardNice(Cambridge,Mass., 1984). Also see Tyack,The One Best System: History fAmerican rban ducation(Cambridge,Mass., 1974).

53 Isaac, TransformationfVirginia, 04, 119, 323-57; and Bercovitch,heAmericaneremiadNew York,1974). For a suggestiveeview ssay inkingGramsciwithKennethBurke nd otherrhetorical ritics,eePhillipK. Tompkins,On Hegemony-'He Gave It No Name'-and Critical tructuralismnthe Work fKenneth urke,"Quarterlyournal f peech,1 (1985): 119-31.J. G. A. Pocock's olitics,anguage, nd Timeis also helpful uta bit oo ntellectualisto be directly elevant;ee Politics,anguage,nd Time New York,




The rhetoricof a dominant culture may contain more than clues to itshegemony.A number of historians nd literary riticshave begun to insist hatlanguage, the ground of meaning, is a contested terrain. FredricJameson

complained thatMarxists re toopreoccupiedwithunmaskingmystificationsndtoo little oncerned with heutopian promiseoften mplicitn ideology.How canone explainfascism, e asked,without ome reference o the ongings tclaimedto fulfill? his stress n the coexistence fideology nd utopiacan be broughttoa varietyf cultural orms.Advertisingffers-onexample, aw another.Genoveseand E. P. Thompson haveemphasizedthat he ruleof lawconstituted ot simplya powerful egemonic nstrumentutalsoa fundofbeliefs nd values fromwhichthe less powerful could draw sustenance.The meaning of the law could becontestedbyconflictingocialgroups. Law promised a reignofuniversalnormswithutopian implications.54

Emphasis on the dialecticof ideologyand utopia helps us get beyond one-dimensionalconceptionsof culturalhegemony,but we remainin the world ofbinary ppositions: ruth nd falsehood,resistance nd accommodation. emiotictheory uggests ne way outofthe binary ealmby drawing ttentionwayfromstaticcategories and toward the process by whichmeaning is constructed nparticular exts.Fromthisview, deology s less a productthana process nwhichdifferent indsofmeanings re producedand reproduced through he establish-

mentof a mental ttitude owardthe world. That outlookprivileges ertain ignsystems s necessary,natural,or inevitablewaysof recognizingmeaning andsuppressesor ignoresother ignsystems. ccording o HaydenWhite, his showsemioticcodes are constructed-whether heyare scientific,egal, fictional, rpolitical. o insteadofdescribingdeological elements nd evaluating heir ruthaccordingto a preestablished anon of interpretation, e mightmoreprofitablyask how thosecodes establish heplausibilityf theirdiscourse. Semiotics eadsawayfrom ruth nd toward truth-effects"-thelements na code thatresonate"truthfully" iththesubjective xperienceof a particular udience.55

The problemofaudience leads another tepbeyond the binaryrealm, towardcommunicationheories hat tress hereciprocal uality fmeaning onstruction.The workofStuartHall and theBirmingham entre forContemporary ulturalStudies offersone example..Hall and his comrades have fastenedon ClaudeLevi-Strauss's otionofbricolages a patternforthe construction f meaning nmodern massculture.The bricoleurs forHall and his colleagues a kind of culturalhero,decodingfragments fconsumer ulture-a style ere, a "look" there-andreassembling hem o createhisown personal ode.The quintessential ricoleur as

1971), sp.3-41. On the mportancefGramsci'singuistictudies,eeFrancoLo Piparo, ingua,ntellettuali,egemonianGramsciBari,1979).

4Jameson, The olitical nconsciouIthaca,N.Y., 1981), hap.6; Genovese, oll, ordan,oll, 5-28; andThompson,WhigsndHuntersNewYork,1975),258-69.

.5 White, Method nd Ideology n Intellectual istory: he Case ofHenryAdams," n LaCapra andKaplan,Modernuropeanntellectualistory,88-89. ForFoucault's arallel ritique fMarxian onceptionsof deology,ee ColinGordon, d.,PowerlKnowledge:electednterviewsnd OtherWritings,972-1977 (NewYork,1980), 109-33.Geertzpresented imilar iews na functionalistramework;IdeologyAs a CulturalSystem,"n nterpretationfCultures,93-233.




theTeddy Boy in the Edwardian suit, he working-class outhwho took a bit ofSavilleRow chic and made it mockery f upper-class retensions nd an emblemof his own rebellious purposes.56

But the nature of thatrebellion s unclear, nd it s not very lluminating implyto celebrateTeddy Boys forrefusing o become mainstream onsumers.To movefurther eyondtheduality f accommodation nd resistance, e might onder theRussian literary riticMikhail Bakhtin'semphasis on culture as a many-voicedconversation-a commonplace enough idea, except that Bakhtin magined theconversation ot onlywithin he culture s a whole but also within ach utterance."Language is not a neutral medium thatpasses freely nd easily nto the privateproperty f the speaker's intentions; t is populated-overpopulated-with theintentions f others,"he wrote.There are traces eftby other speakers,by otherrhetorical and discursive traditions.Language is marked by a plurality ofvalue-ladenperspectivesn challenging ontactwithone another. t is also by tsverynaturedialogical: each utterance mplies symbolic xchange with t eastoneother speaker. All these qualities are especially relevant to the language of ahegemonic culture. By virtue of its leaders' effort o win popular consent, ahegemonic culture becomes internally ersuasiveratherthan merely uthorita-tive. tpreserves certain ndeterminacynd open-endedness.As a result-so onecan inferfrom Bakhtin-even themost successfulhegemonicculturecreatesa

situationwhere thedominantmode of discourse-and each visualor verbaltextwithint-becomes a field fcontentionwheremany-sided truggles vermeaningare constantly ought ut.57

These arguments parallel some of the dominant tendencies in "post-structuralist"iteraryriticism.fdeconstructionistsikePaul de Man andJacquesDerridahave done nothing lse, theyhaveexploredwith xtraordinary irtuositythe"intertextuality"nd multivalencef iteraryexts-the proliferationf covertencounterswithother authors and works,the wide variety f waysa text cansubvert tsownapparent meaning. n thedeconstructionistiew, s inBakhtin's,

the text s an arena fora multiplicity.ofultural truggles, otmerely dualisticclass conflict.58akhtin's pproach cautionstheculturalhistorian oavoid a kindofeven-handed reductionism: irstookfortheassimilation,hentheprotest.Byinsisting hat texts an both reinforce owerrelations nd containa multiplicityof conflictingmeanings,Bakhtin has opened an approach to language that wasbarelybegun by Gramsci.

Yet one is entitled o some skepticism. ll the talk about "struggle" uggestsmock-heroic icture fthe"strong"writer r artist anquishing, gainst ll odds,

external influences nd forcing his refractorymedium to submitto his own56 See theessays n Centre orContemporaryultural tudies, ulture, edia, anguageLondon,1980);

and StuartHall and TonyJefferson,ds.,ResistancehroughitualsLondon, 1975).For a thoughtfuleviewessay, ee ChrisWaters, Badgesof Half-Formed,narticulate adicalism:A Critique f RecentTrends nthe Study fWorking-ClassouthCulture,"nternationalabor ndWorkinglassHistory,9 1981): 23-37.

57 Bakhtin, heDialogic magination,rans.MichaelHolquist nd CarylEmerson Austin, exas, 1981),269-315. I am indebted o LaCapra's excellent Bakhtin,Marxism,nd theCarnivalesque";RethinkingIntellectualistory,91-324.

58 For representativeelections,ee de Man,Blindnessnd nsight: ssays n theRhetoricfContemporaryCnrticismMinneapolis, 983);and Derrida, issemination,rans.BarbaraJohnson Chicago,1981).




intentions. here is a hintof specialpleadingand self-justifications critics eekto appropriate the "strength" f artists. kepticism eepens when one wonderswhether he struggle vermeaning mightbate if anguage itselfwerediffused,

increasingly eprived of itscapacity o evokeprecise albeitsubjective)meanings.HenriLefebvre,JeanBaudrillard, nd WilliamLeiss have all commented n "thefloating tockofmeaningless ignifiers"hat eemstoincrease under theaegis ofconsumer culture, s advertisers nd themass media assemble and reassembleclusters of symbolic ttributes esigned to sell commodities.59 f discourse isdevalued, how serious can a struggle vermeaningbe?

IF ONE DENIES DEVALUATION AND GRANTS the seriousnessof the struggle, hereremainsthatmostchallenging spectofsemiotic heory: tstendency odenythehuman subject. This antisubjectivism oes not characterize he psychoanalyticsemiotics fEmileBenveniste ndJacquesLacan.) In Derrida'spolemics, heselfis a symptom f the "metaphysics fpresence"thathas infectedWestern ulturefor enturies.n Louis Althusser's tructuralist arxism he enseofsubjectivewillis an illusion alledup bythemaster-magiciansfbourgeois deology.The denialof the human subject s more generallypresent n the antisubjectivistiew that

language is not a tool toexpressa person's deas buta system fsignsthat reatestheprecondition ornotions ike ndividualitynd subjectivity. e are cognitivelyavailable toourselves nd others nly hrough heguise of anguage. In Foucault'scase, therejection fhumanagency s rooted n an effortocapturethe blanknessand unintelligibilityf twentieth-centurytructures f domination-particularlythediscourseofthe "humansciences,"which eemsunspokenbyhumansubjects.The assault on subjectivity as some salutary ffects. t offers reminder thateveryoneis a creature as well as a creator of his culture-imprisoned by hisavailableidiom even as he seeks to use it as a tool formastery. t illuminates hewaysthatnotionsof selfhood can be socially onstructed.And itoffers healthyantidote ohumanist deology, s DominickLaCapra demonstrated nhis analysisof the "commodity etishism" assages fromCapital. n LaCapra's view, Marx's"scientific" eversal of commodityfetishism mbodies a humanist fetishismgrantingmen "the 'fantastic'powers or unproblematicpositionof generativecentralityhatwasformerlyscribed o gods-or tocommodities." he sloganthatpeople are spoken by anguagerather han theotherway roundat leastprovidesa refreshinglternative o humanistpieties. 0

59Lefebvre,verydayifen heModernorld,rans. achaRabinovitchNewYork, 971),119;Baudrillard,Toward Critiquef he oliticalconomyf he ign, rans. harles evin St.Louis, 1981); Leiss,The imitsoSatisfactionToronto, 1975), 47-94; Leiss and StephenKline, "Advertising, eeds, and 'CommodityFetishism,"'anadian ournalfPoliticalndSocialTheory,(1978): 5-27.

60JacquesDerrida,Marginsf hilosophy,rans.AlanBass Chicago,1983),esp. 3-27, 111-36;Althusser,"IdeologyndIdeological tateApparatusesNotesToward n Investigation),"n hisLenin ndPhilosophyndOther ssays,rans.BenBrewsterNewYork,1971),127-86;Foucault, heArcheologyfKnowledge,rans.A.M.Sheridan mithNewYork,1972),55,Madness ndCivilization,rans.RichardHoward NewYork,1965),xii; and LaCapra, "Marxismnd Intellectual istory,"nRethinkingntellectualistory,34. For thebestintroductionoBenvenistend Lacan,see Kaja Silverman,heSubject f emioticsNew York,1983).




Yet,despite the crimes ommitted n the name ofhumanism, he denial of thesubjectbeginson closer nspection o ook ess ikepartof a satisfactoryheory ndmore likepartof a fashionable deology.Some notionof humansubjectivitytill

seemsnecessary o historical nderstanding.A resolute ntisubjectivism ot onlyfails oaccount forresistance nd transformationn"discursive ractice" ut alsothreatensto degenerate into as monocausal and mechanistic model as theeconomic determinismGramscicriticized o effectively. ather than insiston asystem, hehistorianmight cknowledge anguage as anotherofthose structuresthat may appear immutable nd objectivebut are constantly hanging n fluidinteractionwithhuman subjects. ndeed, thatwas Gramsci's wn view,whichhemaintained gainstthereductionist rammarians f his time.6'

Antisubjectivismlsoimpoverishes extual nalysis.White rgued that semioticapproach to intellectual istory stablishes ts value quantitatively,y accountingformore elementsof a particular ext hancontentmethodsdo. He thensetouttosupport that laimthrough semiotic nalysis fTheEducation fHenry dams.Concentrating n itsintertextuality,tsself-consciouslyiterary ualities, Whitecame up witha surprisinglyne-dimensional tresson Adams's "nihilism."HedismissedMarianAdams (whosevery bsence constitutes presence),overlookedthe train fvitalismhatpervades hetext, nd lost ight ltogether f thereligiouslonging hatremainsbarely ubmerged nd occasionally urfaces.Despite ts kill,

White's nalysis eaves muchofthe textunread-to saynothing fthe ifebehindthe text.62The shortcomingsfWhite'sworkpointto the arger imitationsfa linguistic

viewofculturalhistorynd return s toGramsci.The focus n languagecan makeus consciousofthe endlessambiguitiesnvolved ncommunication nd remindusthatmostmeanings renotreducible oanybinary cheme, venthough heymaybe shaped in part bystructures f power.The problem s that,once inside thelabyrinth f intertextuality,hehistorian ften eems unable tohear the humanvoicesoutside.And that s partofour task swell, o isten o thosevoices however

dissonant nd confused)and try oreconstructhe humanexperienceofhistory.That, in theend,was Gramsci'sgreatest trength: isopennessto thevarietyndcontrariety f experience. Despite his rationalism nd his concern to locateoverarching atterns fculture,Gramsci ecognized hat hegroundofall cultureisthespontaneousphilosophy bsorbedand shaped byeach individual.This isnotfar fromwhatWilliamJamescalled "our more or less dumb sense of what lifehonestly nd deeply means."63Gramsci's eel forthe concretedetailsofsocial ifepreventedhim fromfallingpreyto bloated abstractions. t would be a supreme

irony f thisgreat thinker nd linguist,who did so much to free the Marxisttradition rom ronnecessities nd hypnotic ormulae,were to be reincarceratedat last n theprisonhouseof language. But somehow, think hewilySardinianwould slip away.

61 Lo Piparo,Lingua, ntellettuali,gemonian Gramsci,haps. 2-4.62 White, Method nd Ideology," 90-3 10.63James,ThePresent ilemmanPhilosophy,"nJ.J.McDermott,d.,TheWritingsfWilliamJamesNew

York,1968),362.

Documents

Lears on Cultural Hegemony