|
|
|
 论文编号：
lw200707250757417537 |
| 论文属性：
Notes |
| 论文语言：English |
| 论文国家：China |
| 登出日期： 2007-07-25 |
| 字数： 5000 |
| 源程序：
无 |
| 价格：
免费论文 |
| 参考相关附件： |
|
|
| 论文大纲，目录 |
| 关键词搜索：AC640 Government Public Policy Political Communication Citizens and Culture |
” By hegemony, Gramsci meant an ideological system whereby the people at
large consented to the intellectual leadership of elites in return for those elites providing both
material resources (e.g., pension plans, unemployment insurance) and themes that reflected
and engaged the lives of the people (e.g. patriotism, nationalism, war against terror).
Ideology was thus not imposed on a passive public; rather, ideology was negotiated
between elite factions and the public. One of Gramsci’s major gifts to communication studies
is to have made the case that media and culture matter, insofar as they represent ways in
which interest groups contribute (or dispute) to the construction of hegemony.
The elites primarily benefit by the hegemonic ideology active in our lives, but there are
material and ideological payoffs for the public too, provided they consent to elite power. For
Gramsci culture—and civil society in general—is the major venue where the hegemonic
bargain is struck. Those who seek through dissent to break with the hegemony are said to
constitute a “counter-hegemony.” The hippies of the 1960s were a counter-hegemonic
group. They expressed their dissent through culture—a key theme for Gramsci—and
operated outside the hegemonic “military-industrial complex” the 1960s yielded, with its
affluence, the conservative 1950s-era social mores it inherited, and the disciplining of
thought and action effected by the U.S. war in Vietnam.
d. s英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】ymbolic versus material gains in social change
So where the social order and elites were once the problem, increasingly culture and people
became the problem. Mainstream and consumer culture in particular was taken to be the
source of much that is wrong in society: we hear echoes of this today in the “culture wars”
that characterize American public discourse around religion, values, the Iraq War, etc. The
problem for Heath and Potter is that this substitution of culture (and underlying that, the
public at large) for the older forms of social pathology—elite power, autocratic government,
economic inequality—makes real political change impossible. Oppositional politics with the
mainstream consumer culture—the hegemonic “mass culture” so central to the Frankfurt
and Gramscian traditions—as its core achieve primarily symbolic, not real changes. So a
political song or a piece of street theatre may make us feel better, but it does not change the
material conditions under which we live. Heather and Potter address this contradiction in
contemporary cultural theory:
“Here we can see the idea of counterculture in its fully developed form. What people
need to be liberated from is not a specific class that oppresses them or a system of
exploitation that imposes poverty upon them…. ‘Society’ controls [people] by limiting the
imagination and suppressing their deepest needs. What they need to escape from is
conformity. And to do so, they must reject the
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
| 第1页 第2页 第3页 第4页 第5页 第6页 第7页 第8页 第9页 第10页 第11页 第12页 第13页 第14页 第15页 第16页 第17页 第18页 第19页 第20页 第21页 第22页 第23页 第24页 第25页 第26页 第27页 |
|
|
| 最新论文 |
最热门论文 |
|
|
|
