英语论文网

Postmodern claims present problems of situating an objective self and identity, due to constant existence of social forces, ideologies and power structures. However, rather than accept that national identity is unable to produce knowledge of any sort, I in turn accept these problems and provide a methodology through which one may still construct knowledge of the self through national identity. While one may never know about a “truly objective self”, renegotiations of national identity through differing social forces, political power structures and prevalent ideologies can allow one to construct knowledge of national identity through inter-subjectivity, the collective subjectivities of the people, influenced by the very social forces postmodernists point out to be problematic. Such social forces will be accepted and acknowledged as a factor for national identity and the inherent subjectivity of such an identity, to perhaps “approximate” towards an “authentic” and truly representative identity.

By understanding the problems of post-modernity and accepting its incapability of producing objective knowledge, one can continue to construct knowledge of national identity, albeit of an inter-subjective nature.

5.2 Gramsci’s Framework of Hegemony, Counter-Hegemony and the Construction of National Identity

I propose an interpretation of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony in the Singaporean context as a conceptual framework on how inter-subjective national identity can be formed, and how it can approximate towards an “authentic” identity. Gramsci speaks of hegemonies as not the sole authority in society, but the dominant one. There will always be -counter-hegemonies, competing ideologies and viewpoints opposing the dominant hegemony –that is, the government’s discourse– groups with “opposing world-views” constantly contesting to gain hegemony, which leads to constant renegotiation of hegemony between the people’s counter-hegemonies and the leaders. What role does these minor narratives, the counter-hegemonies, play?

Understanding the valuable nature of both hegemony and counter-hegemonies in the knowledge of national identity, I interpret both the viewpoints of counter-hegemonies and hegemonies as components of the hegemonic framework in the construction of national identity, each with their own subjective interpretations of national identity. For example, while the dominant discourse by the Government on national identity sees Asian values as part of Singaporean identity, numerous counter-viewpoints out there views the Singaporean identity differently. One example is the notion of kiasu (literally translated as “scared to lose”), the fear of losing out, which refers to the strong materialism and individualism in Singaporeans, [16] a popular interpretation of national identity that runs contrary to the official government version of national identity.

While both emphasize different aspects of 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。