All History (i.e. the study of 'the past') needs to be informed by (i.e. aware of, interested in, using) a range of social, cultural, literary & anthropological theory and that is just as much the case at A-Level as it is at post-graduate level. The problem is that A-Level students have far less exposure to that world of theory & much less time to go about acquiring such an exposure. Worse, they may well have been taught (deliberately, poorly & inappropriately) to focus on the chronicle of 'the past' (the succesion of dates of events and people; the chronological list of 'facts') at the expense of these wider considerations. The shame of all this is that students miss out on an excellent means of drawing connexions and inference. Equipping A-Level (pre-university) students with sufficient grasp of that world of theory is, therefore, one of the most difficult and essential tasks of teaching A-Level History.
Let us take the example of the concept of Hegemony developed by Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci developed his theory to explain the success of Fascism and the failure of leftwing politics & action in interwar Italy. The immediate post-WWI period in Italy was one of very substantial & sustain radical action by the left in Italy and durring these 'Biennio Rosso' the possibility of a revolution in Italy seemed very high. The newly emerged Fascists then spear-headed a violent repression of that radical left wing action durring the subsequent two years (the 'biennio nero'; the "two-black-years" named from the uniform colour of the fascist militia) & then shortly after captured government in Italy and established a dictatorship. Gramsci sought to understand how & why this had happened and having established that Fascism was an aspect of capital (that it was the face capitalism showed when it was at bay) he developed the concept of Hegemony as a means of describing the mechanism used by Fascism in its violence, repression & dictatorship.
Hegemony can be seen as both a representational & a violent strategy of power. Representationally, a dominant elite offer something to be feared (a 'fearful other' a group that is 'not-us', strange, outsiders) to the majority and then claims to have the sole means of protecting the rest of society from that fearful thing. The aim of this is to encourage the majority of society to flock to the elite for support and protection so that the rule of the elite is continued. The use of violence emerges from this rhetoric of protection as it is that very discourse that legitimises the use of violence ('in the last resort', 'society must be defended') so that violence against society becomes a means of protecting society.
Gramsci's idea is, therefore, also useful for analysing Nazism in Germany (although Nazism has additional aspects that means Hegemony only partial explains this group/movement and its actions) and has been taken up by the study of a wide range of Historical issues & problems, particularly in the study of imperialism/colonialism & post-colonial studies. Imperialism, for instance, is typically hegemony at a distance &, especially in situations of colonialism, produces clear examples of hegemony at work. Empires function by this dual strategy of representation and repression simultaneously demonising and infantalizing the dominated populations whilst holding the threat (and use) of violence & force over them.
When we study the history of Civil Rights in the USA in the post-WWII period (c.1946-c.1968) we can consider Segregation and the social forces that supported and maintained it in terms of hegemony. The ideology of 'Race' & the social-institutions that enforced Segregation were not natural & timeless but were, rather, the result of concerted action by local 'states' and 'civil societies' These ideologies of 'racial inferiority' and the authoritarian structures of Segregation that enforced these ideologies were beneficial to local elites (local dominant groups) because they helped to maintain and replicate their dominance. The oppression of the 'black' population by the institutions of Segregation ensured that they could not participate in the pseudo-democracy of The South leaving the political field clear for 'white' political groups. In turn the white political elite 'manufactured consent' to their continued rule in the white electorate through the promise to 'protect' the white community from the 'fearful other' of black people. Segregation can be seen as a duel system of repression of Southern black communities though violence and threat & control over the white communities through ideological force.
The consent of a majority (here of the white population of the south) to the rule of the minority (a rule that, of course, benefits that minority) is 'manufactured' by the very elite majority it serves. The rest of white society then comes to understand that it's own position is dependent on the active, violent, repression of the black community a black community they have been told & taught is composed of sub-humans by the racist ideology, institutions and structure of their society.
It is this which helps to explain the ugly violence of the southern segregationist reaction to the Civil Rights Movement and it's successes. First, the whole society was founded on a violent repression of the African-American community & the ugly racist ideology that went hand-in-hand with that violence. Second, the Civil Rights Movement and Federal action (by or in any branch of the Federal Government) threatened the whole system of local elite dominance in the south. Third, the increasing intensity of the violent reaction throughout the 1960's was the result of threatened local elite pushing their system of control (the ideology of 'race', the apparatus of segregation, and the necessity of violent repression) to it's limit in a desperate effort to maintain their rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment