I am still ambiguous about this particular reading of hegemony - that the powers-that-be are in control not only of the obvious stuff (like banks and governments), but the very ideas that are used to discuss politics. For example, in my discussion of 'community', I put forward the idea that 'community' is a manufactured idea, a commodification of the more simple fact of 'being together': this doesn't quite tale account of how groups have shared interests, which makes them more than just a bunch of random people. Like a church community probably has an interest in God and Jesus.
This analysis suggests that the debate about politics is limited to the terms as defined by the powers-that-be: it's possible that a good example of this is the way that the 'Big Three' British parties seem to share a belief in the necessity of 'austerity measures'. It's not acceptable to reject austerity within their discussions, just a matter of how much and who gets targeted.
Yet the description of hegemony is susceptible to being accused of conspiracy style thinking. It postulated a vision of the world in which the world itself is an illusion (rather than Gnostic heresies or some versions of Buddhism and Hinduism).
What the Poethical reading seem to offer is an alternative to the accepted terms of debate - and a mocking parody of rationality itself. I mean, tarot cards are a form of bullshit (although I like the use of symbolism) and astrology is totes amaze bullshit.
No comments :
Post a Comment