List of Acronyms
Chapter 4: Hegemony in the current context
4.4 Ideology and consciousness
As discussed in Chapter 3, Marx and Gramsci argued that one of the roles played by civil society within hierarchical social relations was the creation of ideology. Marx understood ideology as specifically the ideas propagated to serve a particular class interest (“The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class” (Marx & Engels, 1848/1977, p.236), and distinguished between ideology (partial or determinate) and true consciousness.
Marx argued that ideology conceals contradictions; conceals how it serves the interests of the dominant class; and dehistoricizes. True consciousness is thus an awareness of what is really going on, including ideology. As we have seen, in an attempt to counter the ‘vulgar
materialism’/ economism of orthodox Marxism of his time, which rejected ideas as having a role to play in changing the capitalist system, Gramsci argued for a more nuanced
understanding of ideology; he developed his understanding of hegemony as the ideology of the dominant group, but also argued for the possibility of ‘counter-hegemony’, which could be the work of anybody and everybody.
However, since Marx and Gramsci, Marxist theorists have further developed these ideas.
Within Marxism, one of the most important developments since Gramsci wrote his prison notebooks was the creation of the so-called Frankfurt school, a group of Marxist theorists exiled from Germany during the rise of Nazism in the 1930s, and working primarily in the USA. Leading members included Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse.
Members of the Frankfurt school referred to their work as ‘critical theory’ (as opposed to
‘materialism’), which Therborn (2008) characterises as purely intellectual (they certainly had no real significant relationship with actual political organisations of the working class). The Frankfurt school saw as its task (and that of critical theory) to contribute to social
transformation, by emphasising social conflicts. They thus emphasised the contradictions and negativity of modernity, whilst retaining a focus on political economy (Therborn, 2008).
The leading ‘second-generation’ theorist of this school (although he rejects this claim) was Jurgen Habermas, who took critical theory out of political economy (Therborn, 2008),
arguing that changes in capitalism itself required this. Habermas integrated hermeneutics and systems theory into historical materialism, declaring that “today the problem of language has replaced the traditional problem of consciousness” (Habermas quoted in McLellan, 1980, p.273).
In the mid-1960s, a hugely influential alternative to the Frankfurt school arose in the form of Structural Marxism, of whom some the leading theorists were Levi-Strauss, Lacan and Althusser. This school of thought emphasised the need to look beyond the conscious activities of people, to what underlies them - i.e. the unconscious structures which these activities presuppose (McLellan, 1980).
Althusser undertook a major structuralist re-reading of Marx, rejecting both Gramsci and Sartre because of their emphasis on people as subjects of history, and humanism and its corollary, empiricism (Ibid.). Foucault, meanwhile, explored the role of discourse in constructing and changing ideologies. Foucault was interested in how discourse allowed
‘soft’, ‘secret’ forms of domination by apparently progressive and humane modern
institutions (Foley, 1999, p.15). For Foucault, discourse is not only about “what can be said and thought, but also about who can speak, when, and with what authority” (Ball, 1990, p.2 cited in Foley, 1999, p.15). So discourse is the way that key modern institutions like prisons, hospitals, schools and workplaces subtly control people, allowing violent control of people (i.e. force) to be replaced by ‘gentler’ means of control. ‘Totalising discourses’, asserted Foucault, are ways of thinking and acting which speak for and take over whole areas of human life, often operating ‘behind the backs’ of speakers. “This secret, unconscious aspect
rules of a discourse or by taking something that is socially constructed as ‘truth’” (Foley, 1999, p.16).
“In any society, there is a social process for deciding what kinds of and whose life
experiences are of sufficient value and importance to be systematized and theorized into a body of knowledge” - and this has everything to do with power relations (Walters, 1998, p.436). Foucault’s work has been an important influence in both neoMarxist and
postmodernist work over the last several decades.
Recently, many operating from a Marxist perspective, including many within radical adult education, have argued for a return to Gramsci (eg. Allman, Foley, Mayo, McLaren). Foley (1994) thus argues that “Ideologies and discourses are central to the process of capitalist reproduction. In any historical period dominant explanations emerge which serve the interests of ruling groups” (p.128); whilst Allman and Mayo (1997) contend:
We think ideology or any form of consciousness arises from social being or existence, but that it distorts our thinking because it pulls together, in explanations and ways of behaving and organising, only fragments or partial aspects of our experience, what Gramsci refers to as ‘common sense’. (Allman & Mayo, 1997, p.7)
As Biko (2004) famously said (in 1971), “the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed” (p.74). More recently, movement militants in South Africa have reasserted this:
People who talk about the story of South Africa often talk about ‘land dispossession’.
We can surely also talk about ‘mind dispossession’ as well....We are also saying that dispossession is not just something that happened in history - it continues into the present. How else can we understand that the politicians think they can get away with presenting something like the Slums Act in the name of freedom? (Figlan et al, 2009, p.28).
So understanding the ideology behind neoliberal capitalism is crucial if we really want to understand what is going on in our world. Using Marx’s frame for classifying an idea or a set of ideas as ideology, i.e. it must conceal contradictions; it must conceal how it serves the interests of the dominant class; and it must dehistoricize (Allman, 1988), and Habermas’ and Foucault’s ideas about language and discourse, I would argue that it is possible to identify three current dominant hegemonic ideologies - neoliberalism; liberal democracy; and (certain strands of) postmodernism. The three are interlinked and interlocking, each serving to
support and confirm the others. All ultimately function to service the existing form of capitalism (neoliberalism), and hence maintain the control of the ruling class.
4.4.1 Neoliberalism as ideology
As we have seen, neoliberalism is a set of rules to further capitalist penetration and
accumulation by the ruling class. Such rules are enforced, where necessary, through coercion (as we have seen above); but, as Gramsci points out, “the attempt is always made to ensure that force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so-called organs of public opinion” (Gramsci, 1971, p.80), so consent remains critical. The hegemony of neoliberalism, says Boron (2005, p.115), is economic, ideological, and political; or as Giroux (2005) puts it, “...neoliberalism is an ideology, a politics, and at times a fanaticism”
(p.12). Some of the ideas underlying neoliberalism as an economic philosophy include the necessity of economic growth; the fact that this can only be obtained via trade, particularly export-oriented trade, and thus trade needs to be facilitated in every possible way (including through deregulation, fiscal restraint, etc.); the understanding that high levels of
unemployment (currently being experienced throughout the world) are largely the fault of individuals, who do not have the necessary skills to find jobs, particularly because the demands of the economy are becoming increasingly complex; and the notion, already discussed above, that the attainment of personal fulfilment and happiness can only really happen through consumption.
Like any hegemonic project, capitalist neoliberalism uses institutions, ideas, and discourse.
As Wenman (2009) argues, “Under conditions of globalisation, capitalist processes of
‘disciplinary society’ - schools, factories, the family, hospitals, prisons and so on - that mediated social relations in the era of high modernity” (Empire section, para. 3). Boron (2005) says that during the 1980s, “neoliberalism won a strategic battle for the meanings of words used in everyday speech, particularly in the public sphere” (p.114). Thus, for example,
‘reform’ came to mean the things that were really ‘counter-reform’, such as the dismantling of social security, cuts in public spending, and so on; whilst ‘deregulation’ came to mean the privatisation of regulation into the hands of oligopolies.
Thus although neoliberal globalization is a response to the ‘ongoing crisis’ of
overaccumulation, this is not how it presents itself. Instead, the ‘new’ imperialism operates under the guise of a ‘democratising mission’, which will bring about democracy, growth and ultimately equality for all (this is discussed further below and in the next chapter). It also presents itself, however, as Gramsci’s analysis of hegemony would suggest, as ‘normal’, even in the context of such crisis. Dinerstein (2010), for example, shows that in Latin America, neoliberalism has managed to secure legitimation of instability and of dystopia - debt, uncertainty, risk, labour flexibility, informality of employment, unemployment, are simply the way things are. Similarly, Ledwith (2001) says that “the inevitability of market forces has been sold to us as a powerful form of false consciousness, justifying exploitation and inequality” (p.175).
Part of this ‘normalising’ neoliberal discourse is that of a particular kind of ‘development’ (in fact Tikly (2004) argues that development is the discursive element of neoliberal
imperialism), much as modernization was in the previous phase of capitalist reorganization.
As Amin (1997) says “the concept of development is an ideological concept defined by the design of the type of society the development process is supposed to bring about” (p.141);
i.e. a capitalist (and under current conditions, neoliberal) society. The post-Second World War development discourse of modernisation has been further developed as a result of the development of advanced/neoliberal capitalism, so that ‘development’ now is inseparable from neoliberalism, and particularly its new imperialism. Tikly (2004) argues that the current discourse of neoliberal development is an aspect of an emerging global governmentality (a la Foucault), and is about making populations in the previous colonies useful for global
capitalism, whilst managing the risks posed to emerging global markets by poverty through
10 Neocosmos (2006, p.82), in contrast, argues that “Development is no longer part of social intervention and aid. “‘Development’ [meaning neoliberal development] is thus a central organizing principle of the entire western episteme, including the discourses of anti- colonial activists who have, given the hegemonic nature of the development discourse, largely been obliged to struggle within its discursive boundaries” (Tikly, 2004, p.181).
Integrally linked with neoliberal ‘development’ as a capitalist project is
‘education’(Youngman, 2000). “[T]aken together, discourses around education and development have the effect of rendering populations economically useful and politically docile in relation to dominant global interests” (Tikly, 2004, p.174)10. Of course, such notions are contested, as I discuss in the next chapter (South African militants have suggested that
“development has actually become a war on the poor” (Figlan et.al., 2009, p.36));
nevertheless, they remain the dominant current development discourse.
Within South Africa, neoliberalism as ideology is clearly evident, and shapes, as elsewhere, institutions, ideas and discourse. Loftus and Lumsden (2006) have looked at the ways neoliberalism plays itself out in the local context, looking at water in Inanda, a township close to Durban. They show how this reflects attempts by government to legitimise the ANC’s neoliberal turn. In Inanda, there have been repeated instances of vibrant autonomous movements arising, and repeated attempts to disband and quash these (as will be seen in some of the stories in Chapter 10). Civil society has been increasingly shaped by the state, and encouraged to form ‘partnerships’ with the state and the private sector as part of a
process of consolidating neoliberal hegemony. In this process, residents have become shaped as passive consumers of services, through partnerships (often recruiting local community members) which ‘educate’ people into a ‘culture of payment’ (rather than one of non-
payment), and against ‘illegal’ water connections. Loftus and Lumsden show how culture has been used to do this - for example, in the Masakhane campaign, by fostering the notion that
“Zulu culture means payment for services” (p.119). This is coupled with a more general discourse that everyone should contribute their bit to the new South Africa . The intention is to create a moral obligation to pay what is actually unaffordable, thus garnering consent to neoliberalism.
As we have seen, many have argued that neoliberalism has indeed become hegemonic. As Boron (2005) would have it, “...the commonsense of the last two decades of the previous century has been saturated by the contents of neoliberal ideology” (p.115). However, I would argue, the actual lived experience of people inevitably clashes with the ideas which people are encouraged to adopt within the hegemonic discourse; thus they are often able to see through it:
The high levels [of unemployment] are not because people are ‘lazy’ and nor is it because people lack ‘capacity’ - there really are not enough jobs for the people. There are all sorts of reasons for this, including the trade policies of our government and the profiteering of companies, but we also see how technologies are killing us as
machines and computers replace workers.
The casualisation of labour is affecting people in the townships a lot, especially women. When you look at many employers, like at Checkers and Pick ‘n Pay, they are only asking people to work for certain hours at a time and not giving full
employment anymore. This undermines people in all sorts of ways, for example, their employment benefits are cut, their job security is gone, the wages are less, and
organising into trade unions that could fight for workers rights and better conditions is made much harder.
But the pro-capitalist policies that government has chosen are also the result of the big and powerful international forces - represented by things like the World Bank, the IMF, Bush etc. This is why it is not just South Africa that has chosen these kinds of capitalist policies but most African countries and elsewhere in the world too
(community members, quoted in Butler & 100 others, 2007, p. 11-13).
4.4.2 Liberal democracy
The set of ideas underpinning the economic philosophy of neoliberalism, discussed above, are accompanied, not surprisingly, by a set of ideas related to government and how it should operate - as parliamentary liberal democracy. These ideas are, as Neocosmos argues above,
precisely about limiting politics to the state domain. This is certainly not unique to neoliberal capital: both Marx and Gramsci commented on (and critiqued) the suggestion that by
changing the government, one could change society. Marx, in his analysis of why the Paris revolution failed, referred to the Paris Commune as an alternative conception to the state:
“Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes” (Marx, 1871/1977, p.543). Gramsci considered how the state tried to
influence subaltern groups, inter alia through “the birth of new parties of the dominant groups, intended to conserve the assent of the subaltern groups and to maintain control over them” (Gramsci, 1971, p.52). As we have seen, both Marx and Gramsci argued that it was impossible to have human emancipation without ending economic exploitation and inequality; and thus no state under a capitalist system could ever really lead to human freedom. Hegemony, of course, will always try to present the state as precisely that which can lead to freedom; and this has become very apparent in the neoliberal drive for liberal democracy.
Wamba-dia-Wamba (2007, cited in Neocosmos, 2009a, p.315) argues that “the current form of imperialism is one which is not only globalised, but has replaced its ‘civilising mission’
(and later ‘developmental mission’) by a liberalising and ‘democratising mission’”. Shivji (2006) argues that this ‘democratizing mission’, as did the ‘civilising’ one comes as a
package; this time, of human rights, free market and good governance. And this time, instead of the missionary, merchant and magistrate/mercenary, the package is brought by human rights NGOs, educators, consultants, investors and IMF missions: “The colonial native had to be civilised and Christianised; the ‘independent’ citizen had to be modernised and
Westernised; the ‘poor and diseased’ African has to be globalised and democratised” (p.172).
Shivji argues that ironically such a mission would be unnecessary had the civilising mission worked.
Jarvis (1993) argues that the dominant (neoliberal) view of the state is a liberal one - the role of the state is to protect individual rights, but to interfere no further than this. Thus this view argues for minimal government. Parties and organisations, rather than just individuals, are
protest by groups or ‘interests’ which it views as not in the interests of its people. As Holst (2002) argues:
Western liberal democracy posits a separation of the state, society, and the economy and guarantees only civil rights. This liberal notion of democracy, with its emphasis on the separation of state and civil society, is the ideological foundation of neoliberal structural adjustment programs. (p.74)
As we have seen Gramsci argue above, this is about concealing the true involvement of the state and civil society in neoliberalism.
Many writers have commented on the connection between neoliberal capitalism and the current discourse of democracy, in which ‘democracy’ becomes synonymous with the free market and capitalism, and “freedom is defined increasingly through the logic of
consumerism” (Giroux, 2001, p.2). This is particularly so in the penetration of capital through the imperialism of neoliberal globalization. Here, neoliberal capitalism is seen as a necessary condition for democracy; although, where (true) democracy might in fact block neoliberal capitalism, the dominant class argues for the suspension of the existing social order to allow for the transition to a new economic order; or that the neoliberal economic order will bring about equity and justice on its own (i.e. without the need for a democratic state) (McGinn, 1996).
Neocosmos (2009a) shows how liberal democracy underpins neoliberal capitalism in Africa and South Africa. He argues that critical approaches to neoliberalism have concentrated on the economic, bar some commentaries on the notion of civil society and the state. The real effect of liberal democracy has been to limit politics to the state: “On the continent, our manner of thinking about politics has been overwhelmingly dominated by a liberalism for which the state is the sole legitimate domain of politics” (Neocosmos, 2009a, pp.281-282).
Holloway (2010a) asserts that the argument that the state is the sole legitimate domain of politics is the same everywhere, so even if people are unhappy, even if they want change, this can only be done through the state (and hence, as Marx and Gramsci have shown), no real change can ever actually happen. So politics is the state; and the only issue now is the
capacity of the state (Neocosmos, 2009a). Chatterjee (2004, cited in Neocosmos, 2009a) shows how the changing nature of the state (from sovereignty to governmentality, a la Foucault), has reconfigured citizens as passive recipients of services (although, as we have seen within South Africa, this is not a role that citizens have adopted). Politics is expelled by technique, particularly managerial technique, with relations between state and civil society becoming increasingly managerialist/ technicist/legalistic and apolitical (Ibid): “Liberal or representative democracy is a phenomenon of this century which expresses not the fulfilment of democratic aspirations but their deflection, containment, and limitation” (Good quoted in Neocosmos, 2006, p.78).
Using Marx’s frame for what constitutes an ideology, Allman identifies liberal democracy as an ideology (1988), involving three displacements and one concealment:
• it displaces the emphasis/focus from the sphere of production to the sphere of
exchange and consumption; in other words, it attempts to hide the real nature of what is going on, the underlying capitalist relations of production.
• It displaces the concrete/actual (lived experience) with the abstract/formal (rights will free us all).
• It displaces the total (the interlocking system of neoliberal capitalism, liberal democracy, the role of civil society, etc.) with the partial (liberal democracy).
However, as I will discuss in more detail in the next chapter, many people are not persuaded by hegemonic ideas about liberal democracy: “Our experience of ‘democracy’ in South Africa is that actually ‘democracy’ is used for purposes of domination by a few and exclusion of the majority” (community member quoted in Butler & 100 others, 2007, p.14).
4.4.3 Postmodernism
It should be noted here that there are debates within the literature about whether the notion of
‘postmodernism’ is even useful given the diversity of views ‘within’ postmodernism.
However, like Marxism, which continues to be a highly contested and varied concept,