This paper provides discussion about the concept of hegemony that has been

introduced by Antonio Gramsci. There will be an introduction section to focus on

Gramsci’s idea and distinction of hegemony which to have influence the post-Marxist

theorists and occupy a very special position in strategies of political parties or rulers.

Also his work has given an important understanding and meaning with

reinterpretation of the concept of ideology.

Introduction

The concept of ‘hegemony’ was known and introduced by Antonio Gramsci. How it

was been produced when he was imprisoned by Mussolini from 1926-37 and it was

during the time he was in the prison that he have created a series of essays and

developed the concept of hegemony in his famously and influential piece of work

called Prison Notebooks (Litowitz, 2000, p.518).

His work is considered as a post-Marxist concept, where it has provided a more

insight with the concept of ideology. The term ideology can be found in the writings

of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Although Marx and Engels

regard economic aspect as the ultimate determinant of other aspect, yet they do

recognize that art, philosophy and other form of consciousness possess an ability to

alter and control the mental production. Thus they define ideology in their

sociological analysis as “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch of the ruling

class… the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has

control at the same time over the means of mental production” (Gasper, 2004).

However the model of ideology given by Marx and Engels is limited and abstracted

from the everyday social interaction of individual actors. Because they regard it as a

form of false consciousness, but for Gramsci he regards it as ‘organic ideologies’

which consciousness is required through part of the social practices (Benney, 1983,

194). Thus Gramsci was able to fill up the limitation behind the concept of ideology

through hegemony.

1

Gramsci’s Hegemony

In his work, Gramsci made a distinction with the notion of hegemony with coercion

and consent with political rule or domination as that is the traditional means of

hegemony with the relations of the states. In coercion or ‘rule’ to some express it, it

refers to as a direct political form where the state have use physical force or violence

to control, based on domination which is pure and simple. In contrast to this, consent

or ‘hegemony’ according to different interpretation is convincing individuals and

social classes into accepting the social values and norms that are produced by the

dominant classes and to legitimize their rules (Williams, 1997, p.109). As what

Gramsci have provided a description of hegemony, “the ‘spontaneous consent’ given

by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life

by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is ‘historically caused’ by the

prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its

position and function in the world of production” (Litowitz, p.529, 2000).

Therefore hegemonic as what been describe above is a form of power that relies not

only through blunt force, but on voluntarism and participation. How so to influence

the social classes into adopting the dominant ruling class ideas is through a subtle

means that have somehow made it into a habitual attitudes that the social classes have

come to accept and practice. It will appear as if it is a natural state or

commonsensical. That ‘common sense’ will then guide into most of the social class

worldview point of understanding in their everyday life. Therefore it is a view of the

world that has been made by the dominant course, a product of historical processes

and uncritically been absorbed, which reproduce the state of ‘moral and political

passivity’ (Stoddart, n.d., p.201). Hegemony is achieve as what have been sums up,

when it has “… managed to articulate to its discourse the overwhelming majority of

ideological elements characteristics of a given social formation, in particular the

national-popular elements which allow it to become the class expressing the national

interest” (Benney, 1983, p.266).

2

When looking at what have been explains, there is not much of a difference with the

concept of ideology. But it can be said that hegemony encompasses ideology because

hegemony explains of how it includes pattern of submission that lack of structure as

‘ideas’. How it has created a practical consciousness or to have influence the personal

aspects of daily lives within the relationship of the domination and subordination, too

such depth that they (the subordinate class) regard it as common sense. Hegemony is

much more than ideology, that it is a whole body of practices and expectations over

the whole of living. It is a concept that composes of a system of meaning and values,

which as they engage and practices that it have become reciprocally conforming

(habit). Hegemony is thus can be consider as ‘culture’, where it have become absolute

within the relationship of domination and subordination as the idea have been

embedded so strongly that society cannot move on from the experienced reality

(William, 1977, p.110). Therefore the social action of everyday life is a production

from the hegemonic effect.

Continuing on, in order to transmit the ideas of hegemonic power to the social classes,

to guide them and making it as a natural way of life, Gramsci noted that it is through

the exclusive domain of the state, the institution of ‘civil society’, which is for

example the church, school, the mass media or the family that people experience from

day to day without direct involvement from the state (Ives, 2004, p.71). Gramsci have

denoted the importance of cultural superstructure that have influenced the ongoing

social actions and reproduce hegemonic power. Interestingly, he also point out that

the hegemonic networks of power are the result of ‘contestation’ between the

dominant and subordinate classes. The process of hegemony was a result from the

state of tension between the two groups and Gramsci have bring out an important

issue on how the dominant group maintain the ‘necessary degree of ideological unity’

to secure their consent to governed the country (Stoddart, n.d., p.201). From here it

can be analyze that to remain dominant is not through mere physical force alone, but

through giving a symbolic meaning where art, media and communication come into

play.

Litowiz was able to elaborate the statement of ‘where art, media and communication

come into play’. He was able to analyze Gramsci’s work and that for the ruling

worldview point to be accepted by the subordinate class, it needs to have a

3

mechanism. And that mechanism is universalization, naturalization and

rationalization. In universalism is where the dominant group able to achieve their

interest and desire by portraying that it is for the common interest of all people and

this is done in indistinct manner of ways. For naturalism is where culture has been

confuse with nature in the ways of life, thus it influence people to remain quiet to

certain aspect, say the dominant rule of power, as that is how it should be. Lastly for

rationalization is more complex. In here, hegemony power is maintain as the ruling

group give rise to a class of intellectuals that ‘perpetuates the existing way of life at

the level of theory’. Intellectuals are lawyers, professors, politicians, scientists and

journalists. The hegemony effect therefore was created through a complicated and

multi-level phenomenon to such that it influences through the means of politic,

education, entertainment, news and common sense (2000, p.526).

Some scholars regard the hegemonic power as ideological state apparatus, a

mechanism that the states use in order to gain control. Such is Michael Mann in his

work of The Autonomous Power of the State, where he demonstrates an analytical

view where although the capitalist democracies are weak, in another way they are

strong. He label it as ‘despotically weak but infrastructural strong’ (1985, p.335). Due

to the greater infrastructural power, the greater the volume in order to bind a rule-

making. Regardless as it is, it has been stressed that in order to maintain the

hegemony of the ruling class, it needs to include the basis of the political structure

that is civil society. Through the use of persuasion and conformity as a mechanism

can a social order and the dominance of the ruling class can be establish.

Now some of the limitations in Gramsci hegemony, David Harris criticize where the

role of the intellectuals in society has been regard as ‘elitist’ and that the theory is too

political and partisan to be convincing. Also he added that there is a lack of

empiricism in Gramsci work, where there is no observation or experiment have been

conducted, surveys or something related directly with the people and their behavior

(Stillo & Gauntlett, n.d.). However below I will try to relate Gramsci’s theory to the

social situation and condition in Brunei society.

4

In the context of Brunei

Interestingly, some scholars gave ideas that through ideology and institution, it has

play a role in conducting, influencing and shaping of the Brunei citizens thought or

culture towards politic. Hegemony effect was also been created as a result. Through

Brunei education system, where Melayu Islam Beraja (MIB) has become a

legitimizing instrument and has been assimilated in the daily everyday life of the

Brunei citizens. Schottmann argue that the state has successfully made MIB the sole

basis of state-building (2006, p.113). How so is through making the national ideology

of MIB as a compulsory subject from primary to secondary school and UBD in

accordance to the decree by the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Religious

Affairs.

The MIB has a fundamental component in unifying the country, maintaining power

for the ruling class and shape the cultural values of the Brunei citizens as it manage to

unite the ethnic groups in Brunei as Malay where the rights of the seven indigenous

groups is preserve and the Malay cultural values have become the pillars of the

system of monarchy, family, societal, national and country, And also stressing out of

the political cultural values of being a Bruneian Malay is, imbued it with divinity and

symbolize the term beraja as part of a Bruneian identity. Through stressing out the

ideal Malay cultural beliefs and Islamic values involving towards politic in MIB, it

have become a political ideology where it had created a program of collective action

for the maintenance, alteration or transformation of society.

In the context of Brunei, the state created the mental production they wanted through

various government institutions, specifically education that involves transference of

the ideological knowledge of the nation state. However to do this, the state have to

use through despotic means as first where the subject of MIB and Islamic studies is

mandatory or wajib in all schools, public or private (Freedom House, 2013). The

result of the compulsory education has influenced general acceptance of MIB as a

national identity and ethical teachings, Islam as a homogenizing dominant religion of

the state, and ultimately strengthen the power of the raja and the state.

5

Now relating MIB to religion (specifically Islam), Malay culture and the symbolic

beraja (monarchy), there seems to be a synergy. To Naimah and even the present

Sultan, they see MIB as a means to create a ‘unifying ideology which would bolster

his power, blunt the appeal of those calling for a stricter observance of Islam, and

develop a sense of purpose in the young’ (2002, p.141). The reason for the need of

stressing the MIB concept to the people as part of the nation building, the purpose was

probably to define and to be reminded of the Malay culture (such as the concept of

setia and derhaka for example and other ‘good’ qualities for promoting better

morality of the country) to the people, marrying the Islamic value with the Malay

culture and the traditional unifying role of the monarchy that it is ‘God’s Will’,

imbued the overall concept of MIB with an aura of divine sanction.

Another reason is because during the British Resident rule of Brunei in the 19th

century, they have brought a modern political system that affects the identity, culture

and traditional monarchial system of Brunei. Due to globalization as well, it have

brought certain political ideologies such as nationalism, republicanism and

democratization that threaten the unifying force of the monarchy.

The state actions have proven to be successful over the years where through the

naming of Brunei as ‘Negara Zikir’, it signifies the government’s noble religious

intention of turning Brunei into that kind of state, thus has a justifiable legitimization

over the government’s recent legislations such as the new directives, new shariah law

and compulsory Islamic studies that has been recently made in the Brunei higher

education system, UBD. This is proven where the Brunei Malay citizen accepts the

implementations of those legislations because it is a step towards ‘Negara Zikir’ and

His Majesty’s will. That is due to the nature of their culture and religion of being

compliant, with unquestioning loyalty and belief towards the ruling class. Thus there

is a saying in Brunei, “biar mati anak, jangan mati adat” (tradition must go on, it

cannot be challenged).

The Malay cultural traits of loyalty and religious values that stressed out the

compulsory of having a ruling class and through education have shaped the kind of

attitude the Brunei Malays have adopted regarding the politics of the country. With

monarchy as the political system in Brunei, a full loyalty expected to be given to the

6

ruler (Sultan) due to the combination of Islamic context. The Malay cultural virtues,

together with Islamic values, have influence and penetrate so deeply in the Brunei

Malay society that it thus acts as an agent of social and political hegemony and

identity of Brunei Malay. This is the so called ‘social contracts’ between the patron

and client have been embedded in the life styles of the Brunei Malays (Latif, 2003,

p.107).

However it is not that absolute and blindly been follow of the Malays to their raja

(monarch). The Malays do conscious that the separation of classes have created a

wide gap in terms of social mobility and power, however the act itself they find is just

and the practice needs to be conform in order to maintain unity and that to unsure

conflict will not occur. They have adopted the idea of justice and treason, where they

will never betray their ruler as long as the Sultan is just to his subjects. In Brunei, it is

expressed as “Raja hendaklah adil dan rakyat janganlah menderhaka”. The Malay

people have live by this code and concept that as long as the raja rules his country

justly, then the people will not derhaka (rebel) against him. The rakyat (people) will

give their support to the raja for establishing the rule of law in the country for the

sake of the rakyat (Jamil, 2008, p.49). That is the essence of power that the raja have

and it binds the rakyat with the raja.

Here is another limitation of Gramsci work, where certain scholars view his work as

reductionist as he simplifies the relation between the people and their own culture.

That is the problem of Marxist background and Dominic Strati have stated that,

“People can accept the prevailing order because they are compelled to do so by

denoting their time to ‘making a living’, or because they cannot conceive another way

of organizing society, and therefore fatalistically accept the worlds as it is. This,

moreover, assumes that the question why people should accept a particular social

order is the only legitimate question to ask. It can be claimed that an equally

legitimate question is why should people not accept a particular social order?”

(Stillo & Gauntlett, n.d.).

7

From what have been gather between the relationships of the Malays towards their

raja (monarch), a spiritual bond have exist, a bond of trust and allegiance between the

ruling class of Brunei and the lower class. Due to this psychological and social state

that the monarchy was able to preserve in Brunei, where the ruling class able to

legitimize their power due to their unquestioning loyalty.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Gramsci have given a fundamental relationship of political theory

regarding the coercion and consent. That a state was able to legitimize its rule not

through despotic means, but through the use of consent, ‘common sense’ that have

been embedded and understood on an individual basis.

He also has given an image of society in which the cultural realm is a central location

for the exercise of social power that is through the use of institution. Though Gramsci

model of hegemony have departed away from Marxist model of ideology, however it

still retains the Marxist foundation such as of class.

Through Gramsci discussion of hegemony, the broadening realm of politics that

Gramsci have understood and through the focus of institution within a society have

given a through understanding more on the relationship and notion of power.

Hegemony in everyday common sense and understanding, through the relationship

with work, school, church, mosque and the news that maintains and secures the power

of the ruling dominant class.

8

Reference list:

Benney, M. (1983). Gramsci on Law, Morality and Power. Review of International

Journal of the Sociology of Law 1983, 11, pp. 191-208.

FreedomHouse. (2013). Freedom in the World: Brunei. Retrieved November 9, 2013,

from http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/brunei

Gasper, P. (2004). The Classics of Marxism: The German Ideology. Review of

International Socialist Review Issue 33.

Ives, P. (2004). Language and Hegemony. London: Pluto Press.

Litowitz, D. (2000). Gramsci, Hegemony, and the Law. Retrieved April 5, 2014,

from http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview4/archives/2000/2/lit.pdf

Mann, M. (1985). The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanism and

Results. Review of European Journal of Sociology, 25, pp.185-213.

Naimah S Talib. (2002). A Resilient Monarchy: The Sultanate Of Brunei And Regime

Legitimacy In An Era Of Democratic Nation-States. New Zealand Journal of Asian

Studies 4(2), pp.137-147.

Schottmann, S. A. (2006). Melayu Islam Beraja: The politics of legitimization in a

Malay Islamic Monarchy. Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affair, 40(2), pp.111-

39.

Stillo, M., & Gauntlett, D. (n.d.). The life of Antonio Gramsci: Telling the truth is

always Revolutionary. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-

gram.htm#flaw

9

Stoddart, M., C., J. (n.d.). Ideology, Hegemony, Discourse: A Critical Review of

Theories of Knowledge and Power.

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press.

10