Hegemonic Discourse - Essay Example

Hegemonic Dis Dis is a “system of meaningful practices that form the identities of s and objects” (Howarth &Stavrakakis 4). It involves construction of antagonisms and drawing of political frontiers between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ and also exercise of power. Hegemonic discourse involves conceptualizing power and domination and then relating power and domination to notions of discourse, subjectivity and hegemony (Howarth 309). Different theorists have come up with arguments regarding what discourse is and what it constitutes. Some of the most prominent discourse theorists include Michel Foucault through his works such as the Archaeology of Knowledge in 1972. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe are also credited for advancement of this theory and most importantly hegemonic discourse. Antonio Gramsci on the other hand, is credited for coining the term hegemony referring to the predominance of one social class over others. The dominant class projects its own way of viewing the world and the dominated classes take this view as ‘common sense’ or ‘natural’. Hegemonic discuss most often involves discussions about the developed and developing countries with the developed countries especially U.S assuming the role of a hegemony that controls or regulates the rest of the world in what Brand refers to as “global governance” (155-176). Theorists agree that discourse involves power relations in society and that hegemonic practice is a form of political activity or struggle (Howarth & Stavrakakis 2). This essay will use the hegemonic discourse to deconstruct one aspect of international development: global governance and in particular developing countries. According to Laclau and Mouffe, every material object is articulated within discourse thus it is not determined by nature. The main assumption of discourse theory is that all objects and actions are meaningful, and their meaning is conferred by historically specific systems of rules. For them The fact that every object is constituted as an object of discourse has nothing to do with whether there is a world external to thought, or with that realism/idealism opposition. An earthquake occurs here and now independent of my will. But whether their specifity as object is constructed in terms of ‘natural phenomenon’ or ‘expressions of the wrath of God’ depends upon restructuring of discursive field. What is derived is not that such objects exist externally to thought, but the rather different assertion that they constitute themselves as objects outside any discursive conditions of emergence. (1985: 108). This assertion by Laclau and Mouffe summarizes all there is to discourse. Any object in society is interpreted differently depending on the belief of the person. For example, environmentalists may interpret same phenomena differently from economists. When politics is put into place, the discourses and identities produced are inherent political entities which involve construction of antagonism and exercise of power (Howarth & Stavrakakis 11). As such, concepts of social antagonism, hegemony and logics of equivalence and difference are born through political discuss. The logic of equivalence according to Howarth and Stavrakakis involves “identities that express pure negation of discursive system” (11). They organize themselves as ‘the oppressed’ in comparison with others who are considered as ‘the oppressors” hence the oppressed fall under same class. This can be said so of the developing countries in comparison to developed countries. Through imperialism and colonialism, the Western countries were able to dominate the colonies which comprise mainly of developing countries. After the two World Wars countries such as the U.S, France, USSR and Britain emerged as superpowers and continued controlling the rest of the world hence ensuring order in society through global governance. They controlled most of commerce and also political affairs. A Cold War between communists (USSR) and capitalists (U.S) ensued after the WWII and U.S emerged as the only superpower with a specific role of policing the world. Taking Gramsci’s concept of hegemony into consideration, the U.S became hegemony. The Third World countries that were former colonies organized themselves as ‘the oppressed’ group in protest of the Western world domination and interference its affairs and hence viewed the Western countries as ‘the oppressors’. In this case, it can be argued those disparities or viewing some countries as developing or Third World and others as First World or developed and yet others as emerging economies are a social construction that was made possible through hegemonic discourse. The logic of difference on the other hand, does the opposite of equivalence. It expands the system of difference by dissolving existing chains of equivalence and incorporating those disarticulated elements into an expanding order (Howarth &S tavrakakis 12). It relegates division into margins of society. For example, the western countries used communism as starting point and incorporated elements of market and notions of liberalization to transition economies into democracies and have continually expected those referred as Developing countries to entrench ideals of democracy in their economies as a precursor to development. As such, as political subjects, they are forced to identify with the political projects and the discourses articulated by these developed countries and mostly the U.S Hegemonic practices according to Laclau and Mouffe are a form of political activity involving articulation of different identities and subjectivities into a common project and hegemonic formations are the outcome of such projects (Howarth & Stavrakakis 14). This helps create new forms of social order. The conditions for such hegemonic practices include existence of antagonistic forces and instability of political frontiers that divide them. For example, between the developing (LDCs) and developed countries, there are always antagonisms with the LDCs complaining of manipulation by developed countries and frontiers that divide them include poverty and debt and other signifiers that the developed world uses to continue maintaining the status quo. For example, they offer aid to LDCs and put conditionalities on them that only end up benefiting the donor countries or to serve their interests. As such, the rich countries continue being richer and poor become poorer hence maintain the North South divide. Foucault implied that discourses involve relations between power and knowledge; the more knowledge one has the more the power he has. H e also argued that power does not reside in the state but its exercise throughout the society (Brand 155-176). It is the exercise of power that constitutes and produces practices, policies and regimes. Power also involves drawing political frontiers of multiple lines of inclusion and exclusion. The dominant groups use language to express their dominance and also to request obedience and respect that is why Gramsci wondered how classes of people continue to accept and uphold their dominated status and accept it as common sense. It is this global discourse that divides countries into Developed and LDC through inclusion and exclusion based on poverty levels or economic growth (Howarth 309-335).The developed countries wield a lot of power through their knowledge that results in technological advances thus increasing their power even more. Developing countries rely on this knowledge hence have accepted their situation as less developed countries and follow what the developed countries decide. For example, even though many countries in developing world are members of the World Trade Organization, the most influential decision makers are the Powerful countries such as U.S. (Brand 155-176).The same case applies to the United Nations which is dominated by African countries but those who hold power in the decision making organ (security council) are developed countries like Britain, U.S, China. This was a consequence of imperialism as the UN Security Council was formed during war period and the powerful nations made themselves members of that council. Global governance thus involves criticisms of the institutions that relegate countries to Third World status through discourses. Such institutions as WTO, UN and Multilateral Agreements on Investments (MIA) are blamed for the worsening living conditions of large number of people in developing countries, hence developing countries join together and label the developed countries that dominate such institutions as ‘oppressors’ (Brand 155-176). Such actors gain consent from LDCs by making concessions and compromises such as offering them development assistance in return for democratization or reducing conflicts. The dominance of the U.S as a hegemonic force that involves itself with global governance is declining. According to alternate discusses the place of U.S is being taken by emerging nations such as China hence its role as the global police is at stake. Alternate discusses of the divide between North and South do not view this as result of imperialism and colonization but as result of globalization that produces instability and crises (Brand 6). Globalization has transformed the world into a global village and producing powerful institutions such as IMF and World Bank and organizations such as Multinational Companies (MNCs) that are now ruling the world and accelerating developing world problems. Conclusion Discourse involves the way of speaking and divides society into political frontiers of ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’. It also involves exercise of power. The theory was advanced by thinkers such as Foucault and Laclau and Mouffe. Laclau and Mouffe also theorized about hegemonic discourse which involves the logic of equivalence and difference. These create antagonisms that divide society into North and South Pole with North Pole being the oppressors and the south “the oppressed.” The countries in the North are labeled as developed while those in the South are developing countries who continue to struggle for a space thus creating new formations. This theory is important in international development as it explains the skewed development between the developed and LDCs hence gives the solutions of how it can be eliminated. Works Cited Brand Ulrich. Order and Regulation: Global Governance as a Hegemonic Discourse of International Politics. Review of International Political Economy, 12.1 (2005):155-176. Howarth David. Power, Discourse and Policy: Articulating a Hegemony Approach to Critical Policy Studies. Crtitical Policy Studies, 3. 3-4 (2009):309-335. Howarth David and Stavrakakis Yannis. Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis. In: D. Harworth., A. Norval and Y. Stavrakakis (eds). Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and social. Manchester University Press, 2000. Laclau Ernesto and Mouffe Chantal. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985. Read More