Looking at the concept of “hegemony” from Gramsci’s prison notebooks

This week, a thesis I served on the jury for, titled “The Dialectical Development of the Civil Society-State Duality in Hegel, Marx, and Gramsci” encouraged me  to write about the concept of hegemony as addressed in Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks.As will be recalled, the ideas and concepts put forward by Gramsci have become widely used not only in Marxist circles but also in academia, specifically in the fields of political science, sociology, and history. Today, I will attempt to examine the establishment of authoritarian regimes in Italian and German history, as well as contemporary Turkey, within the framework of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony.

WHO IS GRAMSCI?

WHO IS GRAMSCI? 

In the early period of his life, which he could only sustain for 46 years due to serious health problems, Gramsci was an active thinker and politician in the Italian Socialist Party's Avanti, L'Ordine Nuovo publications. In 1921, he was among the founding leaders of the Italian Communist Party. He joined the Comintern as a member in 1922. After being elected to the Italian parliament in 1924, he was stripped of his parliamentary seat in 1926 and imprisoned. He was tried in a sham court and spent his last 10 years in Mussolini's dungeons. During these years, he wrote his works known as the Prison Notebooks . In his writings, which consist of 30 notebooks and 3,000 pages, he addressed many theoretical topics. The notebooks would be preserved by  his close friend, the Cambridge economist Piero Sraffa, and presented to the intellectual public. 

Although Antonio Gramsci utilized Marxist analytical instruments, he was influenced by many thinkers in the history of political thought,  ranging from Machiavelli to Sorel. Especially after the Second World War, Marxist schools focused more on infrastructure/superstructure issues. Concepts such as hegemony, historical bloc, the ideological apparatus of the state, the repressive apparatus of the state, and organic and traditional intellectuals, which are original concepts in Gramscian literature, began to be used widely in analyses. The reason for this was the problems created by the emphasis that Orthodox Marxism placed on economic determinism -in the long run-  regarding social change and revolutions. 

The concepts and views put forward by Gramsci have been examined by authors such as Louis Althusser, Perry Anderson, Nikos Poulantzas, and Eric Hobsbawm. These names, in the 80s, They were translated into Turkish as Marxist authors valued by  the Birikim circle. I encountered the concepts of ISA (Ideological State Apparatus)  and RSA (Repressive State Apparatus) in these publications. I also encountered Gramsci during these years through my late professor Nur Vergin's political sociology  I became acquainted with them in his lectures.    

HOW CAN WE DEFINE HEGEMONY?

It can be defined as a state in which a class power convinces the dependent classes—which are actually social subjects—that their interests will also be realized by this power bloc.

Every state, in addition to its coercive apparatus (the state coercive apparatus), needs ideological and cultural hegemony tools that ensure the production of consent. This is the superstructure institution that Gramsci mentions in his Prison Notebooks. In other words, class power is exercised not only outside of and alongside coercive apparatuses, but also in the ideological sphere. Otherwise, the ruling class would be forced to maintain hegemony solely by using its coercive apparatus. This would lead to the rapid erosion of power. In short, the real power that ensures the continuity of hegemony lies in the state's ideological apparatuses. 

FACTORS THAT LED ITALY TO FASCISM 

The First World War changed the entire political direction of Italy. The Socialist Party, one of Europe's most deep-rooted parties, had emerged stronger from the 1919 and 1921 elections. The party was extremely well-organized among the working class and intellectuals. It was gaining strength steadily. The party split under the influence of the Bolshevik revolution. While the party remained loyal to the Second International, Gramsci and his friends, who were on the Comintern line, founded the  Communist Party. In 1921, the socialists received 24% of the vote, and the communists received 4%. Mussolini united all the parties in the center and on the right against the left under the umbrella of the National Fascist Party. While the post-war political climate led to division on the left, it resulted in the formation of a front against the left around the fascist party  on the right.  

As a result, in 1920s Italy, despite the existence of many leftist parties, the alliance-election system established by Mussolini was changed, securing a 2/3 majority. All leftist parties were eventually shut down and declared illegal. Many leftist intellectuals and politicians, including Gramsci, were imprisoned. 

In short, while Italy was shifting toward the left, and even as the communists were attempting to establish councils (Soviets) similar to those in St. Petersburg,  while planning, fascism settled over Italy. Nouva Roma the regime quickly began the process of building a new hegemony. 

SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS IN GERMANY 

Germany emerged from the First World War in defeat. The dissolution of the Prussian Empire and the exile of Kaiser Wilhelm II  resulted in the establishment of a parliamentary democracy in Weimar. The Germans established the Republic under the leadership of Social Democrat Karl Ebert. The environment of leftward shift created by the October Revolution led revisionist parties  led to its organization. The reluctance of center-right parties to take responsibility in the face of economic crisis and extraordinary inflation  in the face of the National Socialists (Nazis) began to gain strength rapidly. This process, which lasted from 1925 to 1933, resulted in Hindenburg appointing Hitler as Chancellor (prime minister) This appointment opened the door to a major transformation in German history. The new regime, by organizing the Reichstag fire and the Night of Broken Glass (Kristallnacht), eliminated all opposition. It was now time to establish the new hegemony. Hitler and his highly capable team would not have difficulty in achieving this.  

If we go back a little, the crushing of the Spartacists by the social democratic government paved the way for the right. The young Weimar Republic was dragged from an environment of pluralism—in a relatively short time—into the totalitarianism of the Third Reich. The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that the German ruling class  could not produce another policy that would optimally safeguard the interests of its  alliance. President Hindenburg (a field marshal during the World War) felt compelled to appoint Hitler as chancellor in this environment of having no other options.  The new hegemony ideology of the ruling classes became the corporatist German state centered around the Führer. 

THE COMMON GROUND BETWEEN GERMANY AND ITALY

In both countries, there are historical references that are sanctified during the construction process of the new hegemony. The Germans view the Holy Roman Empire as the First Reich and the Prussian Empire established by Bismarck in 1871 as the Second Reich. The Third Reich, on the other hand, was Nazi Germany, which was intended to carry this glorious historical legacy even further. 

As for Italy, after the great march on Rome in 1922, Mussolini completely emptied the power space of King  Victor Emmanuel III and declared his dictatorship. All parties other than the National Fascist Party (PNF) were banned. Declaring himself Il Duce, Mussolini began organizing enthusiastic  rallies to make Fascism dominant in Italian society. He made it a primary goal to base Italian culture on ancient Roman values. The new state would be a New Rome. 

The goal Hitler set forth in Mein Kampf was to reach a new golden age for the Germanic people. This was to be achieved through the utopia of Germanic world hegemony.  

The Duce and the Führer, became psycho-pathological leaders fermented in the social environment of two countries emerging from the First World War. In their eyes, the ideal citizen had to be a cell dissolved within the overarching identity of party-state-nation with their entire existence. Fascist and National Socialist ceremonies are full of countless examples of this. 

However, it should not be forgotten that both societies were on the verge of turning left toward socialism. In Germany,  the Spartacist movement, and in Italy, especially in the industrialized It should be noted in history that they were within the excitement of a classless society created by the workers' councils in the North and the Italian Communist Party.  Later, both countries turned toward a totalitarian structure in the vortex of an opposite current. There was an ancient era in the hegemony ideologies of the new regimes of both countries: 

Reich and Rome. The Swastika for the Germans and the Fasces for the Italians became the symbols of hegemony. The practice of Nazism and Fascism, which lasted for approximately 20 years, turned into regimes where the limits of human evil were tested.  REPUBLICAN IDEOLOGY IN TURKEY  

Like Italy and Germany—by following a different evolutionary line—Turkey also had experiences with absolute and constitutional monarchy. Ottoman Turkey, Paris

...  At the Peace Conference, it had encountered a large-scale  trauma. The conditions created by this trauma led the Anatolian Revolution toward a republic. The exit from the old regime was achieved through a victory of national liberation. Under the leadership of Atatürk, the Turks established a nation-state. From the very beginning, the goal of the republican revolutions was contemporary civilization. The logical consequence of this could be nothing other than a state of law and a democratic social order. This was Turkey’s direction. Despite many shortcomings, this goal was also achieved. 

The identity upon which the Republic was based was the Turkish national identity. Its weak point was that it was established by the state’s petty-bourgeois revolutionaries. The Turkish bourgeoisie was not a class with the power to carry out a democratic revolution. It could not go beyond being an ally that  silently approved the liquidation of the old regime. In the first eighty-year adventure of the Republic, a direction based on secularism and political pluralism was adopted. Until recent times, this was the source of the regime’s legitimacy. 

NEW HEGEMONY VALUES 

After 1950, the direction indicated by the compass began to shift slowly. For the last twenty years, an antithesis whose cultural paradigm, ideological premises, and references date back to the pre-republican era has become dominant. 

Without ever mentioning the founding principles of the Republic, the state began to be sanctified in their place. A new phase has been entered in which the state is also identified with the ruling power. The celebrations for the 100th anniversary of the Republic were carried out by the parties aligned behind the government as a glorification of the state apparatus.   

Two golden ages, imagined to have been experienced in the past, constitute the references—the hegemonic values—of the new regime. The primary value is the 'Asr-ı Saadet' (the Age of Bliss). Seen as having roughly the same value is the centuries when the Ottoman Empire  reached the gates of Vienna. In today's Turkey, the ideology of hegemony is Sunni Islam. The political economy of the new hegemony, on the other hand, is a green capital capitalism that is articulated to international capital through a peripheral economy.

The content of the ancestral references is the Ottoman Empire, an imperial military land state. The basis for the regime's self-legitimization is not a secular democratic society. The reason the government has established such a superstructure bloc is that the secular bourgeoisie, which held power until the end of the twentieth century, has withdrawn from the field of hegemony, leaving its place to the Islamist,  anti-secular, Ottomanist faction of capital. 

Hegemony—since 1950—is still in the same class. But a faction that was secondary and remained in the background in the past has taken the lead. With the regime it has established step by step, Ottoman Reich aspires to be. 

In today's Turkey, we frequently see the cultural elements of hegemony in street  interviews. Many citizens, after complaining at length about economic and social  hardships,  claim that the one responsible for everything is not the government but  the opposition (CHP)  itself.  by saying  they are driving us to the brink of madness.   Such  a   line of reasoning (argumentation)  must have its real cause enchanted under the  hegemony of the class that holds the state. 

Hegemony's  to give a few examples showing that it has changed,  example  if we need to give, regarding the "traitor" expression used by our state's founder Atatürk  in relation to  Sultan Vahdettin, the fact that it was  pronounced  by a mayor  is new  the primary and secondary  political actors—the AKP and MHP—  is the outrage it caused on their side. The Mayor was—initially—vehemently  condemned using the argument of ancestry. Later, a public prosecutor  launched  an investigation  into the mayor.  Yet, Atatürk  had used  this expression in the Nutuk as well.  The public prosecutor  protected the law of the dynasty  against the republic  and its  founding leader.  The meaning of this could surely be nothing else.  

Another  significant indicator is that the President of Religious Affairs has taken on the function of Islamizing all ceremonies,  including  the graduation ceremonies of military academies. This shows that hegemony  bases its  production of consent  on religion.  Atatürk  the legitimacy of the republic is  reproduced through science, knowledge, and  the army of education,  while today this is being  implemented through the religious institution—with its entire organization.  Another indicator of a shift in hegemony

is that the Navy, on the 100th anniversary of the republic, significantly chose to be stationed at the Vahdettin Pavilion, thereby saluting the new hegemony.  is that the Navy, on the 100th anniversary of the republic, significantly chose to be stationed at the Vahdettin Pavilion, thereby saluting the new hegemony. 

In Turkey, examples of hegemony  change can be seen in the media world with increasing intensity.  The desire to establish a counter-hegemony, which erupted with anger  at the Magnificent Century series, began with  Diriliş Ertuğrul.  It was reinforced with  Payitaht Abdülhamid. This was supported by  vast resources poured in by the government.   as is known, other series followed. As can be easily understood, the  concluding message of each series is the same: the legitimization of power leadership. In the Abdülhamid series, as in the  "scene of slapping the British ambassadress." 

 THE DIRECTION IN WHICH POWER IS HEADING 

The power's Ottoman Reich  we see that it is within an imaginary. Turkey's current political  regime Ersin Kalaycıoğlu my professor  as neo-patrimonial sultanism  defines.  I also agree with  my professor. In an interview, my professor  he mentions  five features  of this regime.  All of these are present in Turkey. The first is the blurring of the lines between the government and the state, which is the opposite of the separation of powers. The loss of any effectiveness of the legislature, and the formation of a party-state  as the ruling party dominates both the government and the state. Thesecond is that personalization dominates the style of governance, and institutions lose their value. The third is the selective application of the existing constitution, laws, and rules in general, or their complete disregard  in governance. The fourth is the elimination of pluralism by  the establishment of the leader's unlimited power. Fifth, the distortion of economic rules to operate as a crony economy. 

In conclusion, hegemony was most recently represented in Sancaktepe by the older pilgrim who questioned İmamoğlu's arrival for Friday  prayers. He was able to ask why he had come to the mosque. This incident  shows  that the new  hegemony  tends to  recognize no boundaries. Therefore, what might happen -furthermore-  is uncertain.