Questioning Hegemony

Why Go Along Just to Get Along?

Photo by Far Chinberdiev on Unsplash

Hegemony-noun: the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group (Merriam-Webster)

I cannot help blinking myself back into my graduate school economics class. Public Choice Theory. Taught by (name-dropping here), one of the two fathers of this theory (1), Dr. James M. Buchanan. Further name-dropping, Professor Buchanan won the Nobel Prize (2) in 1986 for this body of work. I was fortunate to borrow some minutes here and there of this man’s valuable time, and he did me the great honor of reading an early paper I wrote about hegemony, inspired by his theories. I wondered then why citizens went along with the ideas and policies of those in power, even when these didn’t fully serve them. I wondered how nations wielded this invisible power, a power of consent without force. What was the source of‌ legitimacy? Why would anyone defend their nation’s actions, even when it went against their own values and beliefs?

I am wondering about that today.

First, I must distinguish between hegemony and norms because they can be confused. Hegemony is the system of power that determines which norms exist, whose norms matter, and why they feel natural. Hegemony aligns social, cultural, economic, and institutional conditions to reinforce the goals of those in power in the same direction. It is implicit and runs in the background, similar to operating software on our laptops. It is the structure underpinning norms, like what it means to be polite or patriotic or productive.

Norms are shared expectations about behavior that are enforced socially through approval and disapproval. They are explicit, like waiting your turn in line or standing for the national anthem or respecting your boss. They are not laws, but people enforce norms on one another so the invisible power underneath does not have to.

We can only touch upon hegemony here. It is a beast with many tentacles. We can find examples to suss out the motivations of individuals who choose to “go along to get along” with this force without consent. From there, we will look at the other side-how systems are set up to foster consent without force.

Hegemony is a beast with many tentacles.

Let’s start with something we are all familiar with. Education. For years, a college education has been the gold standard as the path to success. Despite the debt, inaccessibility of college to many, and viable alternatives (not to mention the scads of high school graduates with different goals), generations of parents enforce this belief. This is not explicitly state-mandated, but a deep-seated collective consent that sending our children to college (as opposed to trade schools or some other choice) equates to prosperity.

Speaking of prosperity, in a capitalist society like the U.S. (and I believe the capitalist system is better than anything else we have come up with), and despite John Maynard Keynes’s expressed doubts (3), our society connects working long hours to success. We tie worth to productivity and treat wealth as a natural outcome of effort. No exceptions. No one forces us to believe this. To us, it is common sense.

One more useful example is patriotism. I am as patriotic as most, but the strict patriotism narrative means we consent to abstruse military actions and the national myths that can come out of the retelling of our history. No one forces us to believe. We somehow just do.

It is this “somehow” to which we now turn.

Why Do We Consent?

From childhood, there is a dominant story everywhere about everything. Much of it is benign. Cultural and social rules we follow about treating one another fairly, with respect and dignity. Rules are taught before reasoning. By adulthood, they feel intuitive, not imposed. We feel a general sense of belonging.

And oh, how we want to belong! Agreeing to live within these narratives buys us social acceptance. To question the ideal of college aspirations for our children or to voice an unpopular opinion about a government action invites discomfort. We are wired to avoid exclusion.

We learn to tolerate many things given small rewards along the way. Praise, promotions, likes. We trade discomfort for safety and legitimacy. These are not big wins, but they keep us in the game. Alternative ways of living are framed as fringe, risky, or unworthy of consideration. They are not “real” options in this hegemonic world. Instead, those in power soothe us with words we love: freedom, choice, empowerment. And don’t misunderstand-we have these; otherwise, the game does not work. We must feel like compliance is voluntary, after all.

Where there is resistance, it is framed as a problem with the individual, not with the system. As an individual with a problem, I am encouraged to try harder to consent. Although there is no overt threat of loss of income or status or safety or belonging, the fear of those losses and the consequences is understood. We choose to “go along to get along” because it is the path of least resistance. And because opting out is made to feel lonely, dangerous, or absurd.

We choose to “go along to get along” because it is the path of least resistance. And because opting out is made to feel lonely, dangerous, or absurd.

What is the Mechanism for Obtaining Our Consent?

Now that we have a handle on why individuals might consent to a certain power structure that does not serve their interests, let’s examine how those in power work to create a backdrop for their underlying (true) goals.

Everybody loves a good story, and successful leaders are skilled storytellers. Founding father narratives oversimplify history into heroes, sacrifices, and destiny. Doctrines from high school civics classes are dusted off and repurposed. These create an emotional loyalty that overrides contradiction or negativity.

National symbols are another effective tool to wrap a society in a warm blanket of consent without force. Flags, anthems, and pledges create a mass muscle memory of allegiance around shared values. A sturdy backbone on which to hang policy and power.

There is no more effective way to inspire unity than around an external threat. Enemies-real or exaggerated-unify the population and justify added surveillance, militarization, and rules. Fear (not force) minimizes dissent. Related to this is the designation of State interests as moral imperatives. Perils to freedom, security, order, or prosperity justify actions that might ordinarily meet with opposition. Any opposition is deemed irresponsible and dangerous.

The cogs in the machinery that make this work are media alignment with those in power and society’s consent through participation. We have witnessed in recent times how the media gets behind a narrative, using government language to tell a story within the tight boundaries of that narrative. There has been a general decay in the objectivity of reporting because of this. And when we vote (or not), pay taxes, and perform public service, we are consenting to take part in a system we believe is sound.

I am not against flags or stories or paying my fair share of taxes. I vote and try to remain an educated citizen. But like Dr. Buchanan, I am not under the illusion that the State acts for the common good. A wise State will set up a security blanket for all of us to be lulled into comfort because it wants to minimize the use of force against its citizenry. It is so much easier if we nod and carry on while it pursues its underlying self-interests. Which is usually more power.

Questioning Hegemony

Hegemony survives on unexamined agreement. As soon as we recognize it, it loses its cloak of invisibility. But not its power. Questioning hegemony involves a trade-off between personal comfort and clarity. At first, our pushback is ignored. We are told, “That’s just politics,” or “You’re just upset about X.” As we persist, we notice the social temperature drops. People become uncomfortable around us. Conversations shorten. Invitations may thin out. Our social circle then looks to justify our dissent as a character flaw. Bitterness or sour grapes. They indulge us in our complaints, but within limits.

Hegemony survives on unexamined agreement.

We reach a point where we are exhausted from explaining our position. Having our words misunderstood and reframed for the comfort of others. We begin to self-censor to relieve some of the pressure, but our beliefs do not change. They leak out into our workplace, affecting our jobs. Our health. Many of us back off (again, without overt force by the State here), re-packaging our criticisms under the umbrella of equity, freedom, and choice. This language is more palatable to those in power, so the threat to ourselves dissolves. Outwardly, equilibrium is restored, but an internal rupture remains.

Go along to get along.

Love, Alice

(1) Dr. Buchanan co-authored his most famous work with Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent (1962) presenting, in its simplest terms, the idea of using economic tools to study political behavior, bureaucracy, and decision-making, and to suggest improvements.

(2) Formally titled the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or, more commonly, the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

(3) One of my favorite quotes about capitalism is attributed to John Maynard Keynes as a summation of his doubts about capitalism. “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the nastiest * of men will do the nastiest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” * sometimes “wickedest. For your further erudition, John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) was a revolutionary English economist who studied the causes of business cycles. His work is the basis of Keynesian economics and its various offshoots.

Photo by Debby Hudson on Unsplash