Monday, May 10, 2010
looking back towards Antonio Gramsci's Cultural Hegemony made me wonder. There are loads of examples that support this theory and very much influences a lot of people. It has also been known that cultural hegemony has the ability to uproot localized cultures and deem them as 'bigoted', 'other', part of the 'lower' etc. when there is absolutely no evidence to support that 'their' way of doing things are better. For instance, protocol, often you see that you're giving loads of movements or even wasting a lot of materials - for what? For what exactly? Sure humans have the need to celebrate or worship/meet the queen but is it necessary to use much waste in the process? Doesn't things like this actually cost much more and difficult to boot? It's like going to the opera house, sure it's for culture, definitely I don't see the wrong in that however, I do see a problem when it utilizes much waste. Wastefulness indeed, like JLos watches or Beyonce's million dollars' worth of wigs. Gramsci has a serious point and I would like to say that I'm wrong but honestly in more ways than one, he's right. Buttress this claim against the French dude who says that certain people make it because of 'Cultural Capital'.