Morning Comrades.
Typically, I would reserve these type of emails for the paying patreons of this newsletter but since I am now freer to spend more time on these, you are all getting this one. If you are a paying patreon, do not fret, I got something special planned for you on Thursday anyhow.
To be sure, current events and their analysis are vital as always but this subject has been bugging me for some time and since I am done writing about these topics academically, well, you’re getting my brain farts. At this point you are getting my little awkward pitch to become a patreon here, as weird as that still feels to me. You can support this project with a monthly subscription of 10USD, that you cancel at anytime and from which I get around 8SUD a month. It helps, trust me on that one, I am genuinely unsure as to how I could have survived this pandemic without your contributions at this point.
Coming back to the subject at hand. Language and Culture Wars. It is, both academically and materially, a HUGE topic and one that I have been fortunate enough to be allowed to work in for some time. By no means is my understanding thorough enough to be entirely inclusive and my perspective, research and interest is hugely influenced by Antonio Gramsci. Much of what you are going to be reading below is based on his teachings that in turn has influenced generations of thinkers and activists, unfortunately for our sake, not just on our side of the utopianism.
For a while now I have been, let’s say “bothered” for a lack of a better word about the (ab)use of language in our modern day culture war here in the west. A lot of this can be traced back to the post-modernist school of philosophy, especially the Frankfurt School but we will tackle the criticism of that another day. It is without a doubt that language, its meaning and use is one of the main pillars of building power, through both consensus and coercion. If “Blue” means “Blue” then we as a society have agreed on a social construct from which we can build. Over the course of development in deconstructing the colonial, patriarchal, capitalist “consensus” ( read that with a genuine bitter taste in my mouth ) scholars, activists and everyone in between have developed more nuanced uses of our language to better explain our realities, and specifically our shackles. Naming and identifying systems, procedures and so forth are the first steps in developing strategies and tactics to overcome anything, but of course this never happens in a vacuum and the ruling classes are never one to allow dissent to develop without interference.
Specifically, and in regards to our cause/platform/discourse here let’s look at words such Communism/Communist, Socialism/Socialist/ Anarchism/Anarchist, Feminism/Feminist and so on. Identifying connotations, definitions and ideas from which, again, strategies and tactics are derived, and more importantly, how the ruling classes have utilized the concept of hegemony in a context of a culture war to remove the meanings of these words, apply them to Identity rather than Strategy and how we can beat them at their game. That’s what we are doing here today.
First we need to understand what power is and how it is achieved, managed and applied in our times. This is where Gramsci comes into play ( for anyone interested in getting into this work, by all means, write me. Most of my work is in this field and yes it is somewhat daunting, but I am here to help )
Hegemony: from Greek, to dominate
For Gramsci, the ruling class, individuals in positions of power and influence, use hegemonic ideas to gain domination over the subjugated classes. This means them and us. This is not solely achieved through force or coercion but through consent of the masses. How is this done? Mostly through language and media.
Gramsci argues that the ruling classes achieved consent through the manipulation of language, culture, morality and common sense.
To explain, by common sense Gramsci means the way that individuals look to common sense to guide them in their immediate private concerns and private concerns alone, going by their daily life’s without ever being able to grasp systemic pictures on a larger scale. Furthermore, sadly and somewhat ironically, when individuals and small groups ( aka tribalization, something that we are all too used to by now thanks to Silicon Valley ) are guided by this commonly misplaced trust in common sense, it stops them from perceiving and acting against overarching, institutional, socio-economic exploitation.
This is made possible by cultural hegemony.
Let’s look at Mass Media, for example, as cultural hegemony largely depends on it.
Media is perceived by most as an independent and impartial entity here in the west. However, not only is the majority of media and news bound by set of ethics set forth by those that own them but more importantly, the majority of media is owned by very few people. In the 2021 Forbes Global 2000 list, Comcast was America's largest media conglomerate, in terms of revenue, with Paramount Global (controlled by National Amusements through supervoting shares), The Walt Disney Company, & Discovery, Inc. completing the top four.
In 1984 ( no coincide in choosing this date, ahem ), fifty independent media companies owned the majority of media interests within the United States. By 2011, 90% of the United States's media was controlled by six media conglomerates: GE/Comcast (NBC, Universal), News Corp (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, New York Post), Disney (ABC, ESPN, Pixar), Viacom (MTV, BET, Paramount Pictures), Time Warner (CNN, HBO, Warner Bros.), and CBS (Showtime, NFL.com).
To make matters even more precarious, most media and news is commercial in nature and thus needs to generate profit and growth in order to survive in our economic model and reality. It goes without saying that the above introduces a bias towards their owners and customers and thus no longer serve their intended purpose. This is all wanted and planned and did not happen by accident.
Gramsci argues that consent and coercive force are interrelated and although it may not seem like the ruling class is using force to maintain its dominance, nevertheless, force underwrites the appearance of consent - this is where the obvious tools such as the police come into notion but also less obvious uses of force, such as exclusion, slander and enslavement through wage based labour.
For our purposes it is vital to understand that consent in capitalism never exists without force, or at the very least, the threat of violence in whatever shape and form it may be necessary for the ruling classes to maintain their dominance.
Now, why you ask? Why this lust for dominance? There are countless angles to look at this from, from the psychological to the religious but I personally prefer the material outlook. The ruling classes goal is maintain control over the ideas of their society, to incubate societies resources. Materially, this includes you and me. Negotiation is not done through any altruistic concern for bringing about equality, justice or at the very least an equitable division of resources let alone representation despite what our “democracies” tell you.
Truthfully, by negotiating with the subjugated classes, the ruling class seeks to contain and deflect any group or any one person that is antagonistic and is not in the slightest interested in conceding anything.
To add to these you have to mention the dominance of the English language globally as a hegemonic force, both colloquially and academically, and language is what we are here for today, and the (ab)use of it.
If we can agree that the ruling classes determine the framework in which our societies operate, one, through economic realities ( this is where Marx’s “Capital” is your best friend, and no, it is not as daunting as “they” make it out to be ) and cultural hegemony, than we have to agree that words, their definition and their use carry with them meaning, substance and physical, as well as meta-physical value.
If I publicly say, “I am a Communist”, there will be reactions, mostly not positive ones. Not so fun side fact, I was once taken to custody court on this precise preposition, that the ruling classes ( in this case the court and my wealthier ex-wife ) gambled on the idea that being a Communist was “bad”. They lost, I won, more through luck than anything else but I think this helps to illustrate the point. The same applies to Socialist/Socialism, Anarchist/Anarchism etc., the ruling classes are not bothered by the academic differences, only the knowledge that they exist as a challenge to their dominance. Fact is, since the publication of the Communist Manifesto, forces with unthinkable resources at their disposal have done everything in their power to “stain” the word and negate it of all meaning. I still find it somewhat amusing, mostly, especially, since I am insanely privileged by birthplace, skin colour and assigned gender, to be able to do so, how effective the abuse of language by the ruling classes has morphed the word to mean something entirely different from what it actually means.
You say communism and 90% of people will automatically see Stalin and Gulags. Food lines and shitty housing. They will think of you as a brutal dictator and as someone totally removed from the reality, almost insane and they’d be happy to throw you in an institution, lock the doors and throw away your key. At best, you’ll be ridiculed, at worst, killed. Saying that for a few hundred thousand comrades around the Global South.
The reality is that Communism rests on a few very simple ideas. At its core it is a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. The idea that every labourer is entitled to everything they create.
Yes, granted, the actual implementation of this idea essentially challenges all existing power, social constructs and realities and that is precisely why it is perceived as such a threat. Specifically, it challenges the power structures that have had cultural and economic hegemony for the last 600 years. Again, you can apply this to everything that challenges patriarchal, imperial, capitalistic realities, call it what you will. Communism, Socialism, Anarchism, Feminism and so forth. All of which are ideas that challenge this power. To make matters worse from the viewpoint of the current ruling classes, not to replace them but to get rid of these constructs all together.
So how do we change this, or rather, how do we outwit the ruling classes, their construct in which a culture war is being fought through the (ab)use of language that determines our realities?
I am so tempted to write “Think Outside The Box” and I am giggling at my own cynicism here but it actually works. Again, if we agree that the ruling classes determine the sandbox in which we all play, then we change sandboxes. Specifically, this means reverting language away from IDENTITY to ACTION. It is all too easy to say, “I am a Communist” and make this your “self” and outward perceived identity. Apply this accordingly to all identities. If though, the meaning of the word is pre-determined by the ruling classes through the means of cultural hegemony, your own claim to this identity is not only worthless, but can at all times be used against you.
You decide who your enemies are.
The way we remove the power of cultural hegemony from our context, or our sandbox so to say is through ACTION and by relegating IDENTITY to whatever irrelevance it deserves. In clearer words, do not say you are a Communist but be one. Your actions carry much more weight in their material relation to your outside world than your identity. I believe this is where old proverbs like “Show me, don’t tell me” come from. A material action is by its very nature defined by the net results of your surroundings and not by the framework in which you are allowed to play in. Once again, I have to come back to the late David Graeber, who explained this clearly, from an Anarchist position:
“I’m not saying it’s totally meaningless to say you’re an anarchist if it’s not in any way reflected in your practice; you can look forward to a world without states and capitalism in the abstract, believe it would be better and possible, but not do anything about it. But it doesn’t really mean much. On the other hand, it’s possible to act like an anarchist – to behave in ways that would work without bureaucratic structures of coercion to enforce them – without calling yourself an anarchist, or anything else. In fact most of us act like anarchists – even communists – a lot of the time. To be an anarchist, for me, is to do that self-consciously, as a way of gradually bringing a world entirely based on those principles into being.” - David Graeber, 2014
That’s how you win at this and make no mistake, coercion and consent aside, this is what is happening. Common Sense, in the Gramscian context be damned, be and become aware of what forces are at play here and know your role in this. Not for you, not for today, but for everyone and the total liberation from this death cult. No one is free until we are all free and this is part of that struggle.
Thanks for coming along, your time and attention, I hope you enjoyed this. Back again on Thursday and Friday. Until then, I remain yours, without compromise,
V.