Talk:Hegemony

Obviated the Spanish Empire
What is the criteria Jayantha Jayman in "Politics of International Political Economy" that not include Spain as the more sucesfull european empire? During the time from 1498 to 1826 Spain was by far the world's most powerful country with an empire consisting of New World territories from Nord America to Patagonia, Caribbean and Phillipines. Signsolid (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it not strange that the largest empire in history, longest surviving post-Roman empire is not mentioned? That such an empire is not even mentioned on an article about hegemony yet such empires as the Dutch Empire gets a whole paragraph is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Signsolid (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why this article needs overhauled - this user has not understood what is meant by hegemony at all. I mean no offence by this, but that is empire building, not hegemony, which is entirely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. But it's worse than you think. Jayman actually refers to Spain as a "hegemonic pretender", although I'm not sure what he means. We should look for RSs that say Spain was a hegemony and put it in. Don't be to cruel, we do our best here. Myrvin (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Badly written article
Just read this article and parts are either badly written, or vandalised. The article is rambling and there are too many obscure terms. What the hell is a guwaweed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.197.220 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hegemony and Offensive Realism
Perhaps adding the concept of hegemony in international relations theory would be a great addition. The school of Offensive Realism has hegemony as its dominant concept.

I'll work over the next couple days to gather my IR notes and try and type something that's coherent.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.143.52 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 13 December 2004

"protective right-to-work laws"
controversial right-to-work laws are matter-of-factly described as "protective"


 * unsigned one, they certainly make union membership more "voluntary", which is the issue in the context in which it is used. Whether they can really protect one in an environment of social ostracism is a matter of how well this and other laws are enforced.--Silverback 15:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * that's the pro-"right-to-work" version of things - it's a single perspective on a controversial issue that's mostly irrelevant to the main article - and it's presented in a manner that gives no indication that not everyone sees it that way. it's unnecessary and one-sided.  there should at least be some sort of an indication that a very different view exists, in which "right-to-work" laws are harmful anti-worker legislation masquerading as some sort of counter-hegemonic intervention.  really, any sort of sign that "protective" is a very, very controversial descriptor for these laws would be a good thing.

Merge
Projection of force should be merged here. -St|eve 20:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The idea of force projection is different in many examples.  The Yangtze Patrol of the U.S. Navy before World War II was not hegemony. Projection of force is the ability to realistically sustain or threaten the use of force at a distance from the main country.  It is a component of hegemony, but not exclusive of it.--Mtnerd 23:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Projection of force would be better merged into power projection, actually. — MC MasterChef  ::  Leave a tip — 10:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the implied use of force would be hegemonic, but the actual threat wouldn't be hegemonic. Hegemony is much too subtle to be overt, so the US hegemony in North America is sound, whereas it is attempting to build it in the Middle East, and therefore doesn't have hegemony there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.185.185 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation would be nice.
Someone has added a pronounciation in a rather disjointed way - and it's not obviously the correct pronounciation anyway. I agree pronounciation would be nice, but done more thoughtfully than this 129.67.2.244 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure that Wiktionary has it any better...
 * I suggest something like: (pronounced hi jem΄ ə nē, hej΄ ə mō΄nē, hē΄ jə mō΄ nē)
 * Samatva 15:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * həˈjemənē; ˈhejəˌmōnē —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.32.179 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 June 2007

Sorry to go back to this, but the OED allows the hard g pronunciation as well; I think Chambers only has this. The UK version needs looking at. Myrvin (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

moved...
Moved to here: to be written: the idea of "hegemony" in Marxist theory.. 212.44.19.62 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

removed...
I've removed pronounced he-JEH-min-ee pending decent writeup, probably at the start. 212.44.19.62 12:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

restored
i'm restoring he-JEH-min-ee bc it's the only pronunciation that's useful for most of us  average readers. . i dont see what a "decent writeup" has  to do w/ it [whatever that is.] 173.61.96.10 (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"A little less slanted, please"
This article does not meet the wikipedia standards of objectivity. The assertion that common sense notions of social values can be identified as the Marxist Gramsci's theory, but cannot simply be stated at the opening of the article as if this were undisputed. A little more historical background to the ground of the concept, starting with the Athenian Hegemony, would also be usful.

It's a little hard to believe that someone hasn't included Rome as a hegemon in the history section. Is there a reason this obvious and probably most prototypical example is not included?


 * The article awaits the results of your broad reading and sense of balance.--Wetman 12:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rome could certainly be described as a hegemon before the dissolution of the Latin League in 338 BC, but when people think of Rome they generally think of the later imperial power, so I don't think the addition would be helpful. Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening Sentence
This opening sentence isn't clear:
 * Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group.

I still don't know what Hegemony is. I have no clue what it is getting at, other than powergrasping. JoeSmack Talk 07:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The easiest way I think of it is that a society becomes so great, either culturally (Rome), militarily (British Empire) or socially (USA maybe?) that other people want to join or ally with that society. There is a lot of confusion about the Roman expansion where people think that a lot of the territory was conquered by the military - when in fact, outside cultures jumped at the chance to call themselves Roman and the movement of troops through the territory was a mere formality - because the cultural impact of calling oneself 'Roman', and all the benefits and power associated with that title, were very very seductive. Boris_Johnson did a fantastic series for the BBC where he discussed this very aspect of the Roman Empire, but I don't think he referred to it as a hegemony.


 * Also, the Catholic church could be used as an example of a religious hegemony, and the EEC/EU as an economic one?
 * My understanding of Johnson's series and book is that he discusses Rome under Augustus. By this time "Rome" was definitely an Empire rather than a Hegemon leading subordinate states. From reading reviews of his book, I am also sceptical of his use of history, but I'm reserving final judgment on that until I read it myself. Anarchangel23 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the opening paragraph to something more clear, without changing much more than grammar. What I did remove was this: "It controls the ways that ideas become "naturalized" in a process that informs notions of common sense." It was bolded, which lends to importance, but really I don't see it contributing to the definition, let alone the lead-in to the article. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the introduction in an attempt to be sufficiently clear to a non-expert (which it was not) and sufficiently broad to encompass both of the definitions which seem to be fighting it out on this Talk page. Anarchangel23 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The word "indirect" is not supported by any of the citations, nor is the phrase "a form of government". We should change the lead to take them out. Also, all of the sentence referenced to the book on Mexico is doubtful. Pp 23-24 don't have the word. Only P. 27 has hegemonic, but the word is not further defined. I think the sentence is OR. Myrvin (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead sentence should state what is it that makes Hegemony what it is, and what is it that makes it not something else. Separate Paragraphs should address educational, intellectual, technological, political, religious, military, economic, cultural, territorial, hegemony's and the hegemon or hegemons that dominate each.


 * Plato's reference to Atlantis controlling all the lands in the known world by controlling the waters that surrounded them reflects an ancient Egyptian feudal ideology wherein there is sustenance in return for service.


 * On the Narmer Pallete, in the Narmer stance perpetuated as the constelation Osirus, Narmer dominates Akre, the god of the lands themselves by means of a chisel placed on his forehead and an upraised club. Narmer thus uses control of the water by means of a hammer and chisel about to break through the dams that hold back the innundation.


 * The acceptance of this act of Hegemony will release Aker's fertile muds to the fields of those who have dug canals, and grant Narmer control of the land he irrigates. This stance indicates both dominance and submission and would be a good illustration for the concept of Hegemony.


 * An element of Patriotism exists as regards cooperative rather than competitive abilities. The benevolence of gene (family), oinkos (tribe), and phratre (brotherthood) extended to kingdom, state, nation, nationalism and finally globalism in the sense of the sustenance of everything we fight and die for as our contribution of service, will eventually save all of us from climate change or none of us. 2604:6000:1513:4927:64CD:1756:594A:F03A (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Davinatorially
What the heck does "davinatorially" mean in the opening sentence ("often davinatorially pronounced...)? I have searched and searched and can't even find any uses of this word on Google.  Is this an attempt to sound smart, or does it actually have a practical use here? -- Renesis (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the user might have been trying to reference a particular type of book louse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Liposcelis+divinatorius


 * I can't be sure though. It is interesting that this is the only page in Google to reference that "word." That in and of itself is an impressive accomplishment. =) --Yock 14:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

RV Pseudo Pedantic Vandalism
removed:


 * Throughout what University of Pennsylvannia business professor Roland Barthes describes as the "ninety-degree angles of davinatorial history" in his book Hegemony is from Mars, And Sexy" (1994)

appears to be no such book,.

That's really funny re Roland Barthes! Keep it in just for the smiles? I creased myself. 66.65.115.8 00:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)JBroughton

Erosion of text
The following proposed changes introduce looser grammar and thought, and reject a useful idea that is part of the effective definition of hegemony, of what it is and how it functions in the evolution of the ideas called "common sense":
 * Old version: "...the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group. Hegemony controls the ways that ideas become "naturalized" in a process that informs notions of common sense.
 * The italicized sentence has been suppressed in the proposed text; it describes a familiar effect of cultural hegemony, which apparently needs expanding to render it more obvious. Editors shouldn't cut ideas because they don't understand them.


 * Proposed version: "This can be advantageous in ways such as the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage. In an even more broad sense, hegemony can even result in cultural perspectives becoming skewed to favor the dominant group."
 * This has a floating antecedent; in ways such as is a disimprovement; more broad does not improve broader; the last thought was apparently obscure, so I suggest this revision: "The cultural control that hegemony asserts even affects commonplace patterns of thought: hegemony controls the ways that new or introduced ideas become "naturalized" or are rejected, in a process that subtly informs notions of common sense." Any objections? --Wetman 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Before I get into other parts of the lead in, lets fix the last sentence which i don't understand (er, or it's inferred as such).


 * 'new or introduced' is redundant. 'even' is cruft. removed the -s at the end of 'ways': there is only one way for both being rejected and being naturalized (as in, it happens or it doesn't). the quotes around 'naturalized' aren't necessary. switched 'naturalized' and 'rejected' to make grammatical flow a little nicer to the reader. removed unecessary comma. changed 'informs' to 'alters', which is a little more pragmatic. added 'in a given society' unless that isn't the correct bounds for this definition. how do you feel about this new one? JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I really enjoyed your user page. ;)
 * Due to no objections I am implimenting this sentence. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 19:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

definitions of hegemony
seems to me the definition to date fails to account for non-national hegemony - where, for example, is mention of the ideological hegemony that is capitalism? this isn't an american hegemony tho america is the greatest force in it and produces great cultural effects through it. the EU, cited as a competing hegemony with the US is part of a greater capitalist hegemon as is china and russia and india and just about anywhere outside of north korea and myanmar. even countries living in near autarky are respondent to - almost governed by - the external forces of capitalism. the oil regime and iran or venezuala for example. capitalism as the only present hegemony, led culturally and legally and militarily by the US. discuss.

POV addition
i reverted this passage from the article:

it feels extreme POV to me, talk it out here if you feel differently. JoeSmack Talk 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not just extremely POV, but massively wrong as well (and I say that as an atheist with no love for the Catholic Church). For example, the Salem Witch Trials were carried out by Protestants (who presumably wouldn't have existed had the RCC actually managed to kill off any religion that disagreed with them).  Likewise, the 6000-year-old earth tends to be a Fundamentalist Protestant doctrine, and is rejected by the RCC.  And the First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire which - despite its name - spent much of its history in conflict (including open war) with the RCC.  And the Egyptians and Sumerians were writing propoganda thousands of years before the Church even existed.  Iapetus (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the following passage.

Seems like extreme POV, but correct me if I'm wrong. Ichibani 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is non-NPOV, but I think that removing it outright is a little extreme. There is a certain amount of American hegemony in the world today. SirBob42 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally agree that there is considerable American hegemony. However, this statement is definitely very vindictive and contains almost no objective information; rewording it could not remove the POV, which is portrayed by the choice of information.  The paragraph that this one was after ("Since the end of the Cold War...") would no doubt benefit from elaboration on how America is a hegemony (or at least a pointer to the source discussing it), particularly with a solid source.  Ichibani 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many argue that there is an American Hegemony since the end of the cold war (and even beginning since after WOII), though people may also argue that it ended at 9/11 2001. The world is more multipolar now (EU, India, China, Brazil, Russia) and the war in Iraq damaged the appreciation of the US on the world stage considerably, to the effect that they may have lost influence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.244.192.155 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is practically fact that there is American Hegemony. The problem is that this article isn't describing hegemony -- its meaning as well as its ongoing history -- but is trying to criticize hegemony as imperialism.  As related as the two may or may not be, the spin it's putting on the topic is in violation of Wikipedia's policy for neutral point of view.  Focusing on the US hegemony simply compounds that effect as it is synthesizing criticism of the US.  Verifiable criticisms of U.S. hegemony may at some point in the future be a constructive addition to this article, but right now they wouldn't improve it at all. Ichibani  utc 04:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

For another POV, I've added an External Link to an essay in the New York Times which discusses declining American hegemony. I have no idea how long the NYT will allow free reading. --Marcusiologist (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from NYT asserting Microsoft as a hegemony: "More than 10 million people are estimated to run Ubuntu today, and they represent a threat to Microsoft’s hegemony in developed countries and perhaps even more so in those regions catching up to the technology revolution."

Disputed
This article completely lacks references and presents a negative connotation POV. Particularly seeing as the word hegemony is thrown around a lot in a editorials and international political contexts, this is not acceptable. Most of the article needs to be rewritten with information from a reliable source. Ichibani 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. The article initial definition of the term is barely comprehensible and does little to enlighten the reader to the meaning of the term. This is then followed by a high degree of POV and a strong ideological bias. Additionally, considering how frequently this term is used in post-modern academia, there are frightfully few references noted.--Turtle585 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it's just plain incorrect, let alone biased. This isn't an article about hegemony in context - it's been crafted into rhetoric about imperialism and a theoretical analysis of negative impacts of colonialism in history. Cyril Washbrook 00:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have edited the introduction to the article. Discussion welcome. Cyril Washbrook 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. The article goes so far as to say that the United States sought to be a hegemon but every book I have read suggests that the United States accepted that responsibility only after it was apparent that a hegemon was needed. For example the recurrence of World Wars. It can be argued that WWI and WWII were the same war but the United States, after WWI declined to take the role of hegemon and so WWII occurred. Unidentified March 5, 2010

Hegemonization
I noticed this term is not mentioned in this article anywhere, referring to the (basically) effect of 'mentally enslaving' a group to an ideal to the point where they oppose counter-ideals by themselves. 218.214.138.11 04:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to write about it, but please attribute the information to reliable sources. This article desperately needs referenced fact. Ichibani 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * [Editorial suggestion for the following...hegemonization is noun NOT a verb]

Not sure the verb "hegemonization" is necessary, but it might be helpful expansion nonetheless. A more serious prpobem is the confusion in the current definition around force: the point of ideology and hegemony is that neither need force at all -- in fact where there is coercion, it is not hegemony or ideology.
 * An important additional contribution would be to show the difference of hegemony from ideology (as in Raymond Williams excellent chapter in 'Marxism and Literature,' as well as his entries in 'Keywords'. JBroughton 66.65.115.8 00:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No such thing as "fact" in social theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.32.179 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 June 2007

Strict Definition of Hegemony
The use of the actual definition should be used in its central definition. It is also used as a political buzz word, like "racism", "fascism", "chauvinism", and "imperialism", in political diatribe involving examples that don't represent its actual meaning. The derivatives shold get their own pages, along with an explanation of the use or misuse of the word by the theorists that are expounding it.

A true Hegemony is led by a Hegemon, a senior state that acts as the organizer or ruler of an alliance of states that may be composed of willing or coerced members. The Western NATO, SEATO, and CENTO alliances (with the U.S. as the major power) opposing the Warsaw Pact alliance (with Russia as its dominant power) during the Cold War are good examples. Hotspur23 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that the above political science definition of hegemony is the "true" definition participates in a hegemonic epistemology in which political fact (the existence of a senior state) obscures cultural networks of power. This is not to discount the "Hegemon" definition, but merely to dispute its status as the "true" definition. Instead of being true, it is based in a discipline. In cultural studies, the currently displayed definition, "the capacity of dominant classes to persuade subordinate ones to accept, adopt and internalize their values and norms", is more accurate. So perhaps Hotspur23 does have a point, that this political science definition should be included alongside the currently displayed cultural studies definition. Yabadaba (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'political science definition' is just a specific case of the general definition given in the article. Does it really require addition? Rykalski (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Is Not a Dictionary
Does this article really belong in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hegemony is a historical phenomenon, like extinction or diplomacy; its course can be traced, as can the usage and changing concept of the term: the history of ideas is the last kind of history to be grasped. Perhaps it's a stretch for the average Wikipedian. --Wetman (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no mention of the British Empire?
Is it not strange that the largest empire in history, longest surviving post-Roman empire, and creator of industrialization and almost everything in the modern world is not mentioned? That such an empire is not even mentioned on an article about hegemony yet such empires as the Dutch Empire gets a whole paragraph is why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Signsolid (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of why this article needs overhauled - this user has not understood what is meant by hegemony at all. I mean no offence by this, but that is empire building, not hegemony, which is entirely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

During the time of the British Empire, from the Napoleonic Wars to the First World War Great Britain was by far the world's most powerful country with an empire consisting for 25% of the world's land and 25% of the world's people and a navy larger than the next 2 largest navies combined so no I don't think I had misunderstood. Great Britain from 1801-1918 was the greatest global hegemony the world has ever seen yet the article never even mentions Great Britain. Examples of just what a huge effect British hegemony during the 19th and early 20th century still have to this day can be found even here on a large scale with the English language being used on here, the modern internet being a British invention, modern encyclopaedias derived from Encyclopedia Britannica, the factories computers are built in are a result of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, and even the computer itself can be said to be a British invention from British Second World War code breaking machines. So almost every aspect of using Wikipedia can be said to be an effect of the huge influence Great Britain has had on the world and that's just taking Wikipedia as one example of many. Signsolid (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the British Empire has most of its roots in Rome and so on back to Sumeria. There are a number of key cultures that have influenced the world, but a hegemony is more political - convincing other states to join up. The British Empire was most definitely created and ruled by force of arms, not through any kind of non-violent superiority that made people want to join the Empire.  I realise this goes against what I said above, and the more I think about it the less I think that the British Empire is a good example of military hegemony.  A military hegemony would be where a state gains such massive superiority in its military that people want to side with them, probably for protection.  Given that every colony of the British Empire demanded its independence from the Empire suggests to me that they didn't want to be there in the first place, which is a key concept in hegemony - the idea that the member states want to be part of it, and are not forced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasurashai (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here. "It is used broadly to mean any kind of dominance, and narrowly to refer to specifically cultural and non-military dominance, as opposed to the related notions of empire and suzerainty." Suprisingly, it would seem the British Empire was an empire. Geno-Supremo (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Germany?
Why is it that in the introduction 'united Germany that has existed from 1871 to 1945 and from 1990 onwards.' listed without periods that it was a potential hegemon? France is listed with qualifications, and the introduction has no mention of the fact that the US is a unipolar power and is the subject of debate as to whether or not it is hegemonic or merely hegemonistic. 121.45.79.222 (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deleted both Napoleonic France and Prussia/Hitlerian Germany. Although both conquered territory, I know of no credible claims that their rule was accepted by those that they dominated.  If anyone wants to put them back, they better have good citations.  To descibe any state as a "potentially hegemon" or "hegemonistic" is editors' opinion and offends WP:OR.  Unless a notable citation can be produced. --Red King (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we have a longer summary of the Kissinger citation, please? I can see why he would say the text quoted for the period 1870 to 1945, but I strongly doubt the 1990s claim since one of the founding purposes of the Treaty of Rome was to contain any hegemonic impulses among its signatories. Kissinger would certainly have known that. --Red King (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hegemony in fiction" et al.
These are all Science Fiction examples. This should at least read "Hegemony in SCIENCE fiction". And how does this flow from the classical and neo-Marxist perspective. Really.

BTW, I'm impressed with the quality of the critique so far.

However from a practical viewpoint of someone trying to use these ideas - who themselves will be in a hegemony, I think you are all being quite prudish & harsh.

Does anyone have an issue with the articles concretisation to assist understanding of the abstract??:

"The processes by which a dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition."

The fact that the hegemon determine what is thought of by the subjugated as commonsense, and they automatically defend the hegemon's position is the core modern theme here. The more important fact which no commentator has discussed is why this subjugation happens. What advantage do the dominated gain to permit them to offer no resistance? A provocative example of this is the question "When is slavery a better alternative?" (Jay, 2008)

Isn't there a historical AND critical social theory aspect to be explored? Adhart81 (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural hegemony?
Would it be appropriate to state that (I guess that some sort of reference would be nice) the U.S. is a cultural hegemony (and by cultural hegemony, I mean in the purest sense not necessarily as in the philosophy of socialism) in the sense that T.V., film, and music of the United States is a major influence if not "the influence" in other countries? I would like to hear others opinions on this.  Lighthead  þ 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

turgid prose
"said imperial war, speciously justified as ideologic (i.e. Communism vs. Capitalism), both superpower hegemons fought directly (propaganda) and indirectly (proxy war), each hoping to overcome and dominate the nemesis with an arms race (military superiority) and with economic aid (hearts and minds). In the event, each cold warrior forswore indirect (hegemonic) rule to ensure its direct imperium"

This reads like it was written by a young teen with only a partial understanding of the concepts, but an earnest desire to impress. I tried to rewrite the above paragraph, at least, but I don't think it is actually saying anything. Particularly the last sentence, which, if it did not seem to be semantically empty, would need a reference, anyway. As such, I am removing it. I know that it is better to fix, not to remove, but, in this case, it's hard to see that a "corrected" version of this paragraph could exist. In the event that it did, it would need to be properly sourced. THAT SAID, if anyone can find credible references supporting... whatever it says, then feel free to more adequately cover the topic. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I don't even want to touch it. It has its tangled limbs, all through the section, and, to an extent, the article, and there is a constant use of odd terms, like "Vietnamese Civil War"... the Vietnamese call it the "American War", the Americans call it the "Vietnam War", so, where are we getting the term from? "Ideologic"? Not "Ideological"? Who classifies propaganda as direct war? By that definition most dictatorships are permanently at war with the West, but, now you're just muddying the concept and making it meaningless. The superpowers in the Cold War being referred to as "Cold Warriors" does not really make sense, in the same way that the Allies and the Axis, in World War II, were not "World Warriors". The uncritical use of "imperium", to refer to the USSR and the USA, also puzzles me, and I see no reason why we need to get into contested ground, merely to explain that the USA and the USSR are hegemonies. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since no one else was touching it I re-wrote that paragraph to make it readable. The whole article could use a heavy editing hand, I almost think it would be best to trim it down to a stub and re-write it from the ground up with a better structure. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Huge NPOV Problems
I think this article could use a lot of love. It's sources are all from what strike me as some pretty post-modernist or socialist sources, and which run pretty contrary to a more conventional definition of the term hegemony. I'm not confident that someone trying to better understand the use of the term in international relations literature, for example, would learn anything; they'd get lost in the density. The article seems to imply that the establishment of hegemony is a sort of malevolent, conspiratorial, and inherently imperial action - while those things could be traits of hegemony, they are not intrinsic to it, and their inclusion here detracts from the usefulness of the article.

I don't just want to start making edits, because this page feels like it is someone's baby, but I'd really like to see it get some revision to include much more practical IR language - where in a hegemon is the most powerful state in a system, and which possesses the power projection capabilities to ensure that, by and large, things go its way. If it is someone's baby and they're looking for someone to bring in that alternative position, let me know. Jordanp (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Split into two sections "Hegemony as a concept in the academic discipline of International Relations" "Hegemony in Gramsci, Marxism, and other writings"? The problem isn't NPOV in the Gramsci-inspired editor's text, its two academic terms using the same word without proper differentiation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hegemony - a term of convenience
Hegemony in ancient Greece had a very clear meaning. It has, however over time, been used for a whole range of concepts that have little relation to each other. The problem with this article is that it is written as if there is one thing called hegemony. For instance the Chinese term Ba is translated as hegemon for want of a better term yet the article talks of it as if it is the same thing as a Greek hegemon.Dejvid (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is the worst article I have ever read in WP. The introduction doesn't even give a good definition of the word and would leave anyone confused. I don't want to rag on the contributor, as it is plainly obvious that this was, or comes verbatim from some essay. I think that the only way to fix this article is to clear the entire thing and start over from scratch. Just my $0.02 Mr0t1633 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it's no good - how much "no good" I cannot measure. So why don't you help us improve it? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this article is pretty terrible. Hegemony is not a synonym for dominance! Hegemony is not the acquiescence of people to rule by a state. Hegemony has nothing to do with capitalism. What the heck? I am going to work on this.76.103.241.159 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Domination v. World domination
Merriam-Webster's has this: "Date: 1567


 * 1) preponderant influence or authority over others : domination 
 * 2) the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group "

Does this therefore justify the article? --Ludvikus (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gramsci "justifies" the article. The meaning of what you're saying is obscure, could you rephrase what you're trying to say? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Disregard this. It applied to the opening sentence of world domination (disambiguation) - where "hegemony" is listed in the DAB. But problem there is now solved. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal
These are two separate, distinct ideas with different needs for citations. Influence (ie hegemony) is a subtly different concept then outright rule (ie imperialism). If the two articles were vastly improved, perhaps they could be merged but they are not in the state to do so now.--Work permit (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, its a poorly worded merge proposal. Trivial no.  Imperialism is generally an interstate phenomena, hegemony is both inter and intrastate. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, (1) improve the articles. And (2) imperialism is by far the more import term, notion, concept, whatever. Joke: "imperialist pig" vs. "hegemonic pig." --Ludvikus (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel that way, go work on Imperialism. Prior to Gramsci's unique use of hegemony, the concept of a hegemon could have easily fitted under imperialism.  Hegemony's use in the social sciences is Gramscian and doesn't relate to relationships between states.  Oh, and its adequately voiced at length in the fourth paragraph of the introduction.  Fifelfoo (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Gramsci, the great Italian Marxist, is extremely important in Western and European history and scholarship.
 * However, this is the English language Wikipedia - and he did not succeeded in coining his usage. If you wish, you can Move the page to Hegemony (Gramsci).
 * That said, please do not Revert without discussion. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the English language wikipedia, Hegemony is known in English for Gramsci's use. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Gramsci, the great Italian Marxist, is extremely important in Western and European history and scholarship.
 * However, this is the English language Wikipedia - and he did not succeeded in coining his usage. If you wish, you can Move the page to Hegemony (Gramsci).
 * That said, please do not Revert without discussion. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, Fifelfoo, you've been on this article since 2004. So I respect you dedication. I urge you, however, to reconsider reversing your Reversion of my Merge proposal Tag summarily as you've done. But I myself will not Revert your Reversion. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC). Also - is it possible that you're introducing Hegemony (Italian)?
 * PS: Reading the article's lede, it isn't Gramsci's use. So edit the article to do so. In the mean time, please Revert to my Proposed Merge - for discussion only. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The key non dictionary definition (ie: trivial, send to wiktionary) is Gramscis. Other uses in English follow on from the concept of consent management in power relations, and academic uses straining at that, or historical instances of that (Athen's status in history).  Suggesting Hegemony (Gramscian) is like suggesting Milk (Liquid). Fifelfoo (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. So let's split the article up according to the 2008 Tag:
 *  
 * (which I didn't post) --Ludvikus (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

France is the hegemon of the EU?!?!?!
I'm not sure how that got to be there or why it is still there, but the idea that France exercises cultural hegemony over Great Britain, Germany, or even Italy, is ridiculous. This needs to be removed as soon as possible. Maybe I'll do it now and hope that it isn't reverted immediately by someone who is trying to impose their fantasies of French hegemony on readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.81.152 (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"It requires the consent of the majority to keep the dominant group's leader in power."
This statement is one of the most patently absurd things I have ever read on Wikipedia. Would anyone be upset if i removed it 'nailed it to a frisbee, and flung it over a rainbow'? This statement doesnt need a citation, it needs to be buried in an unmarked grave and never spoken of again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nullys (talk • contribs) 05:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC) No black books here, too surreal (its collision with wikipedia, the discussion section of potentially the most influential idea on man's development, no less. 81.158.213.183 (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Picture?
Should there be a picture of american influence a tailored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Soviet_Union_Locator.png for instance? I think it would serve to show the greatest extent of hegemony thus far.

Sociology
I intend to expand this section with the material from the lead. It is too detailed for the lead and belongs in the Sociological section. Some part must remain behind in the lead. More to do. Myrvin (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Geography
I think this whole section should be removed. The whole paragraph beginning "In the ancient world" is not in Lefebvre. Some of it is about hydraulic despotism, but nobody says this is the same as hegemonism, including the relevant article. The rest seems to be trying to suggest there is something significant about the way hegemonies have moved around the world. Also, the L book does not use the word 'trialectical'. I think it is mostly OR. I can't even see where L says "human geography is constituted by mental space, social space, and physical space." Myrvin (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lenin and Hegemony
“The majority of commentators, anxious to stress the decisive contribution made by Gramsci, or more subtly, to oppose Gramsci to Lenin, end up by underestimating the place of hegemony in Lenin’s work and remaining almost completely silent on the Third International.” (Buci-Glucksmann, Christine; Gramsci and The State; p174)

“All the usual, regular and current work of all organizations and groups of our Party, the work of propaganda, agitation and organisation, is directed towards strengthening and expanding the ties with the masses.” (Lenin; Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in The Democratic Revolution, Lenin: Selected Works; p51)

“In a word, to avoid finding itself with its hands tied in the struggle against the inconsistent bourgeois democracy the proletariat must be class-conscious and strong enough to rouse the peasantry to revolutionary consciousness, guide its assault, and thereby independently pursue the line of consistent proletarian democratism.” (Lenin; Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in The Democratic Revolution, Lenin: Selected Works; p85)

"Only the proletariat – by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production – is capable of being the leader of all the working and exploited people, whom the bourgeoisie exploit, oppress and crush, often not less but more than they do the proletarians, but who are incapable of waging an independent struggle for their emancipation.” (Lenin; The State and Revolution; Lenin: Selected Works; p281)

“In the East, the state was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between state and civil society, and when the state tottered, a sturdy structure of civil society was immediately revealed. The state was just a forward trench; behind it stood a succession of sturdy fortresses and emplacements. Needless to say, the configuration of the state varied from state to state, which is precisely why an accurate reconnaissance on a national scale was needed.” (Gramsci, Antonio; Prison Notebooks, Volume III; trans. Buttigieg; p169)

Is China the 21st century's new hegemon?
The rise of China is evident and people fight over the idea whether China will be the new leading hegemony. I think it is important to have a competing argument to whether U.S continues to be a hegemon since the end of the Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcghjk (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Map Explanation
The map used is misleading for several reasons. One, it purports to show that the US has a massive sphere of hegemonic power due to several treaties it is part of including proposed treaties. For example, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance is included in the map which has no influence or US domination in it, it isn't a military organization controlled by the US, it's a reciprocal defense treaty that not to forget, is ignored by many members of it, and many of those members actively oppose parts of US foreign policy. ANZUS also doesn't necessarily have US domination, when New Zealand didn't like a nuclear provision in it, it just withdrew and stopped participating in many US military exercises, if the US really had a hegemonic influence over them, then how did that work out to happen. NATO can be argued that it is heavily influenced by the US but again, NATO member states refuse to follow US foreign policy wishes all the time and openly defy US foreign policy in the region. The other three mutual defense treaties just mean that they will both come to each other's aid in the case of either being attacked. Those three countries are very close nonetheless due to aligned foreign policy goals in their regions but that isn't due to a US hegemony. Now to the other treaties such as the proposed treaties of the TTIP and the TPP. Those proposed treaties don't indicate any US hegemony, the TPP for example existed between several south asian nations before the US even started negotiations to join and even if the US joins the treaties, that wouldn't give them a hegemony over those countries in any way. The TTIP also doesn't show a US hegemony even if it were enacted and it is still proposed anyway. Two, the military bases shown on the map are not all actual US military bases but that is a smaller issue. Three, major non-nato ally status does not indicate a US hegemony over a country, simply increased cooperation. There is a big difference. - SantiLak  (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You definetely don't have neither academic references nor community consensus to support those claims. Changes reverted.

Relations between US hegemony and TTIP-TPP: http://www.feps-europe.eu/assets/64d92837-8f50-4d0e-8d32-798db061424d/ttip-contr-oct2014-mtelopdf.pdf http://janewatkinson.com/2014/08/13/the-ongoing-power-and-hegemony-of-the-us/ http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Standpunkte/policy_paper/PolicyPaper_01-2015.pdf https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/11/18759878.php

"The US initiated TTIP to strengthen its hegemony through a strategy encompassing both the Atlantic and Pacific regions. Through TTIP and TPP"

Relations between US hegemony and TIAR: http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/10/new-threats-same-old-u-s-hegemony/ https://books.google.es/books?id=pbYbzoKoFgUC&pg=PT38&lpg=PT38&dq=US+HEGEMONY+TIAR&source=bl&ots=zMBXffdT3G&sig=nxv8Vk1ciDse3BjlPd5vBkC3Wpc&hl=es&sa=X&ei=nR8-Vbr0E-ee7ga7noHIAw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=US%20HEGEMONY%20TIAR&f=false "...an age ofuncontested U.S. hegemony over Latin America..."

Relations between UKUSA and US hegemony:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/echelon/echelon03.htm

https://books.google.es/books?id=a5rKferIbf0C&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=ukusa+agreement+%22us+hegemony%22&source=bl&ots=HFr06UT1Uf&sig=WNbVhGsPFFTSJj4ZXrKtxBGzbMw&hl=es&sa=X&ei=lSA-Va3UGqS17gb_jIDYBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ukusa%20agreement%20%22us%20hegemony%22&f=false


 * There are thousands of references with a simple Google search. I can continue for ages, Santilak. Stop defending the indefensible.
 * LadyBeth (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We rely on reliable sources here, all you have provided are some blogs and leftist research institutes, all not RS and I don't doubt you can keep on searching and find a bunch more non-RS links to back you up. In other links such as the books, it is just backing up what I am saying, the US may be dominant in one tiny part, such as in the case of the UK-US intelligence relationship, but doesn't actually have a hegemony in their relationship. - SantiLak  (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Really, Santilak, are you really saying the US don't have the hegemony in TTIP, TTIP, NATO, UKUSA? You have definetely no authority. The "leftist" claims are all in your head, you have opinions from every pov regarding this. Nagihuin (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am because they don't and your claims don't have any basis. The only thing "leftist" I was talking about was the research institutes that you cited which aren't RS just like those blogs. - SantiLak  (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

SantiLak performs Wikihounding and Harassment even months after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SantiLak#Wikihounding, please stop the edit wars over the content of Nagihuin. 188.87.113.105 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

China's "ancient unity"
The "21st century" section mentions that Ostrovsky compared the Roman and Qin empires, and states that "China overcame all crises and preserved its ancient unity until today." This seems like a dubious statement, given that the Qin dynasty only lasted 5 years and between that time and the present day the region now known as China experienced several changes of rule including a complete conquest by the Mongols (see Yuan dynasty). 2601:644:101:9616:6508:1FC7:CAA7:24F6 (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

While I would agree that the statement overlooks several periods of breakaway states, civil wars, and foreign occupations, I am afraid you misunderstand the importance of the Qin dynasty. It lasted for 15 years, not 5 and it is the immediate predecessor of the long-lasting Han dynasty (206 BC–220 AD). It served as the template which the Han partly emulated and every other dynasty emulated the Han. Just about any Chinese state can trace its lineage to the Qin empire. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dynasties in China rose and fell, but the established by Qin Great Unity with shorter interruptions persisted. This is the implied contrast with the Mediterranean world which never recovered its ancient unity.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100328072123/http://milexdata.sipri.org:80/ to http://milexdata.sipri.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328104327/http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/15majorspenders to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/15majorspenders

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

First part really hurts the eyes.
It looks more like splatter software code than an ingress. You guys can do better than this. Slashes, obscure letters, broken sentences, parentheses, links, different colors, References, references, references.

My eyes bleed

Hegemony is the political, economic, or military predominance of one state over others [1]. In ancient Greece, hegemony denoted the politico–military dominance of a city-state over other city-states [5]. The dominant state is known as the hegemon [6].

How hard is it to make it easy?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hegemony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914012708/http://people.uwec.edu/mdorsher/ica2001/hegemony_online.htm to http://people.uwec.edu/mdorsher/ica2001/hegemony_online.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Distinction from empire
One of the most confusing elements in the research on hegemony is the distinction from empire. The mess is greater because many works use the two terms synonymously. A passage on distinctions between hegemony and empire would be helpful. I tried this:

Hegemony is distinct from empire as informal rule versus formal, indirect versus direct, influencing versus controlling domestic affairs of other states,   avoiding versus exercising territorial control and collecting irregular contributions versus regular taxation.

This was deleted as NPOV.

NPOV??? --Maxaxa (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)