How can we as individuals shape cultural hegemony? Help me Socrates.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > How can we as individuals shape cultural hegemony? Help me Socrates.

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

What is cultural hegemony?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js8E6C3ZnJ0

So, cultural hegemony can be understood to be the culmination of external influences that control what you believe, and therefore dictate your actions.
This is not an inherently negative thing, but its important to understand how a person's personal belief can be wielded by another.

We exist within a culturally hegemonic society in which the norms are established primarily by media and advertising,

And this overarching narrative of media and advertising culture has been named by Guy Debord as "The Spectacle"

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm

The spectacles we are encountering are more and more ludicrous pushing people further away from this false media reality.

Now, if we can disillusion ourselves from some of these narratives, and truly start to question our beliefs, we are left lacking

This lacking is the malaise I see so many people in, and it just feeds into ironic detachment.

But we can't keep detaching, as it just pushes us further from the truth.

If we really want to discover the truth, we need to engage socially through Socratic discourse,

This is a method of using constructive questions to make people examine there personal beliefs.

http://www.umich.edu/~elements/5e/probsolv/strategy/cthinking.htm

Recent Martin Shkreli took questions for 2 1/2 hrs. from "people who hated him live", and by asking questions of his listeners, he made them question there assumptions about him.

So truth can be discerned and people can be convinced with this method of socratic constructive discourse

But my question is: With the media failing as a prevailing spectacular narrative, how can we as individuals change our cultural hegemony and narratives to something that unites us in positive association ?

Memes perhaps try to function in this space, but memes alienate individuals further without any focus.

Please critique my thoughts, I am trying to discern some reality for myself.

Toothy McBeard fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Sep 12, 2016

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 02:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 04:04

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

quote:

�Irony and cynicism were just what the U.S. hypocrisy of the fifties and sixties called for. That�s what made the early postmodernists great artists. The great thing about irony is that it splits things apart, gets up above them so we can see the flaws and hypocrisies and duplicates. The virtuous always triumph? Ward Cleaver is the prototypical fifties father? "Sure." Sarcasm, parody, absurdism and irony are great ways to strip off stuff�s mask and show the unpleasant reality behind it. The problem is that once the rules of art are debunked, and once the unpleasant realities the irony diagnoses are revealed and diagnosed, "then" what do we do? Irony�s useful for debunking illusions, but most of the illusion-debunking in the U.S. has now been done and redone. Once everybody knows that equality of opportunity is bunk and Mike Brady�s bunk and Just Say No is bunk, now what do we do? All we seem to want to do is keep ridiculing the stuff. Postmodern irony and cynicism�s become an end in itself, a measure of hip sophistication and literary savvy. Few artists dare to try to talk about ways of working toward redeeming what�s wrong, because they�ll look sentimental and naive to all the weary ironists. Irony�s gone from liberating to enslaving. There�s some great essay somewhere that has a line about irony being the song of the prisoner who�s come to love his cage.�

-David Foster Wallace

How do we engage with people authentically to build a positive cultural hegemony that engages with the problems we face globally?

Toothy McBeard fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Sep 12, 2016

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 21:40

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

Sethex posted:

Only through our participation in ideological fads like feminist cultural critique, outrage culture or the alt right can we hope as individuals to impact the largest forces in the western cultural fabric.

Living within those constructs and melding your personal values around them without conflicting with the ideological framework you've chosen seems to be a common path toward getting what the op mentions which sorta sounds like trying to make an attempt to manipulate the moral continuum for the sake of vanity or some poo poo.

I appreciate the fact that you are calling into question the assumption I am making about us needing to find a new culture that unifies.

Do you think that we don't need to have a more unified society (locally? nationally? globally?) Or is this an unattainable goal?

How can we deal with the problems we have nationally and internationally without having a framework from which to solve them?

Does this framework of change need to be from America, or should we start looking towards a multipolar solution to our worlds problems with the BRICS nations leading this change?

Toothy McBeard fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Sep 12, 2016

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 21:59

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

Sethex posted:

That is a pretty vague thing to say, maybe try again without the attempt at sounding brainy?

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to sound brainy.

I know I have been vague, and maybe I am trying to justify that vagueness to myself by using it is to build (in vanity) a personal narrative to justify a more global-social order.

but that doesn't help us get closer to an answer perhaps.

Okay, so lets break it down then.

I believe that our society is very fractured right now.
I also believe that in this fractured society we have an opportunity to build something better.
Something better would be defined as a global-society that is willing and engaged to deal global challenges.
Namely the global challenge of climate change.

I see the problem of dealing with this issue being one of national sovereignty.
The only way to deal with what we are facing is to force actors (nations, companies ect.) to comply.
but national sovereignty is so embedded in our cultural hegemony, we need to shatter our confidence in it first.

You cannot get masses of people to buy into something without first building a narrative around the existing system, that calls it into question.

....

This didn't help did it.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 22:32

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

Sethex posted:

Ever increasing innovation is more certain than an unprecedented cultural shift imo *shrug*

Thats a great point!

I have the question, can innovation exist separately from a cultural shift?

Or are we relying on innovation to change the culture with it?

Can we influence how innovation is able to effect our societies?

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 22:35

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

Helsing posted:

Stop entertaining grandiose delusions about what you're actually capable of and find some achievable objectives you can work toward.

That is a fair statement.

I am not capable by myself, but maybe through discourse we can uncover some of those achievable objectives.

Those achievable objectives are really what I am trying to find out though.

Can an individual actor have real influence on the public narrative in a meaningful way through these achievable objectives?

Or is this just an intellectual dead end, with no real reason to talk about it.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 23:17

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

BlueBlazer posted:

Truth.

We've reached a point in which so much more is possible but individual s are stifled by decision making.

So with this premise if we had less possibilities we would have greater social action?

Do you think that in order for cohesive social-action to be undertaken , the obstacle we must overcome then is too many cultural narratives and symbols competing for an individuals buy in?

Can people be stripped of false narratives?

I would say that, one possible example of a narrative being stripped would be currency collapse.
Do you think something like that could restrict the possibilities of the individual and convince them to buy into a different cultural hegemony?

I used the word force before, but I think that neglects the individuals actors choice of what narratives they buy into.

Toothy McBeard fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Sep 12, 2016

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 23:35

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

Brainiac Five posted:

Ah, the First Church of God-Robot. Nanotech be upon you, netizen!

I like this comment, because it highlights one of the ways in which a belief in technological savior can be tied to a formal social structure.

Can we find cultural-social redemption through a codified shared belief in a higher power, be it technological, philosophical, or spiritual?

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 01:57

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

Helsing posted:

I don't think you're going to identify any achievable objectives when your starting point is an extremely vague and sweeping denunciation of "irony". You're describing a nebulous and complicated cultural trend driven by decades (if not centuries) of technological and social change. These are fun conversations to have in undergrad while you're getting high after your media studies class but I don't think they are an effective basis for actually changing the world.

Generally speaking the ways an individual becomes influential is by dedicating years or decades of their life to helping some movement, cause or group(s), and typically these causes have more targeted and specific objectives than overcoming an internet culture of irony. If your model of change is a two hour livechat by Martin Shkreli then I don't think you're going to accomplish much. So when you ask this:

The answer is that as individuals we can't do anything. You're setting a grandiose objective you have no hope of accomplishing when there are actually plenty of decent causes that would benefit from some enthusiastic help.

That isn't to say it's a bad idea to read Guy Debord or think about the role of the media and internet in shaping peoples perspectives, but you need to purge yourself of this, quite frankly, teenage sensibility that you're going to use "socratic dialogue" to over come the culture of irony. I mean, come on man, step back and actually think about how silly that sounds.

You are missing the entire point.

This isn't about me pointing out your ad hominem attacks.

This isn't about giving reasons why we shouldn't be having this conversation.

Instead lets talk about the one potentially useful part of what you said,

The concept of acting on a personal level towards decent causes.

You are suggesting that the best way for an individual actor to most influence our current social realities is through helping a good cause?

Or are you saying that there is no way for an individual to influence the world on a real level under there own will and as such they should not try?

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 21:16

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

OwlFancier posted:

I mean I'd say that no we don't necessarily. Difference of ideas is not really a problem I don't think in a great many ways, consensus is required only to facilitate needful changes, but so much of society concerns things that aren't especially important one way or another, or at least they pale in importance to things which, traditionally, we have a deep lack of unity on.

This is a good point.

So, is it fair to say our global social differences cannot be overcome fully by technology? (after re-reading this question has no bearing on your quote)

Are you proposing that the if you appealed to the crux of the individuals social concern, and by finding out what is most important across all (many?) cultures, one can have a greater ability to frame a new socially-and globally- positive cultural hegemony?

Thereby building cohesive beliefs that can be shared on one level of global hegemony?

Hegemony operates on so many levels, and individuals can hold multiple hegemonic ideas of how reality should function at once.

But would a coherent social global order require complete buy in to a single ideology?

Or could the same beliefs be shared across multiple cultures, in many manifestations (religion, philosophy?)

Toothy McBeard fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Sep 13, 2016

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 21:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 9, 2024 04:04

Toothy McBeard: Jan 13, 2008; DOG DETECTIVE

OwlFancier posted:

1) Probably not, technology is not all pervasive and as pervasive as it is, it is not all-replacing, unless everyone gains the ability to teleport at will geography will still dictate a lot of our environment.

2) Already got that in some ways, e.g capitalism. Basically everyone sees that as the way to live in a pretty significant way whether or not they agree with it, it's ingrained into our lives, and serves to limit a lot of our thought in that we would find it easier to conceive of being higher up in that particular social order rather than changing it completely.

3) Depends what you mean by ideology, for a coherent society you need enough common ground for people to interact and feel somewhat integrated, as well as to desire to support the society and each other against outside predations such as antisocial people and the threats of attrition to communal edifices (state institutions, laws, working currency, that sort of thing) We have laws and money and people don't kill each other because we all work together to support those things. You need that communal effort to have a functioning society so what you would need for a global society is something the entire global population (or a sufficient critical mass of it) is willing to support. That doesn't have to be a dictatorial ideology necessarily in as much as I would hesitate to call the common human desire to not murder each other most of the time an ideology, it just has to be something people will defend and support of their own volition.

4) The rest of people's ideas can differ how they like, you can have all sorts of stances on a lot of social issues and the underlying society still functions, regardless of whether you have slavery, gay marriage, abortions, redistribution of wealth, wars, religions, the death penalty, conscription, all sorts of things that people have traditionally sought to enforce very rigid conformity on, across the population. But in terms of whether a society basically functions, none of that is really very important.

This is great!

So by ideology, I was referring to something more codified in nature, that would demand attention by the presiding cultural hegemony.
Perhaps my initial thoughts for it were too rigid.

Okay so lets re-define the initial premise to fit our newly explored ideas.

In order for an individual to have any real effect on cultural hegemony (with the goal of a unified perspective on how to deal with global issues) :

1. One should attempt to affect it through already established systems.

2. The effect cannot be exceptionally large in scale (except for in cases of technological innovation)

3. Different forms of cultural hegemony can hold the same belief, which would result in the concurrent action towards the same end.
therefore We should fashion our personal efforts through established systems that have mindfulness of this shared belief.

can you add to (or fix) this definition?

Toothy McBeard fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Sep 13, 2016

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 23:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > How can we as individuals shape cultural hegemony? Help me Socrates.