An interesting question. In my current thinking/writing I have been exploring ideas behind quantum social theory, for example the potential of an entropic society. Here, such a society exhibits a default (temporal) tendency toward disorder. Entropy increases unless society works to reduce it. Why? Because, from a quantum super-positional perspective on a society of individuals, there is an infinite potential for interference through quantum interdependency: there is an indeterminate potentiality to disorder, with only a limited number of determinable, observable events that may signify order.

Statistically, unless we invest in reducing the range of interdependencies and thus work to reduce the indeterminacy of state changes and/or interferences, by implementing (social) negentropic constraints, we will experience emergent disorder. Such constraints, including our social institutions, laws, ethics and morals, are designed to increase the probability that a given/anticipated/expected/desired state change within society may be observable. This is society’s desire for normativity.

Cultural hegemony would be an extreme case of negentropic normativity. To undermine that cultural negentropy, the is an need for entropic action. Such action might range from deinstitutionalisation to revolution.

The idea of ​​„cultural hegemony” must be read in the context in which it arose. Today we live in a different world than in the 1930's (at least that's what I see happening in the region where I live). I see that the reverse of Gramsci's theory is beginning to manifest itself more and more strongly. The "marginalized" (alienated during the period of modern capitalism in the last century) are increasingly vocal, impose their point of view perversely using the channels of public communication and impose themselves in the sphere of political decision-making. On the other hand, the culture of the "many and uneducated" succumbs to the culture of the "elites," and this is mostly reflected in art. The media is dominated by the cultural discourse of the "anti-elites." Scientists and other categories of the intellectual elite are "cornered" by the "voice of the majority." In politics, you have no chance if you do not come up with a program to the liking of the "crowd", even if this program is harmful in the long run (see the rise of populism). When the "elite" imposed on the crowd its set of values ​​and the culture that kept it "in power," people invented the computer and landed on the moon. Since the mouth of the "elite" is covered by the voice of the "street", they have prevailed: populism in politics, pseudoscience in front of science, kitsch in front of art, television in front of the book, etc. My country (Romania) and your country (India) have "tasted" the benefits of Marxism and "anti-elitism."

Hegemony is not just cultural; it can occur economically, politically, morally, ethically, intellectually, and in other ways. Cultural hegemony refers to domination or rule maintained through ideological or cultural means. It is usually achieved through social institutions, which allow those in power to strongly influence the rest of society's values, norms, ideas, expectations, worldview, and behavior. There is much more scope for resistance and change than the system justification theory would make us believe. Members of disadvantaged groups often see a "real" possibility of difference and trust that their coordinated action could change their position in the eyes of out-group members they interact with or even the whole society. Moreover, the commitment to promoting alternative representations, alternatives as compared to those of the majority, characterizes the process of minority influence.

I am glad the question is being framed this way. It suggests that solutions may also be found at the INDIVIDUAL level: some of those who enact cultural hegemony are those who believe that another culture is more 'attractive' or 'powerful'. If we want to preserve our OWN culture(s), we should ask ourselves, "What can I find within my culture that could counter these feelings?" This requires getting in touch with our deeper traditions and cultural history. I did this through both 'documentable genealogy' and DNA testing. It opened my eyes to my ancestors' struggles. I am proud to be their descendant.

Dear Mohab,

This is a great question. It looks to me like the answers are following on a theoretical track because of your posing the question within the context of Gramsci and philosophy and I want to try to shift the answers to more practicalities and also suggest that you start the question later by taking some of the practical answers and asking readers to comment on those.

I work in the area of international human rights/genocide/cultural heritage protection and look at many kinds of solutions that are legal (new forms of federalism, new lawsuits, and even things like a "Cultural Red Book" which I describe in an article on ResearchGate) to approaches to community or national or international development that use the concept of "sustainability" (a book, "A Model Development Plan" and many articles that I have written that you can also find on sustainable development, with guides and indicators to specifically use the sustainable development debate to start with planning that recognizes and defines cultures better, including the powerful cultures that are destroying their own sustainability as well as those they assimilate/destroy) to ways of popularizing and promoting cultural heritage better through tourism that also helps promote tolerance between cultures (a new idea that I tested in Southeast Asia, in an article that you can also see on my ResearchGate page) as well as new curricula in social science education that promote work with and recognition of communities (a book on democratic experiential education and also articles like one of mine on "Taking History Back to the People").

Here's a simple truth that I think gets to the heart of your question. Today, there is too much focus on "victimization" and a sense of fatalism defining culture, and on things like building cemeteries and monuments, rather than on PRIDE in the life affirming contributions that one's cultures have made historically and how they benefit EVERYONE. For my own culture, I am just trying to define my heroes, even in my academic and professional fields, to see what specific traits they have that came out of my culture and resonate with me, and what things they did that make me feel proud and that have contributed to the world and not just to my religion or my survival. For example, I am not Muslim, but I know that Arab cultures made major contributions in mathematics, medicine and architecture but I rarely see that presented in something easily accessible on Muslim or Middle Eastern or Arab pride. To take a smaller example on which I have worked, I am not Khmer, but I really respect the way the Khmer have been world experts on water technologies and think they could be again if they didn't just look at themselves as an ancient civilization of monuments but said "we WERE water engineering experts for centuries and people come to see our monuments, so let's be that again here on earth and then even on other planets".

There are many ways to promote these forms of pride, even if it is just as simple as on a calendar every year. Focus on pride and global benefit, people and achievements and package it in ways that show benefit to everyone. That then builds into the other changes that I described above. Dealing with the hegemony of globalization seems impossible and it is easy to be fatalistic, but the reality is that the global system today as in the past will collapse if it is not dynamic and sustainable, and it NEEDS these things from minority cultures to survive and for all of us to survive. There are ways to make the case, from bottom-up, that is the key to our survival and there are mechanisms that we can use. We need to promote this realization by recognizing and taking pride in the unique niches that our cultures have invented historically and link that to what we need now and in the future to survive.

Best,

David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

Visiting Scholar, Humboldt University of Berlin, Institute for Asian and African Studies

International Human Rights Lawyer