Re: Prof Barendse's Discussion

If I understand Gramsci (and Arrighi) correctly, hegemony is not simply
leadership because leadership can be achieved in several ways and with
several outcomes. Instead, to be hegemonic means to lead through a
combination of "coercion and consent" and to lead in such a manner that this
leadership advances the best interest of the group or, if you will benefits
the group, but produces the GREATEST benefits for the hegemon.

Several examples comes to my mind.  A good example is Bretton Woods (BW) and
its consequences.  BW benefits the "world" but ultimately confers the
greatest benefits on the US, benefits which continue today despite the
collapse of BW.

BTW, to take this a step further, I would argue that all enduring
leaderships must take the form of hegemony.  Leadership simply through
coercion eventually breaks down due to the resistance of the coerced parties
and leadership through cooperation breaks down because each  party's agenda
has an equal claim to validity and this eventually undermines cooperation.
Moreover, I would argue that Weber concepts of "herrschaft" and
"legitmation" are germane (related to) the concept of hegemony.  Seen from a
Weberian point of view, hegemony is "legitimate (as consensual) domination
(as coercion)."   We can even say that Weber three forms of legitmation -
tradition, charisma, and legal rational - are also integral to any hegemony.

Carl Dassbach