Gramsci and hegemony of globalized culture.
About the theory of hegemony by Antonio Gramsci (Italy, 1891-1937) and the theoretical situation of the hegemonic system and social structure, in both cultural and non-class domination schemes, we can move in a number of considerations that highlight the unfinished state's role as a guiding instrument of social relations in a particular historical context. To argue that social revolutions can not achieve their goals through confrontation but through mutual collaboration between classes and proletarian hegemony, Gramsci highlights the inherent bias of the latter to be directed at a social function that must necessarily be distributed evenly among the classes so that its premise is possible.
However, the consideration of culture as a social mass leads to a bifurcation of interpretations. On the one hand, the approval for the imposition culture of the ruling class leads to the creation of a depleted profile of individuals, while requiring the elimination of certain distinctive elements of one or more cultural blocks, as is currently profile global citizen, who, having shed much of their value system and tradition, strengthens its susceptibility to the influence of the dominant culture. On the other hand, the factor of unity implicit in a system of social masses can be further catalyst element of autonomy of local cultures in favor of consolidation and permanence, as may well exemplified in the guiding principles of Islamic fundamentalism .
In this sense, Gramsci's great success lies in the approach that these differences must be considered from the structural foundations of the social fabric, ie as the result of a class consisting of historical socio-cultural groups that have a direct correlation and, therefore, are prevented from staying out of each other. This does not necessarily mean that the social good points to the integration of them by way of eradicating the dominant group. On the contrary, it remains unclear other Gramsci's theory that, to make culture possible, must necessarily be in the context of a system of domination.
Thus, the interaction between socio-cultural block can point to the same diversity to uniformity, according to the context of their circumstances, and it is precisely this dynamic which underlies the scheme of mass society, not opposition, but integration through periodic intervention of leading figures whose tissue penetration as well as the proletariat Funj motivator as mediation for various levels of tension inherent in the coexistence between the classes, so that the meaning of revolution social point to the common good rather than the possible repeal of the culture, which is regarded as a (historically corroborated) of hegemonic and subaltern classes.
Thus, on a par with the political and educational, aesthetic activity keep a specific weight and an equally dominant in the existing social formations, despite the trend unilateral economic and cultural globalization standardized, it is from the combination of ethical and aesthetic values \u200b\u200bas can be to channel the ideological reading of the times.
And all this, what tells us our time? ...