2 research outputs found
Mutual relation of the concepts of ideology and hegemony
ΠΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΌΠ°
ΠΈΠΌΠ° ΡΠ°ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ°Ρ. Π‘Π° ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅, Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎΠ½ ΡΠ°Π·Π΅ βΠΏΠΎΠ²Π»Π°ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°β ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅
ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ Π·Π°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, Π½Π° Π΄Π΅Π»Ρ ΡΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠ³ βΠΏΠΎΠ²ΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠ°β,
ΠΈΠΏΠ°ΠΊ Ρ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π²ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌ Π²ΠΈΠ΄Ρ. Π‘Π° Π΄ΡΡΠ³Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅, Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΡΠ΅
ΠΎΠ΄Π²ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΡΠ°Π²Π° Ρ
ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½ΠΎΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ°, Π°Π»ΠΈ ΠΈ Π°ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ΅
ΡΡΠ°Π³ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΠ³Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ΅, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ° ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΠΊΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΠ½Π°ΠΊ Π½Π°ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°,
ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅.
Π£ ΠΎΠ²Π°ΠΊΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠΊΠ²ΠΈΡΡ, ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°
ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°Ρa ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎ-ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Π°ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠ° Π½Π°
ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ½ΠΎΠ³ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΠ°. ΠΠΎΠ»Π°Π·Π΅ΡΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΊΠ΅ Π΄Π° ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ²Π΅ Π½ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈ Π΅Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ
Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π΅ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅, Π²ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅
ΡΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΎ Π½Π° Π½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ³Π΅ Ρ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ½ΠΎΡ Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΎΡ
ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΎΠ΄Π³ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡΡΡΡ
ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠΌΠ΅Π²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΈΡΠΏΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ³Π΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ΅.
ΠΠ° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΊΠΈ, ΠΎΠΏΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ°Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄
Π°ΠΏΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ βΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
β ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°Π±Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°
ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π°ΠΊΡΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ°
ΡΠΈΠΌΠ±ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ³
ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΠ° Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ° Ρ Π²ΠΎΡΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΡΠ΅, Ρ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ
ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΡΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΡΠ°Π±ΡΠΈΠΊΡΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅Π½Π·ΡΡ. Π’Π°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ²Π°ΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄
Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠ³Π»Π°Π²ΡΠ° ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°Π±Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ
Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ Π°ΠΊΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½ΠΎΡΡ, ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΊΡ Π΄ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π·ΠΈΡΡ ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π°, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠ° Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅
ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ°, Π΄Π° Π±ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ»ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎ ΡΠ°Π·ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°Π±Π° ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½Π° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Ρ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π°, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ Π±ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ°
ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅.
ΠΡΠ²ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ°, Π½Π° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° Π°Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠ²Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³
ΠΎΠΊΠ²ΠΈΡΠ° Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌΠ° Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΠ° Π°ΠΏΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°Π±Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ
Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅, ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π°Π½ΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠΏΡΡΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ
ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΡ, ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° βΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π°ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠ°β ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠ΅Π»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ (ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°
ΠΡΡΡ ΠΠ»ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡ), ΡΡΠ°Π½Π΄Π°ΡΠ΄Π½Π΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΈ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡΠ° Π½Π°
ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅. ΠΡΡΠ³ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠΎΠ½Π°Π²ΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠ°ΠΊ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΡ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΈΠΌ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΡΡΠΎ ΡΡ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ ΡΠ½Π°Π³Π° ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈ ΡΠ°Ρ (ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ° ΠΠ½ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΡ ΠΡΠ°ΠΌΡΠΈΡΡ), Π΄ΠΎΠΊ
ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈ Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠ΅Π»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠΈ
ΠΌΠΎΡ-ΡΠΈΠ»Π°-Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅. ΠΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅
ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠΌΠ΅Π²Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π΄ΡΠΆΠΈΠ½Π΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ°, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ
ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ Π°ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π°ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠ° Ρ
ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅.
Π£ ΡΠ²Π°ΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΡΠ°ΠΊΠ° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° Ρ
ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΡΡ ΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΠ° ΠΈ ΡΡΠ°Π³Π° ΡΠ΅ Π·Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΊΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅.
ΠΠΎΡΠ΅Π΄ Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ Ρ
ΠΈΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π·Π΅,
ΠΊΡΠΎΠ· Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Ρ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅, ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ³Π΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ»Π° Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ°, Ρ ΡΠ°Π΄Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅Π» Π·Π° ΠΎΠ±ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠΌΠ΅Π²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΎΠ· Π΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ° ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΡΠ°Π³Π»Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ Π°Π½ΡΠ°Π³ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ Π·Π° ΡΠ°Π·ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅
Π°ΡΡΠΈΠΊΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ
Π°Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π° Ρ ΠΈ Π²Π°Π½ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π³ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅.The question of relations of the concepts of ideology and hegemony in
contemporary circumstances has a quite specific significance. On one hand, after the stage
of βretreatβ of ideology, or declarations of it being obsolete, there are various forms of its
βreturnβ, in more or less changed form, however. On the other, the hegemonic constellation
in which this process develops, simultaneously exhibits a homogeneity of basic structural
moments of contemporary social and political transformations, but also the aspects of
fragmentation and divergence, representing the systematic effect of the system tension,
mediated by the specific contemporary forms of relation between ideology and hegemony.
Within this frame, the basic thesis is the influence of the process of informatization,
or of the transformation of the media-informatical apparatus on the ideological field and
structures within the reproduction of the overall hegemonic configuration. Starting from the
preposition that this transformation effects all the levels and elements of the relation
between ideology and hegemony, as well as the reflexive structure of ideology, the leading
question is focused on new ideological forms and the change of the role of ideology within
the complete social reproduction, as well as the adequate categorical set of concepts which
enable the understanding of these changes and re-evaluation of the role of the culture of
critique.
Based on these prepositions, the general procedure of this paper is moving from
abstract or standard features of the concepts of ideology and hegemony towards more
concrete characteristics. These characteristics are comprehended within the context of
reproduction of actual forms of symbolic and material production, or ideological
reproduction of hegemonic constellation, in which the dominance is turned into leadership,
or in which a consent is fabricated, through complex mechanisms or conjunctures. This
procedure, in every main chapter, consists of critical exposition of conceptual moments of
ideology and hegemony, which accentuates materiality, technological and practical
dimension of these concepts, or of the relevant viewpoints within the context of the
contemporary transformation of their relation, turning to the critical consideration of the
contemporary reception of these moments, and finally to the analysis of the phaenomena, or
essentially new forms of relation between ideology and hegemony.
The first step of the research, based on ascertaining the adequate categorical
framework on the concepts of knowledge and power, and the exposition of abstract
moments of the concepts of ideology and hegemony, whose antinomies point to the answer
within the concrete historical configuration, is consisted of development of the concepts of
βideological apparatusβ and interpellation (according to Louis Althusser), standard criticism
of these concepts and exploring the possible answers to the criticism. The second step
reiterates this procedure on the concept of hegemony and related concepts, like relation of
forces and war of positions (according to Antonio Gramsci), while the third main step
examines categorical or conceptual shifts within the set power-force-violence, based on
structure of the dominant mode of reproduction. This passage encompasses the analysis of
the relation between the form and content of ideological field, or the practice and the
structure of the apparatus, as well as the question of dominance of the ideological
apparatuses within the reproduction of hegemony.
In each of the mentioned steps, the relation of the dominant changes within the
ideological field and the complete hegemonic configuration is analyzed, in search of the
ideological basis of the ideology critique.
Beside the main result of the research, the confirmation of the general hypothesis
through the analysis of the structure, role and origin of the new forms of ideological and
hegemonic structures, a model is developed for a more comprehensive understanding of
contemporary transformations of the relation between ideology and hegemony, through the
differentiation of their concepts against the categories of consent and antagonism, as well as
for considering of articulated alternatives within and outside the current relation of ideology
and hegemony.
Key words: The question of relations of the concepts of ideology and hegemony in
contemporary circumstances has a quite specific significance. On one hand, after the stage
of βretreatβ of ideology, or declarations of it being obsolete, there are various forms of its
βreturnβ, in more or less changed form, however. On the other, the hegemonic constellation
in which this process develops, simultaneously exhibits a homogeneity of basic structural
moments of contemporary social and political transformations, but also the aspects of
fragmentation and divergence, representing the systematic effect of the system tension,
mediated by the specific contemporary forms of relation between ideology and hegemony.
Within this frame, the basic thesis is the influence of the process of informatization,
or of the transformation of the media-informatical apparatus on the ideological field and
structures within the reproduction of the overall hegemonic configuration. Starting from the
preposition that this transformation effects all the levels and elements of the relation
between ideology and hegemony, as well as the reflexive structure of ideology, the leading
question is focused on new ideological forms and the change of the role of ideology within
the complete social reproduction, as well as the adequate categorical set of concepts which
enable the understanding of these changes and re-evaluation of the role of the culture of
critique.
Based on these prepositions, the general procedure of this paper is moving from
abstract or standard features of the concepts of ideology and hegemony towards more
concrete characteristics. These characteristics are comprehended within the context of
reproduction of actual forms of symbolic and material production, or ideological
reproduction of hegemonic constellation, in which the dominance is turned into leadership,
or in which a consent is fabricated, through complex mechanisms or conjunctures. This
procedure, in every main chapter, consists of critical exposition of conceptual moments of
ideology and hegemony, which accentuates materiality, technological and practical
dimension of these concepts, or of the relevant viewpoints within the context of the
contemporary transformation of their relation, turning to the critical consideration of the
contemporary reception of these moments, and finally to the analysis of the phaenomena, or
essentially new forms of relation between ideology and hegemony.
The first step of the research, based on ascertaining the adequate categorical
framework on the concepts of knowledge and power, and the exposition of abstract
moments of the concepts of ideology and hegemony, whose antinomies point to the answer
within the concrete historical configuration, is consisted of development of the concepts of
βideological apparatusβ and interpellation (according to Louis Althusser), standard criticism
of these concepts and exploring the possible answers to the criticism. The second step
reiterates this procedure on the concept of hegemony and related concepts, like relation of
forces and war of positions (according to Antonio Gramsci), while the third main step
examines categorical or conceptual shifts within the set power-force-violence, based on
structure of the dominant mode of reproduction. This passage encompasses the analysis of
the relation between the form and content of ideological field, or the practice and the
structure of the apparatus, as well as the question of dominance of the ideological
apparatuses within the reproduction of hegemony.
In each of the mentioned steps, the relation of the dominant changes within the
ideological field and the complete hegemonic configuration is analyzed, in search of the
ideological basis of the ideology critique.
Beside the main result of the research, the confirmation of the general hypothesis
through the analysis of the structure, role and origin of the new forms of ideological and
hegemonic structures, a model is developed for a more comprehensive understanding of
contemporary transformations of the relation between ideology and hegemony, through the
differentiation of their concepts against the categories of consent and antagonism, as well as
for considering of articulated alternatives within and outside the current relation of ideology
and hegemony
Mutual relation of the concepts of ideology and hegemony
ΠΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΌΠ°
ΠΈΠΌΠ° ΡΠ°ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ°Ρ. Π‘Π° ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅, Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎΠ½ ΡΠ°Π·Π΅ βΠΏΠΎΠ²Π»Π°ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°β ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅
ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ Π·Π°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, Π½Π° Π΄Π΅Π»Ρ ΡΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠ³ βΠΏΠΎΠ²ΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠ°β,
ΠΈΠΏΠ°ΠΊ Ρ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π²ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌ Π²ΠΈΠ΄Ρ. Π‘Π° Π΄ΡΡΠ³Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅, Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΡΠ΅
ΠΎΠ΄Π²ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΡΠ°Π²Π° Ρ
ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½ΠΎΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ°, Π°Π»ΠΈ ΠΈ Π°ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ΅
ΡΡΠ°Π³ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΠ³Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ΅, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ° ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΠΊΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΠ½Π°ΠΊ Π½Π°ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°,
ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅.
Π£ ΠΎΠ²Π°ΠΊΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠΊΠ²ΠΈΡΡ, ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°
ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°Ρa ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎ-ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Π°ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠ° Π½Π°
ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ½ΠΎΠ³ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΠ°. ΠΠΎΠ»Π°Π·Π΅ΡΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΊΠ΅ Π΄Π° ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ²Π΅ Π½ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈ Π΅Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ
Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π΅ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅, Π²ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅
ΡΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΎ Π½Π° Π½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ³Π΅ Ρ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ½ΠΎΡ Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΎΡ
ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΎΠ΄Π³ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡΡΡΡ
ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠΌΠ΅Π²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΈΡΠΏΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ³Π΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ΅.
ΠΠ° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΊΠΈ, ΠΎΠΏΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ°Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄
Π°ΠΏΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ βΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
β ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°Π±Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°
ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π°ΠΊΡΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ°
ΡΠΈΠΌΠ±ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ³
ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΠ° Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ° Ρ Π²ΠΎΡΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΡΠ΅, Ρ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ
ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΡΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΡΠ°Π±ΡΠΈΠΊΡΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅Π½Π·ΡΡ. Π’Π°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ²Π°ΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄
Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠ³Π»Π°Π²ΡΠ° ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°Π±Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ
Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ Π°ΠΊΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½ΠΎΡΡ, ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΊΡ Π΄ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π·ΠΈΡΡ ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π°, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠ° Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅
ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ°, Π΄Π° Π±ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ»ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎ ΡΠ°Π·ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°Π±Π° ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½Π° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Ρ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π°, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ Π±ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ°
ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅.
ΠΡΠ²ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ°, Π½Π° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° Π°Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠ²Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³
ΠΎΠΊΠ²ΠΈΡΠ° Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌΠ° Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΠ° Π°ΠΏΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°Π±Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ
Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅, ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π°Π½ΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠΏΡΡΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ
ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΡ, ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° βΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π°ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠ°β ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠ΅Π»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ (ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°
ΠΡΡΡ ΠΠ»ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡ), ΡΡΠ°Π½Π΄Π°ΡΠ΄Π½Π΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΈ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡΠ° Π½Π°
ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅. ΠΡΡΠ³ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠΎΠ½Π°Π²ΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠ°ΠΊ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΡ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΈΠΌ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΡΡΠΎ ΡΡ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ ΡΠ½Π°Π³Π° ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈ ΡΠ°Ρ (ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ° ΠΠ½ΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΡ ΠΡΠ°ΠΌΡΠΈΡΡ), Π΄ΠΎΠΊ
ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈ Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΈΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠ΅Π»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠΈ
ΠΌΠΎΡ-ΡΠΈΠ»Π°-Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅. ΠΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅
ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠΌΠ΅Π²Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π΄ΡΠΆΠΈΠ½Π΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ°, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ
ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ Π°ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π°ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠ° Ρ
ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅.
Π£ ΡΠ²Π°ΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΡΠ°ΠΊΠ° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡ Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° Ρ
ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΡΡ ΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠ½ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠΊΠ»ΠΎΠΏΠ° ΠΈ ΡΡΠ°Π³Π° ΡΠ΅ Π·Π° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΊΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅.
ΠΠΎΡΠ΅Π΄ Π³Π»Π°Π²Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ Ρ
ΠΈΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π·Π΅,
ΠΊΡΠΎΠ· Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Ρ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅, ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ³Π΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ»Π° Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ°, Ρ ΡΠ°Π΄Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅Π» Π·Π° ΠΎΠ±ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠΌΠ΅Π²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΎΠ· Π΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ° ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΡΠ°Π³Π»Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ Π°Π½ΡΠ°Π³ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ Π·Π° ΡΠ°Π·ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅
Π°ΡΡΠΈΠΊΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ
Π°Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π° Ρ ΠΈ Π²Π°Π½ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π³ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Ρ
Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅.The question of relations of the concepts of ideology and hegemony in
contemporary circumstances has a quite specific significance. On one hand, after the stage
of βretreatβ of ideology, or declarations of it being obsolete, there are various forms of its
βreturnβ, in more or less changed form, however. On the other, the hegemonic constellation
in which this process develops, simultaneously exhibits a homogeneity of basic structural
moments of contemporary social and political transformations, but also the aspects of
fragmentation and divergence, representing the systematic effect of the system tension,
mediated by the specific contemporary forms of relation between ideology and hegemony.
Within this frame, the basic thesis is the influence of the process of informatization,
or of the transformation of the media-informatical apparatus on the ideological field and
structures within the reproduction of the overall hegemonic configuration. Starting from the
preposition that this transformation effects all the levels and elements of the relation
between ideology and hegemony, as well as the reflexive structure of ideology, the leading
question is focused on new ideological forms and the change of the role of ideology within
the complete social reproduction, as well as the adequate categorical set of concepts which
enable the understanding of these changes and re-evaluation of the role of the culture of
critique.
Based on these prepositions, the general procedure of this paper is moving from
abstract or standard features of the concepts of ideology and hegemony towards more
concrete characteristics. These characteristics are comprehended within the context of
reproduction of actual forms of symbolic and material production, or ideological
reproduction of hegemonic constellation, in which the dominance is turned into leadership,
or in which a consent is fabricated, through complex mechanisms or conjunctures. This
procedure, in every main chapter, consists of critical exposition of conceptual moments of
ideology and hegemony, which accentuates materiality, technological and practical
dimension of these concepts, or of the relevant viewpoints within the context of the
contemporary transformation of their relation, turning to the critical consideration of the
contemporary reception of these moments, and finally to the analysis of the phaenomena, or
essentially new forms of relation between ideology and hegemony.
The first step of the research, based on ascertaining the adequate categorical
framework on the concepts of knowledge and power, and the exposition of abstract
moments of the concepts of ideology and hegemony, whose antinomies point to the answer
within the concrete historical configuration, is consisted of development of the concepts of
βideological apparatusβ and interpellation (according to Louis Althusser), standard criticism
of these concepts and exploring the possible answers to the criticism. The second step
reiterates this procedure on the concept of hegemony and related concepts, like relation of
forces and war of positions (according to Antonio Gramsci), while the third main step
examines categorical or conceptual shifts within the set power-force-violence, based on
structure of the dominant mode of reproduction. This passage encompasses the analysis of
the relation between the form and content of ideological field, or the practice and the
structure of the apparatus, as well as the question of dominance of the ideological
apparatuses within the reproduction of hegemony.
In each of the mentioned steps, the relation of the dominant changes within the
ideological field and the complete hegemonic configuration is analyzed, in search of the
ideological basis of the ideology critique.
Beside the main result of the research, the confirmation of the general hypothesis
through the analysis of the structure, role and origin of the new forms of ideological and
hegemonic structures, a model is developed for a more comprehensive understanding of
contemporary transformations of the relation between ideology and hegemony, through the
differentiation of their concepts against the categories of consent and antagonism, as well as
for considering of articulated alternatives within and outside the current relation of ideology
and hegemony.
Key words: The question of relations of the concepts of ideology and hegemony in
contemporary circumstances has a quite specific significance. On one hand, after the stage
of βretreatβ of ideology, or declarations of it being obsolete, there are various forms of its
βreturnβ, in more or less changed form, however. On the other, the hegemonic constellation
in which this process develops, simultaneously exhibits a homogeneity of basic structural
moments of contemporary social and political transformations, but also the aspects of
fragmentation and divergence, representing the systematic effect of the system tension,
mediated by the specific contemporary forms of relation between ideology and hegemony.
Within this frame, the basic thesis is the influence of the process of informatization,
or of the transformation of the media-informatical apparatus on the ideological field and
structures within the reproduction of the overall hegemonic configuration. Starting from the
preposition that this transformation effects all the levels and elements of the relation
between ideology and hegemony, as well as the reflexive structure of ideology, the leading
question is focused on new ideological forms and the change of the role of ideology within
the complete social reproduction, as well as the adequate categorical set of concepts which
enable the understanding of these changes and re-evaluation of the role of the culture of
critique.
Based on these prepositions, the general procedure of this paper is moving from
abstract or standard features of the concepts of ideology and hegemony towards more
concrete characteristics. These characteristics are comprehended within the context of
reproduction of actual forms of symbolic and material production, or ideological
reproduction of hegemonic constellation, in which the dominance is turned into leadership,
or in which a consent is fabricated, through complex mechanisms or conjunctures. This
procedure, in every main chapter, consists of critical exposition of conceptual moments of
ideology and hegemony, which accentuates materiality, technological and practical
dimension of these concepts, or of the relevant viewpoints within the context of the
contemporary transformation of their relation, turning to the critical consideration of the
contemporary reception of these moments, and finally to the analysis of the phaenomena, or
essentially new forms of relation between ideology and hegemony.
The first step of the research, based on ascertaining the adequate categorical
framework on the concepts of knowledge and power, and the exposition of abstract
moments of the concepts of ideology and hegemony, whose antinomies point to the answer
within the concrete historical configuration, is consisted of development of the concepts of
βideological apparatusβ and interpellation (according to Louis Althusser), standard criticism
of these concepts and exploring the possible answers to the criticism. The second step
reiterates this procedure on the concept of hegemony and related concepts, like relation of
forces and war of positions (according to Antonio Gramsci), while the third main step
examines categorical or conceptual shifts within the set power-force-violence, based on
structure of the dominant mode of reproduction. This passage encompasses the analysis of
the relation between the form and content of ideological field, or the practice and the
structure of the apparatus, as well as the question of dominance of the ideological
apparatuses within the reproduction of hegemony.
In each of the mentioned steps, the relation of the dominant changes within the
ideological field and the complete hegemonic configuration is analyzed, in search of the
ideological basis of the ideology critique.
Beside the main result of the research, the confirmation of the general hypothesis
through the analysis of the structure, role and origin of the new forms of ideological and
hegemonic structures, a model is developed for a more comprehensive understanding of
contemporary transformations of the relation between ideology and hegemony, through the
differentiation of their concepts against the categories of consent and antagonism, as well as
for considering of articulated alternatives within and outside the current relation of ideology
and hegemony