IV.Hegemony as Theory vs. “Power” and Rationality
________________________________________
By Ylli Permeti
Absract
Hegemon, a Greek word that means to lead or to guide a group of people into war, regardless of how much people are informed of what for they are fighting. Hegemon, has to do with invasion into other countries not with defense. Thus, a Hegemon, makes his invasion into other countries just by using force or other means to levy the wealth of the already controlled people by his invasion. Such Hegemons, are Alexander the “Great”, Greek Empire, Roman Empire, etc., and later on, Italy, England, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc., and today America. All these Hegemons could be called Universalists by claiming universal institutions. Thus, in the same track of universal institutions, this time in the subject of economics is another conspicuous economist — this time, with a new hegemonic theory: Charles Kindleberger, whose analysis of the 1929 depression are widely accepted, as the precursor of a universal monetary theory, who states that…‘[f]or an international system of trade and finance to function smoothly there must be a hegemon. This is so because there is a collective action problem in that regulation and institutionalization of trade and finance is a public good, that is, it benefits the community. To solve the collective action problem, a hegemon takes the lead and is motivated to do so because of the benefit it gains; for example, the United States benefited greatly as the reserve currency under the Bretton Woods system…’ . (Emphasis added)
Kindleberger’s or even Mynsky’s view of hegemon’s does not pose the question of power in relation with the state or with other states, in a contextual or international realm. Therefore he’s not concerned with power and rationality but the opposite: With absolute power. Further, he’s talking about theory not about pure knowledge, as defined in our first chapter. Theory is an abstraction, because it is not attached upon concrete example, rather, it is attached upon the whole society. Theory is by definition an abstraction because we do not know its particularity, we cannot envisage at once its features and we do not percept anything with our senses. Theory and dogmas or sciences that have in their core generalization are nothing else that a new version of theory. Such theories are: Communism; Fascism; Nazism; Socialism; Anarchism; or even Democracy that tries to extend its formula beyond its core of birth. In contrast, phronesis is not theory but practical wisdom. It is features, not abstraction, it is values not dogmas, it is ethics not hegemony. Then accordingly one might ask: If that is not a conquest or slavery, then, what is it? — I am just asking! We know very well from our small governments (compare with the big government that these gentlemen propose to us), that it is not possible to control their power; what to say then for a global power? It is useless then to continue and to analyze these gentlemen — for one reason: Big government equal zero rationality; this is the equation that comes naturally and spontaneously in my mind. But unfortunately, all media around the world believes that this is the final solution of our economy. Therefore, what media believes — believes the population. This new indoctrinistic propaganda will not survive today, because, there are two kinds of media: Internet against conventional media — the first therefore will win, despite the fact that there are efforts to censure the new dictatorship that is coming up. In addition, there is another fundamental reason: Freedom is the ultimate value of human being — and being so, slavery cannot survive upon freedom. If it survived until nowadays it is because human institutions have not been subject of social struggles or subject of power struggles.
What to say then when a society develops its own independent economy: Does the big government offer any solution to their problems? Take, say, the island Samsø in Denmark that has invented and evolved its own technology with zero emission carbon dioxide and is totally independent from centre governments. Further, consider my own village Përmeti, in Albania, or other countries around the world; we have invented our way to develop technologies, values, ethno-methodologies and tradition that has nothing to do with governments and global finance capitalism or hegemon that is assumed to be U.S or the G7, G20, G50.... Hegemony is already obsolete and cannot anymore claim normative rationality in a global scale.
Because, the rationality of capitalism is determined by its own nature — that is, independent; and achieved only in an autonomic society. For, rationality is preserved whenever in a context-given circumstance have not been interweaved huge powers and interests. Whenever these natural rules operate in the opposite side, then power and interests will create conflict and consequently war. For social sciences have to approach phenomena in a context-given circumstance. Because, global rules are out of our human nature and being so, they are and will be — a failed effort. Apparently, in the same track of global institutions is the Hague judiciary. As will be analysed in the third chapter, judicial and global rules are not and could not be part of our actions. [T]he juridical system is utterly incongruous with the new methods of power, says Foucault [in Flybjerg’s words], methods that are employed on all levels and in forms that go beyond the state and its apparatus…Our historical gradient carries us further and further away from a reign of laws . (Emphasis added)
Thus, irrational laws and international “exuberance” or strata that create always social tensions are not and could not be part of our nature. For two main reasons: If Aristotle following Plato with his conception of the particular and universal meant a city, today the whole world has misinterpreted his conception and has permeated it as a globalism — meaning that, as long as there is a possibility of running an economy for the entire city, why therefore, not for the entire globe? And second reason that makes the scholar of universal confused, is the Platonic conception — that is, ‘to avoid relativism one should act the same time rationally and universally’.
Let us therefore pour out some light into this conception. Thus, rationality has to do with power that comes from everywhere and is not a structure or an institution that can embrace its rationality in a huge area. In addition, rationality has to do with real action and actions with real power. Power has to do with the individual and the individual produces rationality dependent in contextual circumstances. Moreover, referring in Flybjerg’s research, power is dynamic and is everywhere, states Foucault, not because it is capable of uniting everything under its insurmountable unity, but because power is produced from one moment to the next in all points and all relations . (Emphasis added) Therefore, in the context of money or of the economy — each one produces power and consequently rationality. But this power is not under meticulous rationality because this power has to do with money. Money carries on power which in today’s circumstances is demonstrated with production. Production has to do with action. Action deals with rationality. Rationality deals with desire and desire with anger. Desire deals with unfulfillness and anger with war or collapse. Collapse deals with uncertainty and uncertainty with chaos. This corollary goes on and the results are always the same — that is, negative.
Regarding the notion of power, John Hoffman and Paul Graham start their research, in political theory, correctly in my view, by defining the concepts of the state, such as freedom, equality, justice, democracy and citizenship; and politics in general, which for them, must be underpinned and defined in relation with power . (Hoffman, Graham: 3) Thus, “What is Power”? — is their basic question. As in every science or action in human life, they start their research by posing simple questions of everyday’s life — always in relation with power: We are always talking about power, they say. Do ordinary people have any? Do prime ministers and presidents have too much? Do people decline to vote because they feel they have no power ? For them, the question of power inevitably merges into the question of authority. And they as in ancient Athens pose again the question: Is might right? Are those who have power entitled to exercise it? When we raise questions such as these we are in fact asking whether power is the same as, or different from, authority . In further passages they deliberate about the power exercised by western powers in the invasion of Iraq, who, correctly in my view, support the idea of lacking authority.
By adopting Max Weber’s definition regarding of what constitute the state, which according to Weber is “an institution claiming a monopoly of legitimate force”, they pose the question: How does the notion of ‘legitimate force’ connect to the notion of power? Is the use of force the same as power? Accordingly, power requires compliance whereas force does not...Does this make the force legitimate and thus, an act blessed by authority? And if the act of state is authoritative, in whose eyes does have it authority? Those who are subject to this force (let us say protesters in a demonstration that is deemed to get out of hand), or those who are not part of the demonstration and approve of the action of the police? These are according to Hoffman and Graham difficult questions but they introduce them in order to show why in a discussion of the state it is important to involve questions of power and its relation to authority. The same did Flyvbjerg following Foucault in his research.
In further passages they consider the question of freedom and liberty. In this question like Fotopoulos, Flyvbjerg following Foucault et.al they consider freedom as the exercise of free power by one person, thus changing the surrounding by exercising free power . (Hoffman, Graham: 4). Whereas according to Flyvbjerg following Aristotle, freedom is a practice, not a result or a state of affairs. And phronesis is the intellectual virtue most relevant to the project of freedom . (Emphasis in original) (Flyvbjerg: 128) Hoffman and Graham in their deliberation divided freedom into two categories — that is, negative and positive. Negative in the sense of someone being left alone and positive in the sense of ‘a person’s capacity to do something’...freedom of speech is concerned with the power of a person to speak his mind, not the restrictions that may be placed on someone’s right to do so. In relation with equality and justice Hoffman and Graham, power has been considered as a state which rest upon ideas of rightness...The state has too much power and the individual too little. (Emphasis in original) This, it is argued, undermines the authority of the state: people pay their taxes because they have to, not because they want to. (Emphasis added) Egalitarians, on the other hand, link equality with justice, and argue that everyone should be treated equally. We should aim to spread power so that one person or group cannot tell another individual or group what to do, and government should implement policies that move in this direction. Indeed, one definition of democracy is the ‘power of the people’. Historically, the objection to democracy was precisely that the wrong kind of person would exercise power, and nineteenth-century liberals such as Lord Macaulay feared that democracy would enable the poor to plunder the rich .
This statement brings us back to the Plato’s and Aristotelian’s concern, who, in my view, have been misinterpreted by western philosophy or politics, because they never stopped to be concerned about the particular feature of the society. Rather, they were more sceptics than Macaulay’s, Kindelbergr’s or Mynsky’s view, when they referred to universal theories. On the other hand, left-wing critics of liberal democracy complain that the right to vote does not in itself give a person power to influence the course of events and that material resources must be available to people if they are to exercise power . This recalls us, the above perception of rationality, that, in its course of voting someone else to do the job that you should do, you lost it, because this is done by another person, who at once “brackets” your natural right to use your rationality.
Thus, according to Hoffman and Graham, the authority of liberal democracy rests upon equal rights rather that equal power so that the notion of power is indissolubly tied to debates about democracy . Thus, closer to phronesis, up to now, looks to be the Egalitarians, with the lack of showing the way on how to accomplish it or on how to replace the present institutions? However, liberal democracy, according to our analysis, it’s a fake notion, because does not empower the power [organically] of each individual that has been endowed by nature to use it, in the course of his/her life. Thus, liberal democracy, as a notion, adopted by Blair, Clinton, WBush or Brown today or in other countries such as France or Germany, or even in Russia, have nothing to show regarding our requirement —that is, empowering the wisdom-rationality — in free will and organically — of each individual in a republic.
However, for Hoffman and Graham, power has to do with the notion of authority. Power, accordingly, involves dominating someone or some group, telling them what to do, whereas authority is concerned with the rightness of an action. A person has to be pressured into complying with power, whereas they will obey authority in a voluntary way . This kind of analysis has to do again with the Aristotelian’s phronesis, who was concerned of what is good and bad for a man, in a given context. After giving a picture of what Rousseau has had contributed to the problem, they conclude of dividing the link between power and authority.
Accordingly, our problem can be presented as shown in the diagram:
Power implies Authority implies
Constrained Consent
Force Morality
Subordination Will
Dependence Autonomy
This is the problem of the ‘two levels’. Power and authority appear to exclude one another, but they are never found apart, they conclude.
In addition, they relate power in its negative and positive sense: Power is negative when it relates to my ability to get you to do things that you would otherwise do. In contrast, power is deemed positive when it is expressed as empowerment. (Emphasis in original) Empowerment, accordingly, occurs when one person helps (‘empower’) themselves or another, or when a group or community enables people to develop. Positive power is seen as the ability to do things by the discovery of our own strength — a capacity — a power to — as opposed to negative power that is seen as a power over — a domination . (Emphasis in original) To distinguish therefore the negative with positive power one has to deliberate about myths and dogmas, in which one can find out easily the negative power. From Priests to Kings-Mystification or From Dogmas to Promotion-Ideologies the negative power has been nourished unstoppably. This conclusion is the same in Hoffman’s and Graham’s view, with the only difference that they do not divide the negative power — which has been nourished by myths and institutions — with the organic power, which I call — the power of our natural father’s. This power has to do with organic power because the relationship between a child and a father is closer to that of the institution or to that, of myths. In this power one can find out the direct link between care and love; whereas the former is just a myth that has been induced oppressively even to our fathers.
Rebutting Lukes’s and Dahl’s view of power Hoffman and Graham point out that both of them do not resolve the problem between power and authority. But even for them it is impossible in some circumstances to resolve the problem of constrain and autonomy. They refer to the case of football supporters who must obey the rule of the police; in contrast with the authority of the doctor towards his/her patient who is authoritative and has shown positive power.
On the other hand, there is much more to discuss on this matter. As Foucault did in some respect and Flybjerg in full respect, we will extend the view of power a little bit further. Power therefore is everywhere, embedded to human, animals, plant, oxygen and in every single element of our nature. But power has to come up in its full rationality. Rationality is possessed by human mind. Human mind processes into different levels and circumstances. Such levels are primarily organic and secondly inorganic. Organic I shall call here the closest relationship between beings, which is the relationship between parents and child/children. This relation is organic and this relation carries on in its core natural love. This is why, this relation is organic.
If we extend this love into our society, it gets weak. It gets weak because the interests of human have been multiplied — which would conflict further to show their rationality, in a given context. These interests have their point of departure our families. Our journey starts from family to city/society and vice versa. We go into our city to get something that we need to survive at home, being that food, clothes and footwear or other activities that are for our own interest. All these needs are shared at home with the members of our family. This is a power that rest upon our own interest and is organic, because we share it with our family. The other power, which is shared with our society, is not organic, because each one goes there for his/her own interest. Attention! This power is shared in this way because our city is not common but it is a property that belongs to other people — that is, other-citizens.
On the other hand, when we refer to our fathers, who gave birth to our life and we have been grew up by their efforts — we can say that our habits are their results. These habits except that are natural and written on Heart they are authoritative, because they derive form a person that gave birth to our life, life that is a natural phenomenon and result of our genes, that push up our self to give birth to other generations. This power therefore has nothing to do with the ascribed power of the doctor who keeps his patient in full health.
Doctor goes there for his own interest, because he will get paid. His attention is result of a law that has been emphasised in his teaching: If he/she makes a mistake he/she will be punished. This authorization of power has been in the first instance, regulated by law and not by organic interest. This phenomenon persuades us that if our power is exercised through our members of the family, it is more authoritative, because there is a natural duty towards the love of our family.
In contrast, if we go to our city to exercise our authority it is not the same as the former, because it has been reduced already. Therefore, authority is demonstrated with greater results when it is towards your family or the members of your kin tribe. Further, this is called homogeneity and makes us convinced that “the greater the relationship toward someone the greater the result of authority”, because this authority, is natural and interconnected with pure love. For this reason, one cannot love the whole society. We can love only a few people. Love has to do with other notions in human life, therefore love needs to return in its full meaning — that is, consistency and empathy.
In the context of an institution — being that government’s or society’s one, the authority that derive from them, is not an authority that is natural, but law-regulated. Laws of institutions are mainly inherited form previous generations, than natural. This inheritance has in its core the exploitation and manipulation of human being, because these institutions try to keep themselves, in life, by using money. Money thus is in the core of every society. This is why, our institution’s authorities do not respond with devotion towards their duty.
However, our relationship with the authority and power can be shown as follows:
Homogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Natural law confronted with virtue
Love
Pure reason
Full consciousness
Morality
Autonomy
Heterogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Consensus
Morality reduced
Technical law, expressed with pure self-interested motivation
Manipulation, in its full meaning
Exploitation, in its full meaning
Institution’s and Heterogeneity’s Authority/Power implies:
Coercion, that results into negative consequences
Consensus, that refuses full consciousness
Dependence, that refuses autonomy
Morality, does not exist
Love, is a dream.
For our results show explicitly what a society will confront in its operation. These three-dimensional results can be seen even in today’s societies, especially the last one. Then, once again: What about hegemony, introduced in beginning of this essay? Does hegemony produce love, autonomy, consciousness, virtues or pure reason? Can we embrace it as something that goes? But if it goes, what is the interest of the people that influence it? Do they live in another world? Of course, Not!
Therefore, if we accept this story as it is laid down by mediocre economists or scholars of universalism or normative economy and not of context or particular i.e. reducing the today’s power possessed by few people — then ‘hedge borrower’, ‘speculative borrower’ and ‘Ponzi borrower’ will be our last home…
To understand therefore the ‘Ponzi borrower’ and its nature in the next subchapter will be introduced the origin of money and its implications: The reason is to apprehend, in deep time, its functionality, its damage, its hidden story and its crimes; and if we don’t change now the present system we will get in serious trouble in the future.
