Hegemony

I am not sure of the purpose of hegemony other to provide for a gray area as opposed to the black and white way that Marx has set up the base and superstructure. I must admit I am struggling with these ideas as well. I have always (until this point) felt that what Williams includes in the hegemony has always existed in the superstructure, so I guess this is a new lesson in Marxism for me. Culture and ideology have existed in the superstructure for me as I have always thought of them in terms of them being attached to or a part of the legal and political (superstructure). What bothers me is the necessity of trying to break apart the pieces into so many parts that the message and ideas thus the whole point of using Marxism as a lens to approach "art" get lost in the complexities of societal analysis. We have extremely complex societies, and, I think, we recognize this. This does not make the base-superstructure approach wrong; it only makes our job as close readers much more complex in how we handle the relationships within complex societies and the works which are products of them.

Power Struggles

Foucault is searching for a way to examine theories and show the effects that they have on the societies which have given them power. He examines history and seems to search for center in the struggle for power. Which obviously goes back to deconstruction and Derrida. If we challenge the center, which is what seems to me the power stronghold, then we take back some of the power. In Barry last week I believe he stated that theories like Marxism and Feminism give us the lenses through which we are to read a piece of work, while structuralism gives the work itself power and deconstruction challenges the work thus challenging the power centers that have influenced the work. It's all a struggle for power.