How do we think about power? The kind we give, the kind of consent to, the kind we are coerced into. We have softened ourselves to something of the greater whole, considering the radical fringes to be outside the realm of sanity because they do not go along with the centrist arguments of how civility and ethics works. But what is this power? This influence of the greater consideration? Are we consenting to the status quo because that has been and is what should be? Where does hegemony have to play? Hegemony in civil society was the power of the bourgeoisie, the civil class with their privilege and rights. That class consideration is still relevant — there are individuals wielding this power and influencing the political society we have come to rely on — but what about everyone else? What about the greater majority? 

Some have decided not to drink the kool-aid though arguably we function within that society because we have to. And then there are the radicals: the conspiracy theorists and the minority populations who are not represented and do not consent to the moral standings of the elite class. These are marginalized folks. They are discontent. Their views not represented, their fears stoked, the blurred lines of hegemony and the relationship between civil society and political society have grown fuzzier. 

Hegemony is useful in considering modern formations of power to a degree: there are norms set by the civil “center” within a culture. But modernity has shifted the boundaries of civil society and its role in relation to influencing politics. What about Jeff Bezos, a private individual of the most elite class, who influences technological policy and has changed entire supply chains? He owns The Washington Post, which comes with inherent power to influence media strategies. He also owns an environmental non-profit, but has stake in companies that explores for new energy sources, including lithium, perpetuating extractivism that exacerbate inequalities and contributes to growing energy dependency. Norms of how we shop and how we consume news have become a part of “common sense”. But what about “good sense”? Amazon finds itself under scrutiny for workplace labor laws and for subverting unionization at its warehouses. Amazon is monopolizing the marketplace ecosystem, forcing small businesses to sell on the platform or risk losing potential clientele.  

The lines of civil and political society are blurred because the elite power system is able to influence politics to a greater degree than other forms of civil society, but there is a growing discontentedness with the norms and therefore the original sense of hegemony loses its usefulness. While some scholars argue that civil society organizations are able to hold governments accountable and push for greater forms of transparency, there is a fine line of co-optation and using the civil society organization relationships as a way to demonstrate collaboration without actually having to confront worldviews and ideologies from the peripheries. Certain organizations are invited to participate in a “consultative” manner: the ones that agree, that won’t disrupt the status quo but are willing to work within the institutional frameworks. 

“The system does not fail those it was never meant to protect.” While one could argue that civil societies are a counterweight to the hegemonic power structures, it is limited to the constituents that sit within the existing ideologies set up by a certain worldview that is still very white dominant and Western. While power is given, it is also held onto, and I would like to know how power can shift when it is not working for those it doesn’t, and won’t, serve.