Hegemony and Slavery

Hegemony and Slavery

Nildo Viana

We live in an age of "fashions". Capitalism - with its "mass production" - creates successive fashions and even ideological and academic fashions. Examples are many: the postmodern, the end of history, the death of socialism and Marxism, etc. What remains of the "Marxism" has to be in the "fashion Gramscian". Today it holds a real review of the Brazilian historiography to fit it the Gramscian concepts. All historiography of the bourgeois revolution in Brazil is buried because the "need" to use the Gramscian concept of "revolution-restoration". Of course, along with this, there is an academic interest and the "will" to be original, even if it has to deform reality. We intend, in this text, refuting one of those academic tricks: one that seeks to use the concept of hegemony to analyze the Brazilian colonial slave society.

The Gramscian concept of hegemony can be summarized as follows: hegemony is the moral and intellectual direction the ruling class has on the lower classes, which takes place in civil society. Gramsci created this concept to explain the capitalist societies of Western Europe. This concept is interwoven with several others, such as civil society, politics, society full state, historical block position war, battle motion, revolution, Restoration etc. The application of this term to the Brazilian slave society presents two basic misconceptions: a) removes a concept conceptual system in which it was produced, and without re-elaborate it, apply it separately from other concepts that gives it meaning (certainly no one would defend the thesis form a "historical bloc", to conduct a "war of position", the slaves conquer "hegemony" in the "civil society" in the context of a colonial slave society); b) apply a concept designed to explain relationships in a capitalist society developed in another society with totally different social relations. Gramsci himself recognized the particular and historical character of the concepts he formulated when he put the concept (and the political strategy) of "war of position" was applicable to the West - because of the vitality of civil society - while in the east - because of weakness of civil society - should apply the concept (and the political strategy) of "war of movement". In different societies it uses concepts (strategies and policies) different. Another interesting aspect is that the Gramscian concepts are all politicians, and yet, their academic use cut him their political character. This is common in "Marxism" academic who abhors the political and "ideological" and academizar search, make "scientific" and neutral, depoliticize Marxism, or, in a word, it aburguesá search.

Therefore, the concept of hegemony is inapplicable to the Brazilian colonial slave mode of production. The ruling class did not exercise any "moral and intellectual direction" on the main exploited class, the slaves. These were subjected to forced labor and kept under continuous surveillance. The slave resistance was manifested not only in escape and the formation of quilombos, but even in everyday and sexuality level, as demonstrated by the practice of abortion of female slaves and the interruption of intercourse made by slaves who aimed to prevent slavery son, avoiding the latter. The thesis of "consent" of slaves is only an ideological resource (in the negative sense of the term, ie, understanding ideology by an inversion of reality) to "rehabilitate slavery." As we read these theses have the desire to go back in time and be slaves, after all, how good it was to be a slave !! Historian Jacob Gorender in his book Slavery rehabilitated, puts as the main production center of such theses the Department of History at Unicamp, this "most active focus of the new reactionary tendencies" (there are exceptions, of course). Unfortunately, there are reactionaries everywhere, especially in brazilian universities.