smooth

You claim to know the concept but fail to assert why hegemony does not apply here. In fact, you said it obviously does not apply.

What do you understand the concept to mean?
Why would we need to know the race or class of the writers in order to understand how social frames operate on them?
Why would you put class in quotes?

Hegemony doesn't allow for someone to "intentionally" do anything. That's the meat of the concept. Your statement indicates to me that you misunderstand Gramsci's concept. Please re-study it so we can take this further.

EDIT: there's nothing arrogant about what I said. Your second post supports what I was concerned about. Does your notion of hegemony stem from web research?

That quote you posted does little to understand what socio-legal scholars have taken decades to try and tease from Gramsci's writings. Your quote doesn't indicate, and you don't seem to understand from your replies, the process of hegemonic control. If I had taken a page to discuss the process of Gramsci's hegemony you likely would have accused me of being pedantic. What better source to understanding the concept than reading and deciphering from the author himself? In fact, I saw at least one post in here that chastised members for not critically thinking on their own. My offer was that you and others go study the concept and come back for some in-depth conversation about a very difficult process of social interaction. This is how all classroom seminars operate, as far as I know. Students don't walk into the class and argue about concepts they haven't tried to understand on their own terms. Wouldn't that be arguing from ignorance?


To further elucidate the point: hegemony is exerted by the fact that particular frames become dominant modes of thought. As it relates to this, the second journalist wasn't able to conceive of the white scavangers as looters as a function of racism. As a function of what is portrayed in the media about looting's nature, who does it, why it's done, and etc.

We see some more evidence of how racism permeates our conscious and prevents us from seeing alternative explanations in this thread. One person commented that the bag was filled with loot, despite the fact that it's floating, we have no evidence the young boy took anything other than the case of Pepsi. And then we had an interesting comment on the fact that someone stole some pepsi, which wasn't a necessity to the poster. Completely missing the point that the "looter" was a boy--not a rational adult calculating what he may or may not need for survival.

Another commentator made a post that the backpacks probably had personal items in them. Why would such a comment be held to be valid? It only sustains on our preconceived notions of what people, most usually like ourselves, keep in backpacks in their ordinary lives. This is no ordinary situation...but we make judgements based on what we understand. And what we understand is shaped by the dominant culture. Other considerations appear irrational...this is the beginning of the concept of hegemony.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman