I want to explore if we can interpret Steemit using the word hegemony. I think that this could offer an interesting perspective and perhaps some questions to where we want to go with this platform.
The word hegemony has quite a complex meaning, it is about more than dominance. To give some clarification, I will write about some of the different layers and explain them with examples. I will however not be able to explain it into it complete depth. So it is best to read this as opinion and not as fact.
Dominance in itself is of course the ruling from one thing above the other. In a cultural sense, we could take a tiny part of American culture for explorative purposes. In the western world, the American entertainment culture has dominance over the other Western cultures. You can see that reflected in the prudent attitude of Facebooks standing against an artistically displayed woman's nipple. Because a few people can not stand the idea that a woman's breast could be something else than porn, everyone is shielded from the whole phenomenon. No matter what your own believe or the believe of your culture is.
I criticize this because it affects not only artistic freedom but also the perspective that people have on a nipple. The more it is shielded, the more controversial it becomes, the more people think a woman's nipple should be hidden. These things creep in and it can be difficult to keep thinking about what position you actually have or want to take. The authority and the majority are against showing a womans nipple which makes it seem natural to be against. Thus becomes a hegemonic believe.
But if you think about it: why is it wrong to show a woman's nipple but not wrong to show a man's nipple? Why do we let the concept of porn go above nature, art and the giving of life? If you get a bit annoyed by these questions and have the tendency to say "but it is wrong", without being able to come up with a convincing argument than this goes against your own self regulation (We talk about that later). Strangely enough, the Netherlands is becoming more prudent due to the American dominance over its culture. This sneaks in and we can wonder if we want this to happen. Is it necessary for one culture to conform to another culture? Can we make a choice to take from each other that what makes culture more free and equal instead of more restricted?
Social regulation is a logical consequence of dominance and takes place within a culture. In every culture there are beliefs that almost everyone assumes and applies as true in his own life and expects others to stay true to. Note that this believes are often more a benefit for the rich and powerful people than for the 'normal' people.
In Dutch culture (and most probably also other cultures) the norm is that we have to work for our money. Working hard is normal and you must do that to be valuable to our society, in other words to be worthy. You can see this hegemonic thinking in the idea that all benefit recipients are those who do not really try to be valuable and are just lazy bastards. You can also see this in the belief that if you try hard enough you will succeed inside the norms of our society, no matter what. But the truth is that as a society we need a percentage of unemployment to fill vacant vacancies. This results in a more stable society than a society where vacancies are not fulfilled. Another fact is that we distinguish between people and one is more popular than another, however much we would like to have it otherwise.
We regulate ourselves, in this case, by seeing the unemployed people as less than working people. We even think it is normal to punish the people who have lost their livelihood. The strange thing is that the less you know that person the harder you judge. The consequence of this hegemony, however, is that we let ourselves be exploited more by employers than we would otherwise have allowed.
Self-regulation is a lot deeper and can be just as harmful as what comes from outside. It is an idea that you have accepted as true and have internalized such that it has become part of your inner being and way of thinking.
A good example of self-regulation is found in men not allowing themself to be afraid. We are all raised by different facets such as: the family where we come from (or the lack of a family), the environment of the school we go to (provided you have the luck to be able to go to school), the neighborhood and the social contacts that come with it and the standards of society (police, etc.). Everywhere they go, boys get hints about what a man is and a reaction if they do not comply with the standard. If the average tells him that being afraid is not allowed, he learns not to show his fear and to condemn himself if he is afraid. After all, being afraid then comes into contrast with the idea of who he is/should be.
If we take these 3 layers of hegemony we can see why Steemit is an interesting project and why it is normal that we have not reached a concession within this platform yet. It is even more difficult because money is a part of this consensus and has also hegemonic value. For example: money only has value because we as a world society have given it value, money is dominant over a lot of other things, socially we have a consensus about what money stands for and what we can do with it, We all know how to use money and we even accept regulation of it.
Next to that, we all have an internalised individual believe system about money: one person thinks that you have to work hard for it, the other thinks it should easy to get, another believes in free money as a solution for inequality and yet another one finds it normal to beg for money. Let's also think about handing in integrity for money. For many people that is absolutely unthinkable, while for some others it is part of the conviction of how money works.
We all, people and robots from all over the world are working within this bordered area, called Steemit, to reach a consensus on how we are going to organize this place. Which pieces of which cultures do we allow to become dominant and even perhaps the growth of specific subcultures within the platform. This means the choices you make here are important because of the experiment. Not only what you think should be, but also what you think should not be. Steemit is built on self-regulation and thus hegemonic in nature.
The most interesting way to find consensus is asking questions. Why should someone enrich themselves or why not? Is it culturally determined what someone thinks is begging and if so, should it be allowed or not? If we do not want spam, how do we reach a consensus about what spam is? How do we help newcomers to have a say in this culture or are only the whales the ones that should have a say in it? How important is it that your or my conviction of what valuable is wins and what does the community win with that conviction? How will we deal with the determination of value as long as there is still a big difference in education around the world? If we find consensus how will we educate new people about it?
I do not have any answers yet, I am still reviewing, thinking and searching myself. The search in itself is very interesting and I learn a lot. There are a number of things that I have noticed and want to protect. Steemit has: Valuable articles and works of art, a community of idealists to which I am attracted, very little hatred and hurt, a desire to help each other, a reason to share your knowledge in a valuable way and last but not least added value in your wallet.
I regularly read criticism and I applaud it. By asking difficult questions and being critical you give shape to who we choose to be. I also see people who become so frustrated that they give up. I think it is important to ensure that frustration does not become a way of suffering. If that is the case, I understand that you give up. Being happy and relaxed in your life is important and that is my personal hegemonic conviction.
