Antonio Gramsci wrote as a political prisoner nearly a century ago, in Mussolini’s fascist-capitalist Italy. Although the world has changed significantly since then, Gramsci’s work on cultural hegemony has remained relevant, especially with the rise of social media. In simple terms, Gramsci’s conception of hegemony posited that those in power control elements of culture such as social norms, values, beliefs, and political ideologies. He argued that the ruling classes subtly influence the working classes using tools such as the media, manipulating them into consent and making certain ideas hegemonic, so that the economic and social order is perceived as beneficial for all its members, rather than just for those in power. While hegemony has manifested itself in various forms throughout history, today’s elites have a new and powerful tool to their aid. With the increasing digitization of contemporary culture, online social media has emerged as the latest means of manipulation by the dominant class.
According to the Digital Trends Report 2022, 4.65 billion people across the world use online social networks, and the average person spends 2 hours and 29 minutes on social media per day—a figure that rises to about 4 hours and 30 minutes in the case of Generation Z. In the digital era, online platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google now control the flow of information, making them powerful gatekeepers of what content reaches the masses. If Gramsci was right when he argued that elites maintain their position by controlling the dissemination of information and shaping public discourse, it is clear that social media is the channel for it today. Social media surpasses national borders; CEOs and coders have as much say about what people will read as newspaper editors and national politicians. Nowadays, hegemony over ordinary people is possible on a truly global scale. Within this system, capitalists who have perfected the use of social media platforms can exploit them to push their own agendas, under the garb of relatability.
To see how elites use social media to propagate the ideology of the bourgeoisie and produce cultural consent, let us look at the Kardashian family. Known for their lavish lifestyles as well as their promotion of consumerism and materialism, the Kardashians have accrued huge amounts of capital, in both monetary and social terms. It is easy to see celebrities like them as symptoms rather than causes of the problem. After all, just because the Kardashians have a huge audience of eager fans who cherish their opinions does not necessarily mean that they themselves are the perpetrators of the capitalist system. However, this should not distract us from the fact they are a group of billionaires and multi-millionaires with several businesses who have become so by leveraging their fans. In doing so, they have not only mobilised social media for profit, but also used it to promote their own social, political and moral opinions.
One of the ways they do this is by using social media to shape public discourse. For example, Kim Kardashian was recently reported saying in an interview that ‘it seems like nobody wants to work these days,’ when giving advice to women in business. Notably, the Kardashians employ a large number of people through their businesses, and they are commonly hailed as very successful entrepreneurs. This position grants Kim Kardashian social legitimacy when talking about business. Her fans listen.
But Kim Kardashian is wrong. Not only are the people working for Kardashian herself overworked, but they also work on unfair terms, for poor renumeration and in unsafe conditions. Indeed, Kardashian’s company has been accused of labour law violations and malpractices such as wage theft and substandard working conditions by her own employees. How then should we understand the dissonance between Kardashian’s flippant remark and the reality of those she employs – the people who have made her money?
Historically, capitalists have often used the mechanism of virtue signalling to keep workers oppressed. According to Gramsci, extremely routinised, unskilled and intensified labour processes are so psychologically demanding that coercion is not enough to regulate workers, and consent is sought as well. He sees this as a ‘manipulative response’ on the part of capitalists to keep workers in line. Kim Kardashian’s interview is an example of social media being used to platform and amplify the Kardashians’ carefully crafted brand and messaging to this end. By invoking ‘hard work’ as the cause of her own fame and wealth, Kardashian cleverly shifts the responsibility of being ‘successful’ onto the worker, thereby disregarding systemic inequalities. She wants people to be hard and committed workers, regardless of how much they are paid, how safe their place of employment is or whether it is fair. Narratives like this are often propagated to maintain the status quo; when the working classes demand structural change, they have historically been met with the retort that they have simply not worked hard enough.
Also imbibed in this advice is a façade of relatability – Kardashian shares her wisdom under the pretence that she is your friend, that she has been through what you must be struggling with. The Kardashians’ social media (and their TV show) attempt to make their lives seem ordinary. As their personal lives play out on a screen in front of us, we are inclined to think that they are just like us – going through similar problems in their romantic and familial lives. This is far from the truth. We see only what they carefully choose to show, blurring the lines between public and private, real and performative. Maintaining this ‘relatable’ persona allows them to attain the audience’s trust. The aim is to resonate, engage and, ultimately, influence.
Another example of how elites innovate cultural strategies to assert their influence in society can be seen in the way the Kardashians use social media to further incessant consumerism and materialism. Kylie Jenner, who was once dubbed the ‘youngest self-made billionaire ever’ by Forbes, makes waves each year for the lavish birthday parties she throws for her daughter, Stormi. Each year, Jenner creates ‘Stormi-themed’ amusement parks, complete with giant inflatables of her daughter’s head, and reportedly spends over $100,000 for these parties. This ridiculously obnoxious display of opulence is plastered all over social media, and covered widely by entertainment news outlets. The imagery of these outrageous levels of consumerism not only ‘goes viral’ each year, but has also been accompanied by a change in the spending patterns of American parents. Reports show that the cost of children’s parties has gone up, with even low-to-medium net-worth individuals not immune to this. In Gramsci’s view, the economic position of elites grants them “intellectual and moral leadership” over the masses. Ostentatious social media posts by the likes of the Kardashians create subtle (and not so subtle) messaging that tends to invoke an aspirational response in the viewer, prompting them to imitate the bourgeoisie in hopes of becoming like them. As new desires are imprinted, new businesses flourish and someone makes mass profits off the back of it.
With the age of social media, the kind of desires which they encourage have become inhuman. By undergoing numerous cosmetic surgeries and digitally altering their appearance in pictures they post on social media, the Kardashians have rigged the standard for human beauty. Then, never to miss an opportunity, they have also used their platforms to promote appetite suppressant pills and ‘waist trainers’ which help one appear thinner. And it is not merely appearances that they sell through these posts: they also sell a lifestyle. The viewers, in their aspirational attempt to look and be like the social media elite, end up spending their time, money and energy. Who benefits? The Kardashians of course. Through enforcing unrealistic beauty standards, the Kardashians’ own make-up and shapewear businesses help to promote, and in turn flourish through, this constant cycle of increased consumerism.
The content-ification of all aspects of life through social media not only shapes public discourse, but also has tangible effects on people’s socioeconomic decisions and habits. As each new trend is popularised by celebrities, people rush to adopt whatever the new hot thing is. The result is the creation of what Gramsci described as ‘standardised individuals’, those who embrace the ruling classes’ ideas and maintain the status quo. It was Gramsci’s belief that elites develop cultural mechanisms to promote voluntary submission, and this creates a new personality type that will be conducive to their hegemony. The Kardashians are a mere example – they show us how capitalists exploit social media to maintain their hegemony.
As more of our interactions shift online, Gramsci’s work provides a useful lens to understand how social media is employed by modern-day elites to manipulate the masses. Consent is not just manufactured: one ‘subscribes’ to it. With social media providing the ease of accessibility coupled with the ability to popularise an idea quickly and exponentially, Gramsci’s work helps us to reflect on how much of our views are affected by what we see online and adopt a critical understanding of social media. Kim Kardashian is not your friend. There’s no need to keep up.