Hegemonic Distancing: A Source of Inequality and Poverty?

The term hegemony illustrates the domination of one group over another in terms of ideology, culture, politics, or economics. Ways of achieving hegemony can be through coercion, consent, or a combination of both. When it comes to my point of discussion, hegemonic distancing is the process of generating and maintaining a distance between oneself and the hegemonic group in society. It can be seen as a form of resistance or opposition to the hegemonic norms, values, and practices that are imposed by the dominant group.

Hegemonic distancing can take various forms, such as cultural, linguistic, religious, political, or economic differentiation. For example, some ethnic minorities may adopt different clothing styles, languages, or religions to assert their identity and autonomy from the hegemonic culture. Some social movements may challenge the hegemonic ideologies or policies of the ruling class or the state. Some individuals may refuse to participate in the hegemonic consumerism or media culture that shapes their desires and preferences. All this to assert recognition as minorities.

Hegemonic distancing can be seen as a way of creating alternative spaces or counter-hegemonies that challenge the dominant power structures and discourses. However, hegemonic distancing can also have negative consequences for the subaltern groups that practice it. Hegemonic distancing can be a result of marginalization, exclusion, or oppression by the hegemonic group. In some cases, hegemonic distancing can also reinforce or reproduce the existing inequalities and hierarchies in society, rather than subvert them.

The case of the Rohingya people in Myanmar is a perfect example of hegemonic distancing. The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group that has been persecuted by the Buddhist majority and the military regime for decades. They have been denied citizenship, basic rights, and access to education, health care, and livelihoods. They have been subjected to violence, discrimination, and displacement.

The Rohingya have tried to distance themselves from the hegemonic group by maintaining their distinct identity, culture, and religion. They have also sought refuge in neighboring countries such as Bangladesh, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. However, their attempts at hegemonic distancing have not improved their situation. Instead, they have faced more challenges and hardships in their host countries. They have been treated as illegal immigrants, stateless persons, and more so, security threats. They have been exploited, abused, and neglected by the authorities and the local communities. They have been trapped in poverty, insecurity, and vulnerability. This has in years built inequality and poverty for the group.

Hegemonic distancing has numerous times exposed them to more risks and disadvantages than benefits and opportunities. Hegemonic distancing has isolated them from the resources and networks that they required to survive and thrive. Hegemonic distancing has also prevented them from engaging in constructive dialogue and cooperation with the hegemonic group and other stakeholders that could help them achieve their rights and aspirations.

Therefore, hegemonic distancing is not always a desirable or effective strategy for challenging hegemony. It may be necessary or inevitable in some situations, but it may also be counterproductive or harmful in others. Hegemonic distancing should be critically examined and evaluated in terms of its causes, forms, consequences, and alternatives. Hegemonic distancing should not be romanticized or idealized as a solution to inequality and poverty. Rather, it should be recognized as a complex and dynamic phenomenon that can have different implications and outcomes depending on the context and the actors involved.

Learn more about the Rohingya Muslim community in the link below.

The Rohingya people—facts and information (nationalgeographic.com)