Holmes (2017) responded to Hollander’s (2017) article on hegemony and trauma. Underlying Holmes' argument was that Hollander framed her argument in terms of passivity. She took aim at Hollander’s use of “malaise.” Instead, Holmes reminded readers that hegemony is constantly reinforced and reenacted. Those who suffer from hegemonic power, also participated and actively supported systems of power. Holmes' piece blurred the narrow categories of Hollander's piece. Participants and supporters could also be victims of sociopolitical oppression. Here are some useful quotes for understanding Holmes: 651 - “Hollander (this issue) brings into sharp focus important constructs, most of which are unfamiliar to psychoanalysts, to help us understand from a sociopolitical perspective the important and devastating ways we are deeply and adversely affected by ‘our disordered social reality’ (p. 635).” 652 - “For this reason, I believe attributing our suffering to social malaise may misguide the reader and undermine full understanding of the psychodynamics of hegemony, particularly how and why we are actors in its creation and perpetuation.”
- “Malaise implies an overtaken state, leaving obscure who is doing the overtaking. I think it is more accurate to think of hegemony as something that results from an active process that is attractive to a great many people. Are there those who suffer its consequences? Yes, as Hollander aptly notes, but the phenomenon itself, I believe, is the expression of practices intended to secure significant economic advantage, so much so that it requires limiting the opportunities and successes of as many as possible.”
Questions: What are the implications on psychoanalysis from Holmes’ argument? How does one untangle the blurriness of being both an active supporter and victim of sociopolitical and/or economic oppression?