Resumen de Yet Another Critical Look at Hegemony Theory: A Response to Ingham and Beamish
I take up Ingham’s and Beamish’s three main criticisms of my previous critique of hegemony theory—that it is “distorted” because it ignores that hegemony both sets limits and opens up possibilities, that it overlooks Williams’ point that hegemony “is never total or exclusive”, and that it falsely claims that Williams opted for an all-inclusive, material base to replace the classical Marxist base superstructure paradigm—and argue that they all miss the mark. I thus conclude by reaffirming my major thesis that hegemony sport theory is best regarded as a theory of social containment rather than social transformation because it has no intelligible way of explaining major shifts of dominance, that is, of accounting for the transference of dominance from one group to another.
