Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist theorist writing in the 1930s, developed the concept of hegemony to explain how capitalist class rule is maintained not primarily through force but through the production of consent, through the dissemination of ideas, values, and common sense that make the existing social order appear natural, inevitable, and beneficial to all.

Hegemony works through institutions, schools, media, religions, professional associations, that produce and distribute dominant ideas. It works through culture, films, novels, music, that normalise particular ways of understanding social relations. And it works through what Gramsci called organic intellectuals, the journalists, academics, consultants, and experts who articulate the worldview of dominant classes in terms that appear universal and objective.

In the domain of AI, hegemonic ideology takes several recognisable forms.

Techno-solutionism, the belief that technology is the primary driver of social progress and that social problems are best addressed through technical solutions. This ideology conveniently positions the technology industry as the primary agent of social good, deflects attention from structural causes of social problems, and frames resistance to technological change as backward and irrational.

The neutrality myth, the belief that AI systems are neutral tools that reflect objective reality rather than social relations. This ideology, as we have seen in previous courses, systematically conceals whose values, interests, and perspectives are embedded in AI systems, and positions critique as irrational or politically motivated.

Meritocracy discourse, the belief that AI-driven decisions are fairer than human decisions because they are based on data rather than subjective judgment. This ideology treats data, which is the product of unequal social processes, as the product of a level playing field, and positions algorithmic authority as more legitimate than human authority.

Disruption as progress, the framing of AI-driven displacement of workers as creative destruction that ultimately benefits everyone. This ideology, articulated most prominently in Silicon Valley, treats the costs of technological change as individually manageable and collectively progressive, ignoring the fact that those costs are borne disproportionately by the most economically vulnerable.

Gramsci’s analysis helps us understand why these ideologies are so durable. They are not simply lies told by powerful people. They are ideas that genuinely make sense to many people, because they reflect the common sense produced by a society organised around capitalist relations. Challenging them requires more than presenting counter-evidence. It requires challenging the deeper assumptions about economy, society, and human nature on which they rest.

Reflection question: Which of these ideological formations do you encounter most frequently in your professional context? What makes them persuasive? What do they conceal?