ABSTRACT
This final part of the Afterthought proposes a reflection on the creative work of adapting Gramsci's hegemony to a totally different historical context. Two major issues are flagged: (1) the process of coercion, resolved in the integral state in Gramsci's writing might clash with the different statehood in ancient societies; (2) the class setup in capitalist society is dissimilar form that in place in ancient societies. To overcome these limitations, we propose to draw some insights from poststructuralist and post-Marxist theory. We argue that, in detaching the subject position from the fundamental socio-economic classes, E. Laclau and C. Mouffe's reading of hegemony could help us understand apparently contradictory social formations that support a certain system of domination. M. Foucault's diffused conception of power as embodied in discourse could positively interact with this revised understanding of hegemony. A coexistence of these different theoretical models of power and domination could enhance an intersectional approach to ancient history, through which we could transform the questions we ask our sources by looking at reciprocal interactions on multiple power axes.
