Constructing the False Legitimacy of Ideology: The Construction Methods and Crisis of American Cultural Hegemony

At present, the dominance of American culture over the international order and its penetration into the daily lives of people around the world are increasingly prominent. Therefore, while analyzing the logic of American hegemony in the military, political, economic, scientific and technological fields, we must pay greater attention to American cultural hegemony and the mechanism for constructing the false legitimacy of ideology that lies behind it. Through which cultural practices has the United States constructed the false legitimacy of its ideology? What epistemological traps has it exploited to achieve the continuous reproduction of this false legitimacy? How are current policies such as the promotion of “America First” by the United States constantly eroding the false legitimacy of the ideology it has already constructed, thereby posing a fundamental challenge to American cultural hegemony? These are the questions we need to consider and answer at present.

当下，美国文化对国际秩序的主导性与对全球民众生活的渗透力日益凸显。因此，在剖析美国军事、政治、经济、科技等领域霸权逻辑的同时，我们必须更加关注美国文化霸权及其背后的意识形态虚假正当性构建机制。美国通过哪些文化实践路径，构建了其意识形态的虚假正当性？又利用了何种认识论陷阱，实现了这种虚假正当性的持续再生产？当前美国推行“美国优先”等一系列政策，又如何不断侵蚀其已构建的意识形态虚假正当性，从而给美国的文化霸权带来根本性挑战？这些都是我们当下需要思考和回答的问题。

I. The Logic of “Legitimacy” in the Theory of Cultural Hegemony

一、文化霸权论中的“正当性”逻辑

The theory of cultural hegemony is an important theory put forward in the early 20th century by Antonio Gramsci, the leader of the Italian Communist Party. After deeply analyzing the social structure and mode of power operation in Western European countries, Gramsci pointed out that the stability of bourgeois rule stems not only from its control over the means of production and the state apparatus, but also, and more importantly, from constructing a seemingly reasonable order at the level of social consciousness by creating a kind of “general consent.” “The supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as ‘domination’ and as ‘intellectual and moral leadership.’” [1]1 Antonio Gramsci, *Selections from the Prison Notebooks*, ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), 57. In this situation, the entire civil society is thoroughly permeated by bourgeois ideology, from the values of daily life to the rule systems of social operation, all embodying the will of the bourgeoisie.

文化霸权论是20世纪初由意大利共产党领袖安东尼奥·葛兰西（Antonio Gramsci）提出的重要理论。葛兰西在深入剖析西欧国家社会结构与权力运作模式后指出，资产阶级统治的稳固性，不仅源于其对生产资料和国家机器的掌控，更在于通过制造一种“普遍同意”，在社会意识层面构建起一种看似合理的秩序。“一个社会集团的霸权地位表现在以下两个方面，即‘统治’和‘智识与道德的领导权’。” 在这种情境下，整个市民社会被资产阶级的意识形态全面渗透，从日常生活的价值观念，到社会运行的规则体系，无不体现着资产阶级的意志。

Cultural hegemony is not maintained by simple and crude military suppression, but through a series of social mechanisms such as culture, education, and religion, skillfully integrating the values and beliefs of the ruling class into the thoughts of the masses, making them accept and identify with this ruling order imperceptibly. Therefore, cultural hegemony manifests an extremely subtle relationship of domination and subordination, a relationship that transcends the traditional simple model of power oppression. The interaction between the ruling class and the ruled class, between the hegemonic state and the subordinate state, is a complex dynamic process. In this process, absolute opposition is gradually eliminated, replaced by a power relationship based on consensus and identification. This power relationship enables one party to guide the other to take actions that conform to its interests, actively or even voluntarily, within seemingly equal interactions.

文化霸权并非依靠简单粗暴的武力镇压来维系，而是通过一系列文化、教育、宗教等社会机制，将统治阶级的价值观和信仰巧妙地融入大众的思想中，使其在潜移默化中接受并认同这种统治秩序。因此，文化霸权体现出的是一种极为微妙的支配与从属关系，这种关系超越了传统意义上简单的权力压迫模式。统治阶级与被统治阶级、霸权国家与从属国家之间的互动，是一个复杂的动态过程。在这一过程中，绝对的对立被逐渐消弭，取而代之的是一种基于共识与认同的权力关系。这种权力关系使得一方能够在看似平等的互动中，引导另一方主动甚至自愿地采取符合其利益的行动。

In the construction process of cultural hegemony, legitimacy plays an extremely critical role and is the cornerstone on which the entire power structure is stabilized. The English equivalent of the Chinese term “正当性” is “legitimacy.” In the *Oxford English Dictionary*, “legitimacy” refers to the qualification of a government or ruler to rule conforming to legal principles, thereby gaining recognition and respect. The *Black’s Law Dictionary* explains “legitimacy” as “lawfulness.” However, “法” (law) in the Chinese context usually refers to positive law. Therefore, “合法性” (legality) means “conformity to law” or “constitutionality.” But in reality, the “legitimacy of the social order,” “political legitimacy,” and “legitimacy of rule” that we often discuss are based not only on positive law, but on the moral foundation or ethical expectations generally recognized and respected by society. Therefore, in the Chinese context, the term “正当性” (legitimacy) can more accurately reflect the original meaning of “legitimacy” than “合法性” (legality). Here, clarifying the relationship between “正当性” and “合法性” is beneficial for us to deeply grasp the important role of “正当性” in maintaining ruling power. From a legal perspective, some scholars even believe there is a conflict between “正当性” and “合法性,” and divide their relationship into four different combinations: legitimate and legal, legitimate but illegal, legal but illegitimate, and neither legal nor legitimate. For example, the anti-racial discrimination movements led by Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, although illegal in the United States or South Africa at the time, possessed moral legitimacy. What is denied or rejected in a specific historical context is often proven to be legitimate and reasonable in the real world. Legitimacy is not immutable but is dynamically endowed as power needs evolve. Nature, God, values, interests, and reason can all become symbols of legitimacy, providing intrinsic reasons and justifications for the exercise of cultural power, and providing a reasonable, moral, effective proof or justification for voluntary obedience.

在文化霸权的构建过程中，正当性扮演着极为关键的角色，是整个权力结构得以稳固的基石。正当性一词的英文对译是“legitimacy”。“legitimacy”在《牛津英语词典》中指政府或统治者的统治资格符合法律原则，并由此得到认可与尊重。《布莱克法律词典》对“legitimacy”的解释是“合法性”（lawfulness）。然而，中文语境中的“法”通常指的是法律（实定法）。因此，“合法性”是指“合法律性”或“合宪性”。但实际上，我们经常讨论的“社会秩序的合法性”“政治的合法性”以及“统治的合法性”，所依据的并不仅仅是实定法律，而是社会普遍认同和尊重的道德基础或道义期待。因此，在中文语境中，“正当性”一词比“合法性”更能准确地反映“legitimacy”的原意。在这里，厘清“正当性”与“合法性”的关系，有利于我们深刻把握“正当性”对维护统治权力的重要作用。从法律角度看，一些学者甚至认为“正当性”与“合法性”之间存在冲突，并将它们之间的关系划分为四种不同的组合：合法又正当，合法但不正当，正当但不合法，既不合法也不正 当 。例 如，马丁·路德·金（Martin Luther King）和纳尔逊·曼德拉（Nelson Mandela）所领导的反种族歧视运动，虽然在当时的美国或南非并不合法，却具有道德上的正当性。在特定的历史背景下被否定或排斥的，往往在现实世界中被证明是正当且合理的。正当性并非一成不变，而是随着权力需求的演变被动态赋予的。自然、上帝、价值、利益、理性都可能成为正当性的符号，它们为文化权力的行使提供了内在的理由和依据，为自愿服从提供了合理的、道德上的有效证明或辩护。

Therefore, “legitimacy” is not innate but is created through the active construction of the rulers. The ruling class knows well that relying solely on coercive force to maintain rule is not only costly but also difficult to sustain. Therefore, they strive to package their own values and ideology as “legitimate” concepts conforming to the general interests and moral standards of society, widely disseminating them through various channels such as education, media, culture, and art, so that they can gain widespread recognition and acceptance, thereby constructing a power structure of leadership and being led. Thus, in essence, the process of constructing cultural hegemony is a process of meticulously shaping legitimacy. Through the endowment of this legitimacy, the ruling class can establish and consolidate its dominant position in the cultural field, achieving effective control and management of society.

因此，“正当性”并非与生俱来，而是在统治者的积极建构中被创造出来的。统治阶级深知，单纯依靠强制力维持统治不仅成本高昂，且难以持久。因此，他们致力于将自身的价值观、意识形态包装成符合社会普遍利益和道德准则的“正当”理念，通过教育、媒体、文化艺术等多种渠道广泛传播，使其能够获得广泛的认同与接受，进而构建起领导与被领导的权力结构。因此，从本质上来说，构建文化霸权的过程，就是一个精心塑造正当性的过程，通过这种正当性的赋予，统治阶级得以在文化领域确立并巩固其主导地位，实现对社会的有效控制与管理。

II. The Construction Path of the False Legitimacy of American Ideology

二、美国意识形态虚假正当性的建构路径

The uniqueness of culture serving political power lies in the fact that it is not achieved through violent suppression or threats, but relies on the charm of culture “convincing people through culture” to win people’s hearts. As David Harvey said: “For any kind of thought to become dominant, it must first establish a conceptual apparatus: it appeals to our intuitions and instincts, to our values and desires, to the possibilities inherent in the social world we inhabit. If successful, this conceptual apparatus can become so firmly entrenched in common sense that it is taken for granted and unquestioned.” [2]2 David Harvey, *The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism* (London: Profile Books, 2010), 216.

文化服务政治权力的独特性在于，它并非通过暴力压制或威胁来实现，而是凭借文化“以文服人”的魅力来赢得人心。正如大卫·哈维（David Harvey）所说：“任何一种思想若想占据主导，就必须首先确立一种概念装置：它诉诸我们的直觉和本能、诉诸我们的价值和欲望、诉诸我们居住的社会世界所固有的种种可能性。如果成功的话，这一概念装置就能牢固确立在常识中，以至于被视为理所当然、毋庸置疑。”

After World War II, in the process of pursuing military and economic hegemony, the United States, relying on its comprehensive strength advantage, treated its own cultural power as a resource and tool that could be manipulated and utilized, consciously and purposefully formulating and implementing cultural strategies. When other countries or groups are immersed in this “consensus-based” strong culture, accepting its legitimacy without question or scrutiny, instead blindly following and imitating it, even internalizing it as their own values and behavioral norms, the inevitable result is “consciously and voluntarily” accepting the “leadership” of the United States. The United States, through capitalist mass production, produces a large number of cultural commodities imbued with capitalist ideology and circulates them throughout the world. When people consume these cultural commodities and their symbolic meanings, the construction of the false legitimacy of American ideology is realized, and this false legitimacy further consolidates American cultural hegemony.

第二次世界大战后，美国在追求军事和经济霸权的过程中，依靠其综合实力优势，把自身的文化实力作为一种可以操作利用的资源和工具，有意识、有目的地制定和实施文化战略。当其他国家或群体浸润于这种“共识性”强势文化之中，对该文化的正当性不加质疑或不加审视，反而盲目追随效仿，甚至内化为自身的价值观念和行为准则时，其结果必然是“自觉自愿”地接受美国的“领导”。美国借助资本主义大工业生产出一系列蕴含资本主义意识形态的文化商品并流通于全世界。人们在消费这些文化商品及其符号意义时，实现了美国意识形态虚假正当性的建构，而这种虚假的正当性又进一步巩固了美国的文化霸权。

First, constructing the false legitimacy of values.

第一，建构价值观念的虚假正当性。

In the evolution of American history, currents of thought and values such as “Puritanism,” “liberalism,” “pragmatism,” and “individualism” have shaped the uniqueness of American thought and culture. With the end of the Cold War, in order to ensure the free flow of capital and the extraction of super-profits on a global scale, the United States constructed a complete system of legitimacy theory centered on the logic of capital. This system interprets liberal values as the deep ideological root of all individual behavior or historical events, regards liberal economic theory as the most rational model of economic development, and treats the liberal hegemonic order as the theoretical foundation of a stable political order. The series of liberal legitimacy hypotheses constructed by the United States around the operation of private capital consolidates people’s traditional understanding of social development and obstructs the imagination of alternatives and revolutionary change. This leads those who accept this theoretical system to align their thinking and positions with American liberal values and to regard them as the highest or ultimate value pursuit. By constructing the false legitimacy of liberal ideology, the United States has achieved its cultural hegemonic position. This is reflected not only in the integration of the thinking of its domestic populace by the U.S. government but also in the fact that it is regarded as a “scientific” thought for solving practical problems, gradually becoming the dominant ideology throughout the Western world.

在美国历史的演进中，诸如“清教主义”“自由主义”“实用主义”和“个人主义”等思潮和价值观念塑造了美国思想文化的独特性。随着冷战的结束，为了确保资本的自由流动和在全球范围内获取超额利润，美国构建了一整套以资本逻辑为核心的正当性理论体系。这一体系将自由主义价值观解释为所有个体行为或历史事件的深层思想根源，将自由主义经济理论视为最合理的经济发展模式，并将自由主义霸权秩序视为稳定政治秩序的理论基础。美国围绕私有资本运作所构建的一系列自由主义正当性假说，巩固了人们对社会发展的传统认识，阻碍了对替代方案的想象和革命性变革。这导致那些接受这一理论体系的人们，在思想和立场上与美国的自由主义价值观保持一致，并将其视为最高或最终的价值追求。美国通过建构自由主义意识形态的虚假正当性，实现了其在文化上的霸权地位。这不仅体现在美国政府对其国内民众思想的整合上，同时也被视为一种解决现实问题的“科学”思想，在整个西方世界逐渐成为主导的意识形态。

Second, constructing the false legitimacy of a way of life.

第二，建构生活方式的虚假正当性。

Raymond Williams pointed out: “Bourgeois culture refers to that basic collective conception, and the way of life of the institutions, modes of behavior, habits of mind, and intentions, etc., that arise from it.” [3]3 Raymond Williams, *Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 91. [Translator’s note: The English original of the quoted passage is from Williams’s *Keywords*; the Chinese translation here is rendered back into English for consistency.] The bourgeois culture defined by Williams exists not only in theory but is also vividly embodied in people’s daily ways of life. The consumerist culture prevalent in American society is a typical manifestation of this culture. In the context of consumerist culture, consumption behavior has transcended the level of satisfying basic needs, turning instead toward the pursuit of desires that are deliberately created and constantly stimulated. Although this cultural phenomenon appears to be limited to the sphere of daily life, it is in fact deeply rooted in the dominant value system and ideology of the United States. When consuming, people seek not only the use value of commodities but, more importantly, the symbolic and representational meanings that commodities represent. This illusory and boundless consumption of “desire itself” is precisely the core path through which the United States, by constructing the symbolic meaning of commodities, legitimizes the consumerist way of life. As an important supplement to the mechanism of cultural domination in the sphere of consumption, it has already become a hidden form of U.S. control over the social life and ideas of the masses.

雷蒙德·威廉斯（Raymond Williams）指出：“资产阶级文化是指那种基本集体观念，以及由此产生的机构、行为方式、思维习惯和意图等等的生活方式。” 威廉斯所定义的资产阶级文化不仅存在于理论中，还鲜活地体现于人们的日常生活方式中。美国社会盛行的消费主义文化，正是这种文化的典型呈现。在消费主义文化背景下，消费行为已经超越了满足基本需求的层面，转而追求那些被刻意创造和不断激发的欲望。这种文化现象虽然看似仅限于日常生活领域，实际上却深植于美国主导的价值体系和意识形态之中。人们在消费时，除了寻求商品的使用价值外，更多的是在追求商品所代表的符号和象征意义。这种对“欲望本身”的虚幻且无边界的消费，恰是美国通过建构商品符号意义，实现消费主义生活方式正当化的核心路径。它作为消费领域文化支配机制的重要补充，已然成为美国控制大众社会生活与观念的隐性形式。

Third, constructing false legitimacy through controlling the means of cultural dissemination.

第三，通过控制文化传播手段来建构虚假正当性。

Once the content of bourgeois ideology is produced, it must also complete the terminal practice of connecting with members of society, that is, shaping their identification with the ideology. [4]4 The phrase “terminal practice” (终端实践) refers to the final stage in the process of ideological transmission, where ideology is internalized by individual members of society. In other words, American-style thinking and ways of life are merely the starting point for the diffusion of its cultural influence. Only when these cultural elements are widely disseminated globally and gain the recognition and practice of a broad group of cultural consumers can they truly produce a profound impact. The key to the United States’ construction of false legitimacy in cultural dissemination lies not in what values, ideas, and culture it expresses, but in its manipulation of dissemination techniques to package this content as “legitimate” common sense. John B. Thompson once pointed out that the dissemination of mass culture is not a two-way interactive dialogue in daily life, but a one-way flow of information from producer to receiver. In his view, the electronic media technology in mass communication does not connect information producers and receivers; on the contrary, it blocks their interaction. Technological media strip social interaction from specific contexts, making it possible to influence others from a distance, while the ways in which receivers can respond are strictly limited. This form of interaction, fixed in a specific form, is called “media quasi-interaction.” [5]5 John B. Thompson, *Ideology and Modern Culture* (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 228. [Translator’s note: The English original of the quoted passage is from Thompson’s *Ideology and Modern Culture*; the Chinese translation here is rendered back into English for consistency.] Because the United States plays the role of media standard-setter and information system designer, the information revolution has not only failed to dissolve the power gap between nations but has instead become an important source of U.S. power, further strengthening its monopoly over cultural dissemination. [6]6 The phrase “information revolution” (信息革命) refers to the rapid development and global spread of digital information and communication technologies since the late 20th century. Based on its own cognitive preferences and interests, the United States continuously shapes and controls the content, sequence, and frequency of information dissemination: what to express and what to avoid, what to focus on and what to ignore, all become important means by which it influences public consciousness through agenda-setting, opinion guidance, and rule-making, ultimately institutionalizing and legitimizing this set of logic through other international powers. The masses, as receivers, have extremely limited capacity to intervene in the process of cultural dissemination or to determine the content of dissemination, and this asymmetry in the dissemination process is difficult to fundamentally shake. Through this monopolistic mode of cultural dissemination, the United States achieves the continuous iteration of the false legitimacy of its ideology, thereby consolidating its unshakable position of cultural hegemony.

资产阶级意识形态的内容被生产出来后，还需完成与社会成员对接的终端实践，即塑造社会成员对其意识形态的认同 。换句话说，美式思维和生活方式仅仅是其文化影响力扩散的起点。只有当这些文化元素在全球范围内广泛传播，并且获得广大文化消费者群体的认同与实践时，才能真正产生深远的影响。美国在文化传播中建构虚假正当性的关键，并不在于其表达了何种价值观念与思想文化，而在于其通过操控传播技巧，将这些内容包装成极具“正当性”的常识。约翰·B.汤普森（John B. Thompson）曾指出，大众文化的传播并非日常生活中双向互动的对话，而是信息从生产者到接收者的单向流动。在他看来，大众传播中的电子传媒技术非但没有联通信息生产者与接收者，反而阻隔了两者的互动。技术媒介将社会互动与具体场域剥离，使得远距离影响他人成为可能，而接收者的回应方式却受到严格限制，这种被固定在特定形式中的互动，被称为“传媒的准互动” 。由于美国扮演着传媒标准制定者与信息系统设计者的角色，信息革命不仅没有消解国家间的力量差距，反而成为美国权力的重要源泉，进一步强化了其文化传播的垄断性 。美国依据自身的认知偏好与利益需求，持续塑造并控制信息传播的内容、顺序与频次：表达什么、回避什么，关注什么、忽略什么，都成为其通过议题设置、舆论引导与规则制定左右公众意识的重要手段，最终借助其他国际权力将这套逻辑制度化、合法化。而作为接收者的大众，干预文化传播进程、决定传播内容的能力极为有限，这种传播过程的不对称性难以被根本撼动。美国借此以垄断性的文化传播方式，实现其意识形态虚假正当性的不断迭代，进而巩固了其难以撼动的文化霸权地位。

III. The Epistemological Trap of the False Legitimacy of American Ideology

三、美国意识形态虚假正当性的认识论陷阱

The reason why the legitimacy constructed by the United States for its ideology has a false aspect lies in the cognitive traps it sets at the epistemological level, mainly manifested in three aspects. The first is to use the illusion of “unified” interests to conceal its particular interests. The United States often packages the particular interests of minority groups, specific classes, and the hegemonic state as the common demands of the entire populace and its subordinate countries. The second is to use the discourse of “value neutrality” to obscure the political factors behind culture. As Thompson said: “Relations of domination can be established and sustained by concealing, denying, or obfuscating, or by diverting attention from or covering up existing relations or processes.” [7]7 John B. Thompson, *Ideology and Modern Culture* (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 60. [Translator’s note: The English original of the quoted passage is from Thompson’s *Ideology and Modern Culture*; the Chinese translation here is rendered back into English for consistency.] “Organic intellectuals,” through the production of symbolic power and by leveraging the symbolic power they possess, continuously produce and disseminate discourses that emphasize the relative independence of culture and “value neutrality.” This discourse deliberately strips away the deep connection between culture and social reality and class interests, whitewashing the legitimacy of capitalist ideology, and playing a role in obscuring the essence and misleading cognition. Finally, there is the construction of false “universality,” that is, packaging values formed on the basis of specific histories, cultures, and institutions as “universal values” that transcend time and space and are applicable to all nations and peoples. This one-sided emphasis on “universality” not only conceals the developmental differences between different civilizations and societies but also becomes an important epistemological support for the continuous reproduction of the false legitimacy of its ideology.

美国为其意识形态建构的正当性之所以具有虚假的一面，源于其在认识论层面设置的认知陷阱，主要表现在三个方面。首先是以“一致”利益的幻象来掩盖其特殊的利益。美国经常将少数群体、特定阶层及霸权国的特殊利益，包装成全体民众及其从属国的共同诉求。其次是以“价值中立”的话语遮蔽文化背后的政治因素。正如汤普森所说：“统治关系可以通过掩饰、否认或含糊其辞，或者对现有关系或进程转移注意力或加以掩盖的方式来建立和支撑。” “有机知识分子”通过符号权力生产，借助自身掌握的符号权力，不断生产和传播强调文化相对独立性与“价值中立”的话语。这种话语刻意剥离文化与社会现实、阶级利益的深层关联，为资本主义意识形态的正当性进行粉饰，起到了遮蔽本质、误导认知的虚饰作用。最后是虚假“普世性”建构，即将自身基于特定历史、文化、制度形成的价值观念，包装成超越时空、适用于所有国家和民族的“普世价值”。这种对“普世性”的片面强调，不仅掩盖了不同文明、不同社会的发展差异，更成为其意识形态虚假正当性不断再生产的重要认识论支撑。

(A) Concealing its particular interests with the illusion of “unified” interests

（一）以“一致”利益的幻象掩盖其特殊的利益

When subordinate groups equate the interests of the hegemon with their own interests, that is, when the interests of the ruling class and the ruled class, and the interests of the United States and other countries, are regarded as “unified” and “common,” cultural hegemony is consolidated and strengthened within this illusion of unified interests.

当从属群体将霸权者的利益等同于自己的利益，即将统治阶级与被统治阶级的利益、美国与其他国家的利益视为是“一致”和“共同”的时候，文化霸权便在这种利益“一致”的幻象中得到了巩固和加强。

First, constructing the illusion of unified interests between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

第一，建构无产阶级与资产阶级利益“一致”的幻象。

The core of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony lies in the fact that the construction of hegemony is achieved not by eliminating the opposing side, but by “absorbing” the interests of the opposing side into its own system. In exploring “why there is no socialism in the United States,” Werner Sombart proposed that American capitalism, by satisfying some of the material needs of the working class and employing incentive mechanisms such as piecework wages and profit-sharing, incorporated workers into the capitalist economic system. “American employers know very well how to make workers interested in the success of the enterprise, thereby equating their own interests with those of the capitalists to a certain extent. This is not achieved through profit-sharing (although this also exists in various forms in the United States), but more through a series of mutually complementary small favors.” [1]1 Antonio Gramsci, *Selections from the Prison Notebooks*, ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), 57. When political and economic elites form an alliance at the national level based on common interests and deliberately “weave” the interests of the ruled working class into this alliance framework, the narrative of “unity of interests” produces a powerful ideological effect. It makes people believe that since the capitalist system can satisfy the needs of “everyone,” including workers, the demand for correcting inequality through socialist revolution appears superfluous. In fact, the so-called “consistent” and “common” interests are essentially the demands of the “universal property owners.” The United States, through this seemingly “generous” concession of interests, makes subordinate groups gratefully accept its rule under the illusion of being “cared for”; it constantly creates a facade of “goodwill” to construct false legitimacy for its own ideology, ultimately leading the proletariat to consciously accept the rule of the bourgeoisie.

葛兰西霸权理论的核心在于，霸权的构建并非通过消灭对立面，而是通过将对立一方的利益“吸纳”进自身体系中来达成。维尔纳·桑巴特（Werner Sombart）在探讨“美国为何未产生社会主义”时提出，美国资本主义通过满足工人阶级的部分物质需求，运用计件工资制、利润分享等激励机制，将工人纳入资本主义经济体系。“美国的雇主非常清楚如何使工人对企业的成功产生兴趣，从而在一定程度上把自己的利益等同于资本家的利益。这并不是通过利润分享做到的（虽然这在美国也以各种方式存在着），而更多地是通过一系列相互补充的小恩小惠。” 当政治与经济精英在国家层面因共同利益形成同盟，并刻意将被统治的工人阶级利益“编织”进这一同盟框架时，这种“利益一致”的叙事则产生了强大的意识形态效果。它让人们相信，既然资本主义制度能满足包括工人在内的“所有人”的需求，那么通过社会主义革命纠正不平等的诉求，就显得多余了 。事实上，所谓“一致”与“共同”的利益本质上是“普遍有产者”的诉求。美国正是借助这种看似“慷慨”的利益让渡，使从属群体在“被关切”的错觉中感恩戴德地接受其统治；它无时无刻不在通过制造“善意”的表象，为自身意识形态构建虚假正当性，最终使得无产阶级自觉接受资产阶级的统治。

Second, constructing the illusion of “unity of interests” between the hegemonic state and subordinate states.

第二，建构霸权国与从属国利益“一致”的幻象。

For a long time, the United States has oscillated between “idealist” and realist diplomatic narratives, in reality to reconcile the inherent tension between its propaganda for cultural legitimacy and its actual plunder of interests. On the one hand, it packages value symbols such as freedom and democracy as universal values, cloaking its hegemonic expansion and interest-grabbing in a mantle of justice, seeking moral legitimacy; on the other hand, driven by real interests and the desire for power, it unabashedly practices realist logic, making national interests supreme the core criterion of foreign policy, applying double standards to allies and subordinate states, and even sacrificing the interests of other countries to secure its own hegemony. The United States is particularly adept at shaping its positive image as a “provider of international public goods,” packaging itself as the “guardian” of Western security and a “benefactor” of international stability. As German scholar Bernd Hamm stated: “They [the United States] liberated us from Nazi rule, they brought us the Marshall Plan, so whatever they do is acceptable… We have no right to criticize them, not even to question them.” [2]2 David Harvey, *The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism* (London: Profile Books, 2010), 216. The United States uses this carefully constructed cognitive trap to constantly disguise its own interests as common interests with subordinate states, package hegemonic demands as collective security needs, and make subordinate states passively accept its ideological output within the illusion of “unity of interests.”

长期以来，美国始终在“理想主义”与现实主义的外交叙事中摇摆，实则是为了调和其文化正当性宣传与实际利益攫取之间的内在张力。一方面，它将自由、民主等价值符号包装成普遍性的价值观，为自身的霸权扩张和利益掠夺披上正义外衣，谋求道义层面的正当性；另一方面，在现实利益与权势欲望的驱动下，又毫不掩饰地践行现实主义逻辑，将国家利益至上作为外交决策的核心准则，对盟友与从属国实行双重标准，甚至不惜牺牲他国利益换取自身霸权稳固。美国尤为擅长塑造自身“国际公共产品提供者”的正面形象，将自己包装成西方国家安全的“守护者”和国际社会稳定的“功臣”。正如德国学者伯尔尼德·哈姆（Bernd Hamm）所说：“他们（指美国）将我们从纳粹统治中解放出来，他们给我们带来了马歇尔计划，所以无论他们做什么都可以……我们没有权力批评他们，甚至没有权力质疑他们。” 美国正是利用这种精心构建的认知陷阱，不断将自身利益伪装成其与从属国的共同利益，将霸权诉求包装成集体安全需求，让从属国在“利益一致”的幻象中被动接受其意识形态输出。

(II) Using “Value Neutrality” to Conceal the Political Factors Behind Culture

（二）以“价值中立”遮蔽文化背后的政治因素

American cultural hegemony primarily functions by exerting a barely perceptible ideological influence. The reason this influence is difficult to detect is that it cleverly utilizes the power of “organic intellectuals” to deliberately conceal the political factors behind culture. It transforms utilitarian social relations and exploitative relations into symbolic power relations, disguises artificial power relations as the natural order of things, and thereby constructs the false legitimacy of ideology. [3]3 Raymond Williams, *Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 91. [Translator’s note: The English original of the quoted passage is from Williams’s *Keywords*; the Chinese translation here is rendered back into English for consistency.]

美国的文化霸权主要通过施加一种难以察觉的意识形态影响力来发挥作用。这种影响力之所以难以被察觉，是因为它巧妙地利用了“有机知识分子”的力量，刻意隐藏了文化背后的政治因素。它将功利性的社会关系和剥削关系转化为符号权力关系，将人为的权力关系伪装成事物的自然秩序，从而构建了意识形态的虚假正当性 。

First, using the symbolic power of “organic intellectuals” to produce false legitimacy.

第一，以“有机知识分子”的符号权力生产虚假正当性。

Gramsci believed that “all men are intellectuals,” and even ordinary manual laborers hold their own worldview, moral ideas, and behavioral norms. [4]4 The phrase “terminal practice” (终端实践) refers to the final stage in the process of ideological transmission, where ideology is internalized by individual members of society. Based on this, Gramsci proposed the concept of “organic intellectuals,” emphasizing that everyone who influences ideas and knowledge plays the role of an intellectual. “Organic intellectuals” primarily play a role in constructing the false legitimacy of ideology through the production of symbolic power. They continuously produce culture and its embedded symbolic values and meanings that other countries readily identify with, “dissolving the resistance, negation, and rejection of capitalism by the ruled classes and the colonized, even assimilating them into adherents and producers of capitalist ideology and cultural logic.” [5]5 John B. Thompson, *Ideology and Modern Culture* (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 228. [Translator’s note: The English original of the quoted passage is from Thompson’s *Ideology and Modern Culture*; the Chinese translation here is rendered back into English for consistency.] After the end of World War II, the vigorous development of American large-scale industrial society gave rise to a new social structure, leading to the emergence of a new type of “organic intellectual” in the cultural field. These individuals, mostly affiliated with specific cultural institutions and engaged in symbolic labor, are widely distributed among middle-class groups such as youth leaders, media professionals, and public relations and marketing personnel. This new type of “organic intellectual” gradually gained the discursive power to interpret and define social life, establishing a new balance between traditional intellectuals and ordinary workers. Winning social trust and respect with their image of “professional neutrality” and “objective rationality,” they maintain the stability of capitalist ideological rule through subtle influence, becoming an important supporting force for consolidating the legitimacy of the system after capitalism entered a highly developed stage.

葛兰西认为，“所有的人都是知识分子”，即使是普通的体力劳动者也会持有自己的一套世界观、道德思想和行为准则 。葛兰西据此提出了“有机知识分子”的概念，强调了一切影响观念和知识的人都发挥着知识分子的作用。“有机知识分子”主要通过符号权力的生产发挥着建构意识形态虚假正当性的作用。他们源源不断地生产出其他国家欣然认同的文化及其蕴含的符号价值和意义，“消解了被统治阶级、被殖民者对资本主义的反抗、否定和抵制，甚至将其同化为资本主义意识形态和文化逻辑的拥趸者和生产者” 。第二次世界大战结束后，美国大工业社会的蓬勃发展催生了新的社会结构，使得文化场域中涌现出一批新型“有机知识分子”。他们多隶属于特定文化机构，从事符号劳动，广泛分布于青年领袖、媒体从业者、公关营销人员等中产阶级群体中。这类新型“有机知识分子”逐渐掌握了阐释、定义社会生活的话语权，在传统知识分子与普通劳动者之间构建起新的平衡。他们以“专业中立”“客观理性”的形象赢得了社会信任与尊重，在潜移默化中维护着资本主义意识形态统治的稳定性，成为资本主义进入高度发达阶段后，巩固制度合法性的重要支撑力量。

Second, using the relative independence and “neutrality” of culture to construct false legitimacy.

第二，以文化的相对独立性和“中立性”建构虚假正当性。

Culture, as a field parallel to politics and economics, possesses its own unique developmental laws and directly influences and constructs social life. The autonomy of culture is particularly evident in certain aspects; for example, in civil society, even without the support of an economic base or state power, the establishment of cultural hegemony can still be achieved. However, the independence of culture is relative; the construction of its legitimacy inevitably requires the support of social values such as wealth, power, and status. As Edward W. Said stated: “On the one hand we have an isolated cultural field considered capable of free, unconditional theoretical speculation and research, and on the other hand a rootless political field… Although people think the two fields are separate, they are not only connected but ultimately the same field.” [6]6 The phrase “information revolution” (信息革命) refers to the rapid development and global spread of digital information and communication technologies since the late 20th century. Therefore, the so-called “neutrality” of culture is a “misrecognition” in cultural practice. “Under any circumstances, the exercise of power requires justification and legitimation, which creates a ‘misrecognition’ of the fundamental arbitrariness of power.” [7]7 John B. Thompson, *Ideology and Modern Culture* (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 60. [Translator’s note: The English original of the quoted passage is from Thompson’s *Ideology and Modern Culture*; the Chinese translation here is rendered back into English for consistency.] The ruling class habitually exploits the so-called “neutrality” of culture to guide individuals into unconscious submission to the established order. The core logic behind this is embedding hegemonic intentions into the fabric of everyday culture, achieving a “depoliticized” form of subtle discipline.

文化作为一个与政治、经济并列的领域，拥有其独特的发展规律，并对社会生活产生直接的影响和构建作用。文化的自主性在某些方面表现得尤为明显，例如在市民社会中，即便缺乏经济基础和国家政权的支持，文化霸权的建立仍然可能实现。然而，文化的独立性是相对的；其正当性的构建不可避免地需要财富、权力、地位等社会价值的支撑。正如爱德华·W.萨义德（Edward W. Said）所说：“我们一方面有一个被认为是可以自由、无条件地进行理论推测和研究的孤立文化领域，另一方面有个失去根基的政治领域……虽然人们认为两个领域是分开的，然而，两者不仅仅是相连的，而且最终是同一个领域。” 因此，所谓文化的“中立性”是一种文化实践中的“误识”，“在任何情况下，权力的实施都需要正当化与合法化，这种正当化与合法化创造出对于权力的根本任意性的‘误识’” 。统治阶级惯常利用文化所谓的“中立性”，引导个体无意识地服从既定秩序。这背后的核心逻辑是将霸权意图嵌入日常文化肌理，实现“去政治化”的隐性规训。

The ruling class of the United States utilizes the ideological state apparatus to widely disseminate its values through mass cultural media such as films, television series, and popular music. In the process of entertainment consumption and aesthetic identification, these media subtly cause individuals to accept their presupposed cognitive frameworks. This cultural output never directly presents itself in the guise of “hegemony”; instead, under the banner of diversity, tolerance, and cultural exchange, it conceals the pursuit of interests and political motives behind it, making people unconsciously identify with its rules and submit to its order. At the same time, the United States leverages its advantages in technology and knowledge production to provide “objective” support for its cultural hegemony. The academic theories, technological standards, and media narratives it dominates collectively create an illusion of “possessing the truth,” further strengthening the legitimacy of its culture. When people regard the values and lifestyles in American culture as symbols of “advancement” and “civilization,” they have already, without realizing it, become recipients and disseminators of American hegemonic logic, and the United States thereby achieves implicit control over global cognition.

美国的统治阶层利用意识形态的国家机器，将其价值观通过电影、电视剧、流行音乐等大众文化媒介广泛传播。这些媒介在娱乐消费和审美认同的过程中，潜移默化地使个体接受其预设的认知框架。这种文化输出从不直接以“霸权”的面貌展现出来，反而以多元包容和文化交流的名义，掩盖其背后的利益追求和政治动机，使得人们在无意识中认同其规则、顺从其秩序。与此同时，美国还利用其在科技和知识生产上的优势，为文化霸权提供“客观性”的支持。其主导的学术理论、科技标准、媒体叙事共同营造了一种“真理在握”的错觉，进一步加强了其文化的正当性。当人们将美国文化中的价值观和生活方式视为“先进”和“文明”的象征时，他们已经在不知不觉中成为美国霸权逻辑的接受者和传播者，而美国也借此实现了对全球认知的隐性控制。

(III) The Construction of “Universality” and Its Hypocrisy

（三）“普世性”建构及其虚伪性

The core of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony lies in constructing a mechanism of “consent” that does not require coercion. By shaping social consensus, it enables the dominated to actively identify with the ruling order at the level of thought and values, ultimately forming a power relation of “voluntary submission.” In the global context of cultural diversity, the value systems of different civilizations and nations have inherent differences. Directly promoting a single ideology easily provokes resistance, so a series of covert strategies must be employed to eliminate differences and consolidate consensus. The so-called “universal values” that the United States vigorously promotes are precisely its core means of fostering this consensus and achieving cultural hegemony, a key operation that packages its own ideology as a global standard. The so-called “universal values” are essentially the concentrated expression of capitalist ideology. It packages certain particular values that are only applicable to Western capitalist societies as universal standards applicable everywhere, while ignoring the particularities and differences of the history and culture of each country and nation. Samuel P. Huntington once stated bluntly: “The concept of a universal civilization is a unique product of Western civilization… The concept of a universal civilization helps to justify Western cultural dominance over other societies and the need for those societies to imitate Western practices and institutions. Universalism is the ideology of the West in dealing with non-Western societies.” The United States uses so-called “universal values” to promote its model of cultural homogenization (i.e., “Americanization”) globally, thereby constructing the false legitimacy of its ideology. This false legitimacy not only reduces the psychological resistance of other countries but also prompts some countries to actively imitate the American system and culture, forming a spiritual dependency on the United States. Therefore, promoting so-called “universal values” has become a powerful tool for the United States to maintain its global cultural hegemony: domestically, it can consolidate consensus and shape the collective identity of the United States as the “city upon a hill”; externally, it constructs a transnational value alliance, transforming ideological consensus into geopolitical advantage, thereby consolidating its global cultural hegemony.

葛兰西霸权理论的核心，在于构建一种无需强制的“同意”机制，通过塑造社会共识，让被支配者在思想与价值层面主动认同统治秩序，最终形成“自愿服从”的权力关系。在文化多样性的全球语境下，不同文明、民族的价值体系存在天然差异，直接推行单一意识形态极易引发抵触，因此必须借助一系列隐性策略消弭分歧、凝聚共识。而美国所极力推广的所谓“普世价值”，正是其促成这种共识、实现文化霸权的核心手段，是将自身意识形态包装为全球通用准则的关键操作。所谓“普世价值”本质上是资本主义意识形态的集中体现。它把仅适用于西方资本主义社会的某些特殊价值，包装成放之四海而皆准的普遍标准，而罔顾各个国家和各个民族文化历史的特殊性和差异性。萨缪尔·亨廷顿（Samuel P. Huntington）就曾直言：“普世文明的概念是西方文明的独特产物……普世文明的概念有助于为西方对其他社会的文化统治和那些社会模仿西方的实践和体制的需要作辩护。普世主义是西方对付非西方社会的意识形态。” 美国利用所谓的“普世价值”，在全球范围内推广其文化一体化模式（亦即“美国化”），以此构建其意识形态的虚假正当性。这种虚假正当性不仅能够降低其他国家的心理抵触，还能促使一些国家主动模仿美式制度与文化，形成对美国的精神依附。因此，推广所谓“普世价值”成为美国维系其全球文化霸权地位的有力工具：对内，它能够凝聚共识，塑造美国是“山巅之国”的集体认同感；对外，它构建起跨国家的价值同盟，将意识形态共识转化为地缘政治优势，从而巩固其全球文化霸权地位。

IV. The Disintegration of the False Legitimacy of American Ideology and the Crisis of Its Cultural Hegemony

四、美国意识形态虚假正当性的瓦解及其文化霸权危机

Power is not equivalent to strength; not all hard power or soft power resources can be automatically transformed into power. The key lies in whether the strategies and methods of transformation are appropriate, and whether they can achieve the assimilation of others’ ideas and ways of thinking, thereby establishing the “legitimacy” of leadership and domination. Some scholars, when discussing the relationship between legitimacy and hegemonic decline, argue that when a hegemon faces a crisis of legitimacy, the coercive power it employs increases the costs of maintenance, thereby triggering hegemonic decline [15]15 See the discussion on the relationship between legitimacy and hegemonic decline in the original text; the specific source is not provided.. In order to prolong its hegemonic position, the United States, when its material power is relatively declining, has had to shift its hegemonic strategy from a “legitimate” leadership that originally focused on obtaining consent and support to a series of “illegitimate” dominations. This inappropriateness in cultural practice and operational strategy gradually erodes the false legitimacy of American ideology, increasingly exposing its inherent unsustainability.

实力并不等同于权力，并非所有硬实力或软实力资源都能自动转化为权力。其关键在于转化的策略与方法是否得当，以及能否实现对他人思想观念和思维方式的同化，进而建立领导与支配关系的“正当性”。有学者在提到合法性与霸权衰落的关系时认为，当霸权出现合法性危机时，霸权国采用的强制性权力会增加护持成本，从而引发霸权的衰落 。美国为了延续其霸权地位，不得不在物质力量相对下降时，将霸权策略从原来注重获得同意与支持的“正当性”领导，转向一系列的“非正当性”支配。这种文化实践和操作策略的失当，逐渐消解了美国意识形态的虚假正当性，日益暴露出其内在的不可持续性。

(I) From “Identity of Interests” to “America First”

（一）从“利益一致”到“美国优先”

In the wave of economic globalization under the influence of neoliberalism, the trend of the American manufacturing sector “shifting from real to virtual” has become difficult to reverse; high unemployment rates have further exacerbated social polarization between rich and poor, and the middle class has felt unprecedented pressure; trends such as populism, protectionism, and xenophobia have risen one after another, making the inherent class contradictions of capitalism even sharper. Against the backdrop of its intensifying crisis, the United States has increasingly abandoned its disguise of “identity of interests” on the international stage, instead adopting the principle of “America First.”

在新自由主义影响下的经济全球化浪潮中，美国制造业的“脱实向虚”趋势难以逆转；高企的失业率进一步加剧了社会的贫富分化，中产阶级感受到了前所未有的压力；民粹主义、保护主义和排外主义等思潮此起彼伏，资本主义固有的阶级矛盾变得更加尖锐。在其危机日益加重的背景下，美国在国际舞台上日益抛弃了其“利益一致”的伪装，转而奉行“美国优先”原则。

From the perspective of hegemony, “America First” was not an invention of the Trump era, but rather the internal driving force behind the long-term promotion of American cultural hegemony. Trump merely brought “America First” nakedly from behind the scenes to the front of the stage, pushing the originally hidden concept of “America First” without any disguise into the spotlight of the international arena, presenting it to the world in a more crude and direct manner, thereby weakening the false legitimacy of the ideology constructed by the United States through “identity of interests.” Faced with increasingly severe domestic crises, the external measures adopted by the U.S. government have become increasingly crude and arrogant, which has also led to the gradual loss of its cultural hegemonic position. Therefore, although the United States is still a country with decisive influence in many fields of the world today, “it no longer functions as a hegemon marked by leading the globe—it has degenerated from a hegemon to ‘non-hegemonic domination’” [16]16 See the discussion on the degeneration from hegemon to “non-hegemonic domination” in the original text; the specific source is not provided..

从霸权视角分析，“美国优先”并不是特朗普时期的首创，而是美国长期推动文化霸权的内在驱动力。特朗普只是将“美国优先”赤裸裸地从幕后推至台前，将原本潜藏于幕后的“美国优先”理念，毫无掩饰地推到了国际舞台的聚光灯下，使其以一种更为赤裸、直白的方式展现在世人面前，削弱了美国通过“利益一致”构建的意识形态的虚假正当性。面对日益严重的国内危机，美国政府采取的对外措施越来越显得粗暴和傲慢，这也导致其文化霸权地位逐渐丧失。因此，尽管当前美国仍是一个对当今世界诸多领域拥有决定性影响的国家，“却已经不再作为以引领全球为标志的霸权而发挥作用——它由霸权退化为‘非霸权支配’” 。

(II) From “Depoliticization” to “Hyper-Politicization”

（二）从“去政治化”到“泛政治化”

Against the backdrop of multiple challenges to its global hegemony, the cultural strategy of the United States is undergoing a fundamental shift, from its past stance of “depoliticization” and neutrality to a full-scale logic of confrontation through “hyper-politicization.” Its core purpose is to use political manipulation in the cultural sphere to cooperate with the strategic goal of suppressing emerging powers, attempting to regain the dominant position on the ideological battlefield. To this end, the United States is gradually incorporating fields such as sports, art, education, and religion—which originally possessed independence and inclusiveness—into the framework of geopolitical competition. Furthermore, under the pretext of “cultural security” and “information security,” the United States is vigorously erecting barriers to cultural decoupling, setting up obstacles to information flow, and implementing technological blockade measures. In the field of education, it implements stricter visa policies for students from specific countries, restricts academic exchanges in sensitive disciplines, and falsely labels normal educational cooperation as “ideological infiltration,” thereby cutting off the bridges of knowledge transmission between different civilizations. In the field of cultural dissemination, it restricts the entry of cultural products such as films, books, and music from specific countries into the U.S. market, hindering the American public’s exposure to diverse cultures. In the information field, it directs some social media platforms to throttle, remove, or ban dissenting opinions, constructing a closed information environment that makes it difficult for the public to access comprehensive and truthful information. At the technological level, under the pretext of “preventing technology abuse,” it restricts the export and cooperation of key technologies such as chips and artificial intelligence, attempting to suppress the cultural dissemination capabilities of competitors through technological monopoly, in order to maintain its dominant position in the global information dissemination system.

在美国全球霸权遭遇多重挑战的背景下，其文化策略正发生根本性转向，从过往标榜“去政治化”的中立姿态全面转向“泛政治化”的对抗逻辑。其核心目的是通过文化领域的政治化操弄，配合打压新兴力量的战略目标，试图在意识形态战场重新掌握主导权。为此，美国正将原本具有独立性与包容性的体育、艺术、教育、宗教等领域，逐步纳入地缘政治博弈的框架，并且美国还以“文化安全”“信息安全”为借口，大肆构筑文化脱钩壁垒、设置信息流动障碍、实施技术封锁措施。在教育领域，对来自特定国家的留学生实施更严格的签证政策，限制敏感学科的学术交流，并将正常的教育合作错误地标签化为“意识形态渗透”，这切断了不同文明间知识传递的桥梁；在文化传播方面，限制特定国家的影视作品、书籍和音乐等文化产品进入美国市场，阻碍了美国民众接触多元文化；在信息领域，主导一些社交媒体平台对不同意见进行限流、下架或封号，构建了一个封闭的信息环境，使得民众难以接触到全面和真实的信息；在技术层面，以“防范技术滥用”为借口，限制芯片、人工智能等关键技术的出口与合作，试图通过技术垄断来抑制竞争对手的文化传播能力，以维护自身在全球信息传播体系中的主导地位。

The American practice of “pan-powerization” and “hyper-politicization” of culture is essentially a response to the hegemonic challenges it faces in the ideological sphere. However, this short-sighted strategy of cultural politicization has not only failed to consolidate its hegemonic position but has directly triggered a “deficit” crisis in the legitimacy of American ideology. Cultural decoupling and technological blockade have disrupted the virtuous cycle of global cultural exchange. The United States has also missed the opportunity to absorb nutrients from diverse cultures, leading to a continuous decline in the creativity and appeal of its cultural products, making it difficult to rely on cultural charm to gain spontaneous recognition from people around the world. More seriously, this hyper-politicized operation has aroused widespread resentment and resistance from the international community. Many countries have become vigilant against the expansion of American cultural hegemony, actively strengthening their own cultural security construction, promoting multicultural cooperation, and bypassing the cultural barriers erected by the United States. The United States originally attempted to contain its competitors through cultural politicization, but the result has been its own isolation in the cultural sphere, with the space for the dissemination of its ideology continuously shrinking and its legitimacy foundation further eroded. This backlash effect not only makes American cultural hegemony precarious but also leads to a continuous decline in its soft power globally, making it difficult to maintain its dominant position through the shaping of value identification.

美国将文化“泛权力化”和“泛政治化”的做法，本质上是为了应对意识形态领域所面临的霸权挑战。然而，这种急功近利的文化政治化策略，不仅未能巩固其霸权地位，反而直接触发了美国意识形态正当性的“赤字”危机。文化脱钩和技术封锁破坏了全球文化交流的良性循环，美国也错失了从多元文化中汲取养分的机会，导致其文化产品的创造力与感染力持续下降，难以再依靠文化魅力获得全球民众的自发认同。更严重的是，这种泛政治化的操作引起了国际社会的广泛反感和抵制。许多国家开始警惕美国的文化霸权扩张，积极加强自身文化安全建设，推动多元文化合作，绕开美国设立的文化壁垒。美国原本试图通过文化政治化来遏制竞争对手，结果却使自己在文化领域陷入孤立，其意识形态的传播空间不断缩小，正当性基础遭到进一步侵蚀。这种反噬效应不仅使美国的文化霸权岌岌可危，更导致其在全球范围内的软实力持续下降，难以再通过价值认同的塑造来维系其主导地位。

(III) From “Universal Values” to “American Exceptionalism”

（三）从“普世价值”到“美国例外”

In American culture, the so-called “universal values” only show one side, while the other side is a completely different “American exceptionalism” deeply intertwined with those “universal values.” “American exceptionalism” is a special ideology rooted in American history, religion, and geopolitics. It does not merely assert that the United States is “different from others,” but places the United States above international rules and universal morality as a special claim. It not only declares that America’s history, institutions, and culture possess unique characteristics, so that it need not follow the ordinary norms applicable to other countries, but also provides a justification—even a sanctification—for this deviation from rules, holding that the United States must play the “sacred role” of leading the world.

在美国文化中，所谓的“普世价值”仅展现了其一面，而另一面则是截然不同的、与“普世价值”深度交织的“美国例外主义”。“美国例外主义”是一种植根于美国历史、宗教和地缘政治的特殊意识形态，它并非仅仅主张美国的“与众不同”，而是将美国置于国际规则和普遍道义之上的特殊论调。它不仅宣称美国的历史、制度、文化具有独一无二的特性，因此无需遵循适用于其他国家的常规准则，而且还为这种对规则的偏离提供了正当化甚至神圣化的辩护，认为美国需扮演领导世界的“神圣角色”。

Against the backdrop of America’s gradually waning global influence, the United States has increasingly torn off the hypocritical mask of its “universal values,” revealing the “American exceptionalism” hidden behind them. The right-wing populist trend represented by Trump has deeply combined with American exceptionalism, the doctrine of manifest destiny, white racism, and the Monroe Doctrine in American history, forming an exclusionary logic of “America first.” He constantly emphasizes America’s uniqueness, claiming that the United States should not be bound by international rules. Its core goal is to destroy the multilateral cooperation framework established in the era of economic globalization and to justify America’s unilateral actions and hegemonic behavior. Guided by this concept, the Trump administration’s behavior exhibited clear destructive characteristics. In the trade field, it imposed high tariffs on some major trading partners and frequently threatened trade wars, completely overturning the pattern of mutually beneficial trade under economic globalization. At the level of international cooperation, the United States successively withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear issue, and multiple international organizations and agreements such as UNESCO, refusing to assume international responsibilities, placing itself outside the multilateral system, and expressing contempt for “universal rules” through concrete actions. This “American exceptional” style of conduct completely tore off the disguise of the United States as a “global leader,” revealing the essence of its hegemonism.

在美国全球影响力逐渐减弱的背景下，美国日益揭下了其“普世价值”的虚伪面具，显露了隐藏其背后的“美国例外主义”。特朗普所代表的右翼民粹主义思潮与美国历史上的美国特殊论、天赋使命论、白人种族主义及门罗主义深度结合，形成了一套美国至上的排他性逻辑。他不断强调美国的独一无二，声称美国不应受国际规则的限制，其核心目标是破坏经济全球化时代建立的多边协作框架，为美国的单边行动和霸权行为正名。在这一理念的指导下，特朗普政府的行为表现出了明显的破坏性特征。在贸易领域，对一些主要贸易伙伴征收高额关税，并频繁以贸易战相威胁，彻底颠覆了经济全球化背景下的贸易互利格局；在国际合作层面，美国相继退出了《跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》《巴黎气候变化协定》《伊朗核问题全面协议》以及联合国教科文组织等多个国际组织和协议，拒绝承担国际责任，将自己置于多边体系之外，用实际行动表达了对“普世规则”的轻视。这种“美国例外”的行事风格，彻底撕下了美国作为“全球领导者”的伪装，揭示了其霸权主义的本质。

Conclusion

结 论

Over a long period, the United States, by leveraging the military, economic, and technological advantages established after the Second World War, constructed a complex and concealed system of false ideological legitimacy, thereby consolidating its global cultural hegemony. However, this false legitimacy is essentially an ideological tool for American hegemonic expansion, and its internal contradictions and unsustainability have become increasingly evident under the impact of the systemic crisis of capitalism. In recent years, with the intensification of domestic contradictions in the United States and the profound transformation of the global power structure, the strategy of the United States to maintain its global hegemony has undergone a fundamental shift: from the disguise of “common interests” to the direct appeal of “America first,” from the implicit discipline of “depoliticization” to the confrontational manipulation of “pan-politicization,” from the promotion of “universal values” to the paranoid assertion of “American exceptionalism.” This series of shifts has not only failed to reverse its hegemonic decline but has instead accelerated the collapse of its false ideological legitimacy, plunging American cultural hegemony into a structural crisis. The collapse of America’s false ideological legitimacy and the resulting crisis of cultural hegemony have broken the long-standing monopoly of Western ideology over global discourse, bringing new historical opportunities for the development of world civilization, and also providing a key window for China to break out of the Western-preset discursive framework and construct its own independent discourse system.

长期以来，美国借助第二次世界大战后确立的军事、经济和科技优势，构建了一套复杂且隐蔽的意识形态虚假正当性体系，从而巩固了其全球文化霸权地位。然而，这种虚假正当性本质上是美国霸权扩张的意识形态工具，其内在矛盾和不可持续性在资本主义系统性危机的冲击下变得越来越明显。近年来，随着美国国内矛盾的加剧以及全球力量格局的深刻变革，美国维系其全球霸权的策略发生了根本性的转变：从“利益一致”的伪装转变为“美国优先”的直接诉求，从“去政治化”的隐性规训转变为“泛政治化”的对抗操弄，从“普世价值”的宣扬转变为“美国例外”的偏执主张。这一系列的转变不仅未能挽救其霸权颓势，反而加速了其意识形态虚假正当性的瓦解，使得美国文化霸权陷入结构性危机。美国意识形态虚假正当性的瓦解及其引发的文化霸权危机，打破了长期以来西方意识形态垄断全球话语的格局，为世界文明的发展带来了新的历史契机，也为中国跳出西方预设的话语框架、构建自主话语体系提供了关键窗口。