Intellectuals+and+Hegemony

Sonja Kelly ||
 * =Title= || "Intellectuals and Hegemony" ||
 * =Author= || Antonio Gramsci ||
 * =Date= || 1929-1936 (written in prison) ||
 * =Summary By= || deRaismes
 * =Summary= || Summary by deRaismes:

Antonio Gramsci focuses his essay on //professional// intellectuals and their relationship to the state and social change. He says that the relationship between intellectuals and the world of production is mediated by civil (private) and political society (the State). These two superstructures display hegemony in different ways. The former is dominated by a single social group who exercise their cultural hegemony through society. The latter displays hegemony through direct command by a government. Intellectuals play a decisive role between these two because they "are the dominant group's 'deputies' exercising the subaltern functions of social hegemony and political government" (264).

Gramsci then states that political consciousness (consciousness of being part of a particular hegemonic force) is a necessary step to a self-consciousness that unites both theory and practice as one. (He calls theory "the handmaid of practice"). The average man has two theoretical consciousnesses of which he is likely unaware: (1) One which is implicit in his activity and which unites him to his fellow-workers in the practical transformation of the real world. (2) One which he inherits from the past and unconsciously absorbs. Once this man becomes self-aware -- gains a critical self-consciousness -- he becomes an intellectual. It is up to this élite to spearhead change. In Gramsci's own words,

"Critical self-consciousness means, historically and politically, the creation of an élite of intellectuals. A human mass does not 'distinguish' itself, does not become independent in its own right without, in the widest sense, organizing itself, and there is no organization without intellectuals, that is, without organizers and leaders, in other words, without the theoretical aspect of the theory-practice nexus being distinguished concretely by the existence of a group of people 'specialized' in conceptual and philosophical elaboration of ideas" (265).

Additional thoughts from Sonja:

It is also worth noting that Gramsci acknowledges that every individual has an intellectual capacity in their work, but it is only a particular set of people that have the societal function of intellectuals (or the vocation, as Weber would put it). Gramsci calls for a new class of intellectuals, the elite intellectuals (as DeRaismes pointed out above) in order to organize the masses to rebel against the hegemony imposed through civil society.

Gramsci's neomarxist origins show through in his analysis of the existence of domination in civil society and political society, but instead of capital inciting the revolution, he sees hegemony and direct domination as inciting revolution (in that order). He stresses that the praxis that comes from a unity of theory and practice is teleological--it is "a part of the historical process" (264). He writes at a time in which we stand on the brink of that praxis, where we will come into a new understanding of our oppression. ||
 * =Discussion points= || How does one become self-aware? How can one locate himself in the multiple webs of power (social, state, economic) mentioned by Gramsci? In this conception of a professional intellectual, must they all be actively pursuing change, or does their very being connote change? Where is the agency?

Additionally... if the intellectuals are the dominant group's "deputies," then how is it possible for them to break out of their function that perpetuates the hegemony and direct domination? Does creating a new class of "elite intellectuals" solve this, or does it complicate the idea of intellectuals? Furthermore, what about exogenous shocks or outside influences? Is it realistic to think that an intellectual will be able to reach radical self awareness on their own? || = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =