In Antonio Gamsci’s “The Formation if the Intellectuals”, he primarily deals with defining what it means to be an intellectual, the different types of intellectuals and what their functions in society are. He first differentiates between the organic intellectual and the traditional intellectual. The traditional intellectual is the easiest to extract from his explanation as it includes the type of individuals we customarily associate with intellectualism. Gramsci’s examples of these intellectuals are medical men, lawyers, judges, administrators, scholars, scientists, ecclesiastics, and non-ecclesiastic philosophers. He states that they “put themselves forward as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group” (1003). In saying that this is how they represent themselves Gramsci casts doubt on the correctness of this assertion. According to Marx, there is a difference between how men think of themselves and the world around them (idealogical forms) and their “real life-processes” that are “bound to material premises” (663). Traditional intellectuals have the appearance of autonomy and independence because they pre-date the emerging “essential” social group and their existence seems resistant to political and social change. They also involve “special qualification” (1003).

The organic intellectual has a somewhat different characterization. It is the type of intellectual that is created in tandem with “every new class” (1002). Its development is also tied to the growth of this class. These organic intellectuals are described as “organisers” in different spheres of society who are tied to economic production (1002).

Besides citing the types of intellectuals, Gramsci posits that all men, including laborers that participate in physical work, utilize their intellectual capacity in conjunction with their physical capabilities. He states, “in any physical work even the most degraded and mechanical, there exists a minimum of technical qualification, that is, a minimum of creative intellectual activity” (1004). We all have to wear different hats and every individual is a kind of “renaissance man” in his own right. For some reason this reminds me of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (1983) that hypothesizes that there are multiple spheres of intelligence instead of just one single intelligence as standard IQ tests appeared to suggest. For example, you can have visual-spatial intelligence like an artist, musical-rhythmic intelligence like a composer and/or logical-mathematical intelligence, and so on. The idea is that you can possess more than one of these abilities to different extents. The same goes for physical and intellectual work or effort because Gramsci suggests that work is never a purely physical or intellectual practice. “Professional activity” is just weighted “towards intellectual elaboration or towards muscular-nervous effort” to different extents (1004).

Gramsci impresses upon his audience that there are only “varying degrees of specific intellectual activity” (1004). The distinction he makes between the intellectual capacities of all men is the application of them. The intellectual, in contrast with someone utilizing their intellectual capacity, has a specific social function to fulfill within society. The intellectual’s function is grounded in directive action – organizing society and participating in hegemony by reinforcing the dominant position in society or voicing dissent. They play a role in the formation of culture and counter-culture.