It has been said that history is written by the victors. In a capitalist economy, the victors are those who have succeeded in compounding their wealth. Most discussions of capitalism in favor of this economic model focus on this victorious side of the system. Gaining wealth is inherently good and desirable; it should be the life goal of an individual who seeks to thrive in the capitalist economy. Everyone can own property, earn money, and advance in society with hard work, perseverance, and freedom.

Karl Marx famously opposes the status quo perspective of the capitalist political economy that glorifies the small class of society whose limited number of members are inversely proportional to the amount of property they control. He believes that it is unfair to dangle the bait of wealth the faces of the hungry hordes. Marx favors a radically different view of political economy that focuses its sights on the class of people who make the dominant view of capitalism possible. These people, of course, being the workers. The title “worker” did not contrast starkly enough from that of “owner,” so Marx prefixed the words “property-less” and “property” to each respectively.

Why should we give Marx the time of day to understand his work when he cannot grasp the fundamental goal of capitalism? The answer to this question has two parts. ‘The fundamental goal’ is unique to both the workers and owners. Marx affirms that the workers are used and objectified only as a means for economic production. He would argue that the only reason the masses subjected to this objectification take no action to advance their situation or equalize the economy lies in the way society as a whole views the political economy. The typical winner’s perspective is one that Marx abhors for the simple reason that it isolates and immobilizes those who do not share it. It is better for the economy if workers ambitiously toil with the false hope of owning than it is for all workers to fully realize the objects they have become. Marx questions the common view of the political economy and turns it on its head so that we may see the effects of this system on the very individuals it is profiting from. Because the typical view of this particular political economy is unnatural to the masses of workers even though they accept it as natural. From their perspective, Marx believes, social mobility is as non-existent as the god they believe.

(The thoughts and views represented above are NOT held by the author).

In Gramsci’s “The Formation of the Intellectuals”, he begins his essay with a question—“Are intellectuals an autonomous and independent social group, or does every social group have its own particular specialized category of intellectuals?” He spends the rest of this essay discussing the answer to this question. His focus on the intellectuals is put in the context of creating a counter hegemony.

Gramsci agrees with the Marxist theory of power but he does not feel that it was solely based on the role of force and coercion as the basis of ruling class domination. He expanded on this concept of force and coercion by talking about the ideological control and manipulation that serves to perpetuate all repressive structures. He identifies hegemony which refers to ideological control and consent. He assumes that no regime can possibly sustain itself primarily through organized state power and armed force. Over time, it would have to have popular support and legitimacy in order to maintain stability.

According to Gramsci, hegemony is when the elite social group maintains its domination by propagating a worldview that binds the less powerful social groups to serve its interests. It gets to the extent that this prevailing consciousness is internalized by the population it becomes part of what is generally called ‘common sense’ so that the philosophy, culture and morality of the elite comes to appear as the natural order of things. Based on this definition of hegemony, Gramsci states that the only way for the working class to overthrow the dominant social group was if they created a “counter-hegemony”. This would be very difficult considering that the majority of the population has already accepted the current situation and established it as ‘common sense’.

In this way, Gramsci acknowledges that intellectuals would have to play a huge role in creating a counter-hegemony. He also feels that the majority of the population has to participate. This sounds contradictory, which brings us to the first question he asks in his essay regarding who can be considered an intellectual. Gramsci does not define an intellectual as simply academics that study philosophy. Rather, he has a much broader definition. He states that “all men are intellectuals, but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals”. He believes that even factory workers are intellectuals—they must have some sort of technical skill to perform their job. There are two types of intellectuals according to Gramsci—the traditional and the organic. The traditional intellectual would be the clergy, academics and anyone else that feels they are independent of the ruling social group. The organic intellectual is the one that has been shaped by the hegemony. This is the group that has been trained to serve the dominant social group and they are used to uphold the hegemony.

In order to create a counter-hegemony, Gramsci feels that the work of traditional intellectuals as well as the efforts of the mass organic intellectual population was required. It was very important that intellectuals remained active. He states that “the varying distribution of different types of school…over the ‘economic territory…determine…the production of various branches of intellectual specialization”.  Through schooling, Gramsci felt that organic intellectuals could be produced. While schooling can be a tool used by the dominant group to reinforce the hegemony, it is also a useful tool for sparking young minds if the right educators were present. 

Though Karl Marx was devoted to illuminating the struggles of the workers, his writings often demonstrate that “individuals matter most to him as embodiments of ideas, as components of systems” (650).  Fortunately, Antonio Gramsci became a leader in further developing the discipline of cultural theory taking the abstractions of Marx’s theories and adapting them to real world situations.  Gramsci comes to realize, during his exploits as a leader of Italy’s Communist Party in the post-World War I era, that Marxist suppositions that workers all belong to the same class was an over-simplification of the true situation.  Rather Gramsci believed that there was a larger historical context that must always be acknowledged.

Gramsci’s “hegemony” is a fluid and flowing social construct that incorporates itself into every aspect of human life:  economics, politics, education, literature and even religion.  By his reckoning, all of these facets of culture serve to secure the dominance of the ruling class by forming an ideology that the people internalize.  However, this process can only be done by the tacit consent of the people themselves.  Thus, the hegemonic society must construct structures which allow it to continuously convince the masses to buy into the status quo, while also forcing those that would oppose it to toe the line.  He identifies two specific types of intellectuals who help to build hegemonic structures – the traditional intellectual and the organic intellectual.

Initially, in “The Formation of Intellectuals” Gramsci takes great pains in pointing out that all human beings are intellectuals in some manner “but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals… This means that, although one can speak of intellectuals, one cannot speak on non-intellectuals, because non-intellectuals do not exist”  (1004)  Thus, before delving deeply into his technical use of the term “intellectual”, Gramsci acknowledges that, as even the most mundane of tasks requires brain power, we all need intellect regardless if we are a factory worker or a factory owner.

For the purpose of his theory though, Gramsci explains that the traditional intellectual is grown (in a manner of speaking) in the classroom laboratory.  The specific discipline he studies and the extent to which he studies it dictates his technical knowledge, and therefore, his contribution to the hegemonic society.  In the aggregate, the collective efforts of the traditional intellectuals serve to influence the aforementioned aspects of culture (economics, politics, etc.).  In contrast, the organic intellectual arises from the needs of the marginalized to have their dissension from the mainstream voiced.  Ironically, these organic intellectuals serve to further strengthen the hegemonic society by informing its leaders as to what or who needs to be controlled whether through a modification of the predominant ideology or through outright “state coercive power” (1007).

While I find Gramsci’s arguments interesting and at some moments quite profound, I am having a hard time applying them to our current American society of “unproductive workers”.  Make no mistake.  I’m sure that it can be done.  I am just personally having a hard time visualizing it.  For example, at one point he says:  “In the apparatus of social and state directions there exist a whole series of jobs of a manual and instrumental character (non-executive work, agents rather than officials or functionaries)” (1007).  In my mind, the “agents” would be the average cubical dwelling office laborer, while the “officials” would be the head honcho directors and company presidents.  But where do the managers and supervisors fall in this construct?

Several paragraphs earlier, Gramsci asserts that society’s “need to provide the widest base possible for the selection and elaboration of the top intellectual qualifications…creates the possibility of vast crises of unemployment for the middle intellectual strata, and in all modern society’s this actually takes place” (1006).  Is this the answer to my question about middle management?  Are they deemed non-essential, and therefore, sacked whenever the corporate world needs to trim the fat?  Was their decision to actually major in management rather than a specific skill like mechanical engineering or economics and finance in college actually their fatal flaw?  I could use a bit of help on this point.

As AC begins to describe the origins of Intellectuals and how they come to be, he distinguishes them into categories. The first one is of the organic intellectual that is created through the process of the creation of the class he is a part of. The organic intellectual as a product of his class and grows with it. The method in which organic intellectuals come Into being is the greatest difference between it and the traditional intellectual; that by being developed within their class, the organic intellectual is tied far more to the present and the conditions of the future than the traditional.

The traditional intellectual is tied to the old hegemonic structure of the world, and as a result of this feels ascended from the masses; and to an extent even the reality they participate in. The ecclesiastic intellectual sees itself as an autonomous class, closer to the divine than the real world. Antonio give a great example when explaining that the Pope feels a closer connection and devotion to god, rather than those who rule the world around them (ministers in the Italian government).

It is important to note that the purpose of this intellectual has been throughout the history of his existence; the coercion and management of the lower strata of society for the dominant class.

There is a close ally in the organic intellectual, as a member of the masses their participation is crucial to the advancement of a socialist state. The utility of the organic intellectual is above that of the traditional intellectual, which is why they are a product of this ruling class to occupy the bourgeois offices within society.

In the transition and governance of a socialist state the participation of this group of intellectuals is crucial to the realization of this type of state. In the same way the intellectual has been the deputy of capitalist society, so to can be the architect of a far more inclusive hegemonic structure in a socialist one.

The traditional intellectual if enamored with his history and tradition which is the platform for his pride and elitism. This mentality has made of traditional intellectuals a group who live in their own utopia of thought, devoid of any practical use in modernity; the consequence of this is catastrophic (as we have seen throughout history).

The creators in society, or the home fabre participate in intellectual thought. The common man is an intellectual who, while not fully functioning as one, employs intellectual thought in both his everyday life and his conception of life itself. Gramsci makes this point so that we can fully  understand the creation of this new type of intellectual who employ the technical and the abstract to “conform to the development of real forms of life(read: utility).

The creator and the thinker are no longer two separate entities, and especially not in competition with each other. Antonio calls the equilibrium between the schools of thought and of labor the perfect platform for future intellectuals. By making this assertion Gramsci also elevates the worker to the heights of intellectuals and works them into this discourse with intellectuals; by including workers in the same realm of importance as intellectuals he has created the basis for a hegemonic order that is inclusive of all members of society.

The idea of intellectualism instantly brings up the eloquence of the intellectual; the soft spoken pinky popping tea drinker. The purpose for eloquence is merely for the swaying of hearts and feelings, it is the idea of intellectualism; not the actual implementation of intellectual thought. It is the implementation of intellectualism that is important to AG, because it is through technical intellectualism and practicality that we gain actual tangible advancements for society.

Intellectuals are the deputies of the dominant group. Educational institutions serve to create these deputies and to further the creation of technological production in a state so that the state can make more machines. The higher the specializations available, and the more vertical schooling there is the advanced the civilization and the more it can produce. Intellectuals play the bourgeoisie role in these schools, they are the managers for the dominant group. The conceit of the lower stratas of society is one of the most important function of school as well.

Schools are lightning rods for the hopes of the lower strata of society; a symbol of the possibility of upward mobility.

To the worker economic life is something completely outside of him. He is separated in spirit from the activity of labor. The object of labor is owned not by the worker but by the capitalist, it is for this reason that labor is destructive to the worker because he is not working for himself and is said to be slave, coerced into servitude for the advancement of the capitalist.

This removal and numbing of oneself from this aspect of life dehumanize the laborer and value only the motor functions available to him(animalistic), this void of any autonomy of the whole existence of a person is the reason Marx states that “The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself “.

Marx sees irony all-around the entire spectrum of liberal capitalist society because it destroys itself while trying to expand itself. One irony is that sophistication of labor only dumbs down the worker, this analogy points almost directly to the FoxConn sweatshops in china. FoxConn creates one of the most sophisticated items anyone can own, yet the workers suffer immensely when creating it and work in an assembly line that strips them of the need to use any cognitive function at all. These phones are sophisticated pieces of technology that destroy the lives of the women who create them; this act of creating them destroy all semblance of sophistication in the lives of the people who create it.

The only respite from the self-deprivation and mutilation of labor is the home: the only place in society where a semblance of humanity exists for the worker to fall back on. Economic life is less a life than any other aspects of living for the worker, it is a place where the advancement of one’s soul does not happen, it is in fact stifled during this time because the worker must remove himself from himself to be effective. If we are only home at our actual physical home, can we really call our country ours if we don’t feel that it is?

The alienation phase of the worker is the totality of the destruction of the worker’s humanity. According to Marx, an increase in production does not trickle down to the worker, but rather up to the property holders. This increased capital works against the worker by creating a decrease in the total value of the worker relative to the amount of wealth held at the top; this is the entire premise behind all the current talk in liberal politics regarding redistribution of wealth. Though we must not understand it as taking away from those who have, but rather creating as system where the money that exists does not simply flow in the same direction at all times.

At this point I found myself taken aback, and read this as an excuse to be lazy and put off work that we may find meaningless, but upon further inspection it seems Marx is not shunning hard work but rather questioning the possession of work itself and who is benefitting from it. The economic life, or in other words our productivity should produce, for not just those who we work for, but ourselves as well, if not then why do it at all. Marx encourages constant introspection during our work; we must question why we do things and whether the value we create through our labor is advancing not only the physical existence of a person in society, but also elevating and expanding the soul as well.

I think I now finally understand why people say Universities are liberal, socialist, god-less think tanks (run by democrats). Meh…

      Gramsci attempts to demonstrate the issues of social groups and intellectuals. He discusses the concept that everyone is an intellectual in their own specific way. Everyone specializes differently but not everyone is considered an “organiser of the ‘confidence’ of investors…”. Antonio then discusses the issues that socialists must accomplish with intellectuals. He makes this idea that is somewhat challenging to understand, because he describes the concept of “elite” organizing intellectuals into the groups in which they are good at. The things that people are good at is a result of the social group into which they were born in. He attempts to distinguish between intellectuals and non intellectuals. However he makes it very clear that although he tries to differentiate between the groups, there is no such thing as a non-intellectual group. Everyone is an intellectual as I stated before, but the amount of “celebral elaboration and muscular-nervous system effort is not always the same”.

        As of what I understand everyone has the intellectual capability to become a philosopher. It is up to society to help nourish the intellectuals. Gramsci uses marxism in this ideology of intellectuals. To help produce intellectuals he states that “different types of school( classical and professional) over the economic territory….give form to the production of various branches of intellectual specialisation”. This just states that the different social groups and “fabric” of society vary with the amount of  “organic quality” of intellectuals. I took this as the idea of industrialization aiding the specialisation of different intellectuals. A term that I saw that was repeated often was “hegemony”. He uses this term to specifically point out socialism and marxism. He uses hegemony to demonstrate that the ruling class used this to help keep their position in power. They persuade the lower classes to listen to their ideas, morals, and economic strategies.  It influences the lower class, but this is the reason why he stresses the need of intellectuals. He wants to control this hegemony by using intellectuals to dominate the higher class that is in power. 

      He specifically identifies an organic intellectual. From my understanding an organic intellectual is one that does not aim to assist the bourgeoise. Instead they help spread their ideas around in their group. Gramsci made a specific differentiation with organic and tradtional. On page 1003 Gramsci uses the Pope and the Church to show a traditional intellectual. He mocks the church because the identify themselves as ‘independent’. However they are closely tied with the higher class and aiding them. 

Political Economy fails in many aspects through the eyes of Karl Marx. In the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844” Marx makes a claim for the failure of political economy as he calls it, to promote the growth and progress of the very people that sustain this economic system; workers. In his explanation of the accepted values of this system, Marx states that workers are marginalized and alienated at various levels. One particular idea that provokes many thoughts in Marx’s essay is the relationship between labor (worker) and production and how he is alienated from it. In Marx’s words he believes workers are directly influenced to the amount of production they can make. He says “the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume, the more value he creates, the more valueless, the more unworthy he becomes…”. This of course creates the notion that in reality, workers only have value for the employer, or that they just no longer belong to or form a part of the system. Marx calls this phenomenon”estrangement” and in my opinion it is one of the most powerful points in Marx’s argument. In other words workers are set aside or made to seem worthless in a system that is allegedly predicated on giving everyone an equal opportunity to progress and gain capital.

Another aspect of this alienation is the loss of identity that workers experience as a result of this liberal capitalist system. According the Marx when living in a political economic system workers see themselves as workers first, before they even see themselves are physical beings. He believes that workers get so consumed with the idea of competing and being better than others that they invest their physical and mental health to achieve a goal that has been forced upon him as labor becomes “not voluntary but, coerced”. In my opinion as a person living in a capitalist society, I believe that many things can be changed or improved. One of these things is the distribution of wealth, I believe that redistributing the wealth among the people in a more or less balanced manner could better society because most of the wealth is in the hands of the famous “1%”. Extreme poverty is not so abundant as it was during Marx’s days, however closing the gap between the 1% and the rest of the people could certainly help the economy and society better as a whole.

Antonio Gramsci begins questioning whether intellectuals can be a social class or does not have its own special category of intellectuals. According to Gramsci, everyone is an intellectual. There are two types of intellectuals, Traditional Intellectuals and Organic Intellectuals. The traditional Intellectuals autonomous independence while organic intellectuals are bound to class, and more practical.
The difference between the intellectuals and non-intellectuals, means to refer in reality only to the immediate social function of the professional category of the intellectuals, with the intention of  what direction the mind is set on based on a specific professional activity, whether towards intellectual elaboration or towards muscular-nervous effort. Meaning, as Gramsci puts it “although one can speak of intellectuals, one cannot speak of non-intellectuals, because non-intellectuals do not exist.” Gramsci states that “all men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals” meaning some may imitate the social function of the professional category of the intellectuals while others are primarily focus on the ‘muscular nervous effort.’ Nevertheless Gramsci also states that “there is no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded: homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens”, whatever the profession may be Gramsci states that each person “carries on some form of [scholar] activity” such as a ‘philosopher’ who is consider to be “an artist, a man of taste, that contributes his moral conduct’ from the start to change the world. To be able to create a new stratum of intellectuals, it will take the effort to find the intellectual activity that is within everyone at a certain stage. The muscular-nervous effort by itself becomes the groundwork of a new idea for the world. Gramsci’s newspaper “Ordine Nuovo” states that he believes that worked is to develop a “new intellectualism and to develop its new concepts, which confirmed to the development of the real forms of life.” Gramsci states that there is “historically formed specialized category for the exercise of the intellectual function which is formed in connection with all of the social groups, especially the dominant social class. Classes that develop this dominancy struggles to understand the ‘ideologically’ of traditional intellectuals were quickly developed into organic intellectuals. In addition relating to Raymond Williams “Hegemony” from Marxism and Literature discusses the power of the ruling class to create consent for its position through the use of social and cultural forces.

I’ve just posted study questions for the entire unit with corrected page #s, FYI.  And I wanted to share with you an image of a “camera obscura” to make Marx’s metaphor a bit less, well, obscure:

[description from the Cabinet of Wonders blog]: The camera obscura works under the same principles as the pinhole camera: you make a small hole in the side of a box (either a real box or a room-sized box) and the light outside will get in through the hole and project itself onto a piece of paper or a wall, showing you a perfect image of the scene on the outside of the box. Because light travels in a straight line, and because the hole is small, the light on one side of the scene will have to come through at an opposing angle from the light on the other side of the scene.

As we discussed, the metaphor points at the way cultural representations preserve a kind of fidelity to social reality (i.e., the representation issues from the real thing) but in a distorted manner.  So the work of “ideological criticism” is to re-establish the relationship between reality and representation, a job that’s much more complex in most cases than the simple two-dimensional “flip” in a camera obscura would suggest.