Gramsci

The Formation of the Intellectuals

Gramsci takes Marx’s thoughts upon relations between superstructure and substructure of the society as his starting point. Seeing that masses that the workers form who are supposed to be the foundations of a revolution are not willingly supporting Marxist ideas and that they are rather more inclined to obey the capital holding bourgeoisie’s ideology, he suggests that the ruling classes in society shape the cultural, intellectual structure of the society by hegemony. Gramsci’s Marxist starting point and his term hegemony , in the introduction part in Norton Anthology is defined like this:

“ Gramsci’s failed political efforts motivated his revisionist Marxism, which emphasized the way cultural activities interact with both the economy and the state to forge the ‘manufactured consent’ he calls ‘hegemony.’”

According to Gramsci there are two kinds of intellectuals: organic and traditional. Traditional intellectuals are those who are placed in formal institutions such as schools, corporations and they are a part of the continuing hegemonic system. But the organic intellectuals do not share that ‘consent’. “ In contrast, organic intellectuals rise out of membership in social groups (or classes) that have an antagonistic relationship to established institutions and official power.”

Traditional intellectuals’ relationship with the social hegemony and political government is explained by him as such:

“The intellectuals are the dominant group’s ‘deputies’ exercising the subaltern functions of social hegemony and political government. These comprise:

1. The ‘spontaneous’ consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is ‘historically’ caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant  group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production.

2. The apparatus of state coercive power which ‘legally’ enforces discipline on those groups who do not ‘consent’ either actively or passively. This apparatus is, however, constituted fort he whole of society in anticipation of moments of crisis of command and direction when spontaneous consent has failed.”

There is also a function of the intellectuals, that is the responsibility of the intellectual towards all the others in the society. The political act is what distinguishes the intellectual from anyone who contemplates upon intellectual matters:

“All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals.”

 As the matter of intellectuals are taken into account politically, there is also the power struggle between these two groups:

“One of the most important characteristics of any group that is developing towards dominance is its struggle to assimilate and conquer ‘ideologically’ the traditional intellectuals, but this assimilation and conquest is made quicker and more efficacious the more the group in question succeeds in simultaneously elaborating its own organic intellectuals.”

Today, in many of the developing countries the intellectuals that are recognized by the societies are the ones who teach at the formal institutions which have certain curriculums to be followed while giving education to people. It is not as if there are formations which spread the ideas that are too strong of an opposition for the  capitalist  states. That is, of  course, a result of people’s (manufactured?) consent. On the other hand, there are also variety of choices on social media for one ‘organically developed intellectual’ to carry out his/her responsibilities and make a change. Everyone is welcome to try that but, of course, I doubt to what degree one can be successful. In order to use social media and be able to spread ideas, an intellectual should also possess either artistic and creative skills, maybe, to be able to catch the attention of masses. It is ironically very much like advertising, though. I am not sure about that.