About us

Leading international thinktank and political network

Newsletter

Register for all the latest updates in our regular newsletter

Home Opinion What Antonio Gramsci offers to social democracy

What Antonio Gramsci offers to social democracy

Sally Davison - 10 October 2011

Download
Gramsci’s notion of hegemony offers social democrats an analytical framework within which to better understand and challenge the entrenched interests of capital in society and a way of thinking about creating the conditions for political change


A key dilemma for social democrats today is to find a way of challenging the dominance of capital and business interests while remaining located within a gradualist framework that does not envisage any immediate prospect of fundamental change. If no serious alternative is on the cards, is there any point in critiquing the way that capitalism functions? If the left’s influence appears to be diminishing, why not accept that there is no alternative to the market? Without contemporary answers to these questions, social democrats face continuing decline: throughout the current financial crisis their popularity has been plummeting, largely because they have been unable to make a principled stand against those responsible for what has happened – for indeed many have largely embraced the same policies. Social democrats lack a politics that can simultaneously both act as a critique of capitalism and yet accept that it is the system in which they will continue to operate for the foreseeable future.

I believe that Antonio Gramsci – a man who endured bitter defeat, prison and death in Mussolini’s Italy – continues to offer the best answers to these questions, precisely because he was forced to confront the question of how popular resistance could continue to be marshalled at a time of defeat, and how to turn resistance into the kernel of a new society.  His concept of hegemony offers a way of thinking about creating the conditions for political change while recognising that there is little immediate chance of a major breakthrough. In fact Gramsci has been described by Stuart Hall as ‘our foremost theorist of defeat’ – perhaps another reason to turn to him today! Gramsci’s unrelenting realism, his ‘pessimism of the intellect’, did not prevent him from continuing to maintain an ‘optimism of the will’ throughout his political life.1 

Gramsci was a founding member and later leader of the Italian Communist Party, and thus was on the revolutionary side of the split in the Second International that took place after the first world war and the Bolshevik revolution. Born in Sardinia, by the time of these events he was living in Turin, the centre of industrial activity in Italy, and a city where at first there appeared to be the chance for a Bolshevik-style popular uprising. However after the defeat of the factory council movement and the rise of fascism, Gramsci sought to analyse how those in power continued to find new ways of maintaining their position. While he was in prison – from 1926 to 1937, when he died – he set himself the task of understanding the causes of the defeats suffered by the revolutionary left during the 1920s, and of theorising an alternative path of action in Europe and America. The key selection of these writings is Selections from the Prison Notebooks, translated and published in 1971.2

Rather than a frontal war between dominant and subordinate classes, Gramsci saw a more protracted struggle taking place in civil society, within all the organisations of social and cultural life – and between political alliances around the fundamental classes. Each side in this ‘war of position’ would seek to attain hegemony, i.e. not just a temporary majority for a tactical programme, but a position of intellectual and moral leadership that would provide solutions to other classes and social groups, and unify them around a strategic vision and programme.

This recognition that in countries with well developed civil societies the political battle takes place across a very wide terrain – and Gramsci’s unique way of exploring this terrain in all its complex inter-relationships of economy, politics and culture – remains crucial for the left today, including for social democrats (who remained in the Second International after the historic split, but whose weakness, in contrast to the leftists, has often been an apparent willingness to wait for ever for even the smallest of ‘reformist’ gains, and not to seek to grasp the essential contours of the battle). In his notions of a war of position, and the battle for hegemonic leadership, Gramsci speaks both to revolutionaries who long for change but recognise it is not on the horizon, and social democrats who reject oppositionalism but want to make headway against the political economic and cultural dominance of capital.

Gramsci’s notion of hegemony

Perhaps Gramsci’s most important concept for contemporary politics is his notion of hegemony – rule that is secured through the broad consent of the population, rather than through domination. This is secured partly through making concessions to subordinate groups, but most crucially through seeking to make the ideas of the interests represented by the dominant classes appear to be the obvious ‘common sense’ of a whole society. (‘Common sense’ is another key Gramscian term.) The idea of hegemonic rule helped to account for the difficulties that had been faced by socialist parties of all kinds in the 1920s, but also, even more importantly, it opened up the possibility of thinking about ways in which socialists could try to develop counter-hegemonic strategies, to build alliances based on a different kind of common sense. The working class needed to find a way of representing their interests in terms of ideas that would strike a chord across society, to show that they could represent the whole of society and not just their own sectional interest. Capitalist hegemony – which of course takes different forms in different times and places – was something that much work went into securing, work that was carried out by the ‘organic intellectuals’ (another key Gramscian term) who do the cultural and ideological work that seeks to secure consent for the class they serve – for example priests or journalists. A contemporary example would be those working in corporate PR. Hegemony is never stable, and this means that, however strong it appears to be (however much, for example, the market is presented as the only way of organising society), it is possible to intervene to disrupt that hegemony and put forward an alternative way of looking at the world, an alternative moral and political philosophy.

Gramsci understood that capitalism would always encounter crises of finance and production (i.e. boom and bust can never be a thing of the past), and he sought ways of understanding how the crises within hegemonic rule that are possible consequences of such crises could be taken as opportunities for counter-hegemonic forces to put forward their new solutions. He saw that specific forms of hegemonic rule could be remade in such moments of crisis – so that either the existing dominant class would regroup to piece together a new hegemonic strategy, or a new challenge could be made to their whole way of thinking and doing. Thus fascism represented a new configuration of alliances and ideology within Italy that allowed business interests to continue to predominate after the battles of the first world war. (To be sure force was also involved, but the support of large sections of the population was secured through fascist rhetoric and social organisation, and a new articulation of different interests and ideas.)

The concept of conjuncture was crucial in this analysis. ‘Conjunctural analysis’ is pitched at a level that looks at cultural, ideological and social forces, as well as at the underlying economic structures, of any given moment. A conjuncture is a coming together into a particular articulation of all the complex forces operating in a society during a given period, to form a settlement that is able hold for that period; and it can partly be characterised by the particular nature of the common sense ideas that help hold together its specific hegemonic alliance of dominant interests. When a crisis disrupts such a settlement – such as the recent financial crisis – there may be an opportunity to intervene to put forward a whole new way of thinking about and organising society. That is clearly something that has not happened during the recent financial crisis – and one reason for this is the huge amount of work put in by organic intellectuals of the corporate world in support of their way of making sense of the world, and the lack of a parallel strategic vision by social democrats.

Stuart Hall and Gramsci

Stuart Hall, the intellectual who has most creatively deployed Gramsci’s insights for the analysis of contemporary society, made one of his most important contributions  to British politics when he analysed Thatcherism in these terms. He saw Thatcherism as a new hegemonic project, which intervened in the stasis of the 1970s – a time when the postwar social consensus was no longer secure, and for a while no government  appeared to be able to solve Britain’s problems – to redefine the  political terrain and secure consent for a new set of common sense ideas about how to run a country. Drawing explicitly on Gramsci, he discussed the shift to the right (‘the great moving right show’) as a response to an ‘organic phenomenon’ – a process of long-term deep structural changes and contradictions in economy and society – and argued that political forces in favour of the status quo had intervened to create a new balance of forces – a new ‘historic block’ – in order to maintain their power. As he also argued: ‘these new elements do not “emerge”; they have to be constructed. Political and ideological work is required to disarticulate old formations, and to rework their elements into new ones. The “swing to the right” is not a reflection of the crisis: it is itself a response to the crisis’.3

As Hall notes, Thatcher succeeded in translating free market economics into: ‘the language of experience, moral imperative and common sense, thus providing a “philosophy” in the broader sense – an alternative ethic to that of the “caring society”’. He describes this as a ‘translation of a theoretical ideology into a popular idiom’. Thatcherism articulated a new populist politics through drawing attention to the  weaknesses of the current settlement, through addressing  people as consumers  rather than producers, and articulating together a set of disparate ideas characterised by Hall as ‘authoritarian populism’.4  None of this analysis would have been possible without Gramscian concepts.

Stuart Hall also drew on Gramsci’s essay ‘Americanism and Fordism’ as a good starting place for analysing the ‘new times’ that Thatcherism both responded to and nurtured.5   In this essay Gramsci was trying to analyse a new epoch – Fordism – and to assess the prospects for the left at that time. As Hall points out, in his analysis Gramsci considers a broad range of issues, not only new forms of capitalist accumulation and industrial production, but also a very wide range of cultural issues, and a discussion about the kind of person this epoch might produce. Hall takes this as an example of an approach that attempts to deal with the complexity and ‘over-determined’ nature of any given historical conjuncture, and thereby meets the need for a corresponding complexity of analysis.

Some critics have argued that Hall’s analysis was too pessimistic – that he was so attuned to the brilliance of the Thatcherite project that all he could do was admire. This is to miss the point of the analysis. In understanding how Thatcher was able to respond to the conjunctural crisis of the late 1970s, we can see that Thatcherism was a political project that worked to secure consent of popular forces for its particular aims. The lessons from this are, firstly that hegemony was actively constructed – it was not inevitable; and, secondly, that that the left could also set about constructing a project that tapped into popular thinking with a view to mobilising around a different set of aims. It is important to note that this is not the same as listening to focus groups and reflecting their views. The idea of a hegemonic project is to take the elements of good sense that already exist (for example social aspirations already present such as support for public services, or people’s sense of hospitality towards strangers) and articulate them together to create new ways of making sense of the present, embodied in a political programme.

Since these writings of the late 1970s and 1980s, Hall has revisited these debates in terms of analysing Blairism and more recently Cameronism. He argues that both these later political formations did not represent new political conjunctures, but were phases within a wider settlement that can be characterised as neoliberal – the period of the resurgence of business and finance interests after their temporary (slight) taming after the second world war. The common sense of this whole period has been dominated by the idea that there is no alternative to the market. As Hall argues, market forces can be seen ‘as a brilliant linguistic substitute for “the capitalist system”, in that it erases so much of what capital actually does’ (summoning up as it does a benign picture of colourful stallholders and vegetables). And:

… since we all use the market every day, it suggests that we all somehow already have a vested interest in conceding everything to it. It conscripted us. Now, when you get to that point, the political forces associated with that project, and the philosophical propositions that have won their way into common sense, are very tough to dislodge.6

As the work of Stuart Hall as briefly outlined above clearly demonstrates, thinking with Gramscian ideas allows us to get a much clearer understanding of the complexities that make up the current political situation – both in terms of the underlying features and the more subjective elements. It also alerts us to the need for intellectual work in countering the dominant current sense, but at the same time affirms to us that it is possible to do so. And, not least, it indicates that paying attention to cultural issues is a critical part of political life.

This essay is a contribution to the Social Democracy Observatory series on "The classics of social democratic thought"

Sally Davison is managing editor of Soundings


End notes

1. ‘I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will’, letter from prison 1929 – this is one of the most famous quotations from Gramsci, but its origin is also attributed to Romain Rolland.

2. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from Prison Notebooks, Lawrence & Wishart 1971.

3. Stuart Hall, ‘The Great Moving Right Show’, Marxism Today, January 1979. Available at: http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/index_frame.htm.

4. For more discussion on authoritarian populism, see Stuart Hall et al, Policing the Crisis, Mugging, the State and Law and Order, Macmillan 1979.

5. ‘Americanism and Fordism’, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, pp277-318.

6. Stuart Hall and Doreen Massey, ‘Interpreting the crisis’, Soundings 44.
Image: Flickrenric 2011

This is a contribution to Policy Network's work on Globalisation and Governance.

Tags: Antonio Gramsci , social democracy , hegemony , social change , Sally Davison , Stuart Hall , centre-left , Prison Notebooks

Comments

Adam
20 November 2016 22:10

I'm slightly concerned that the first comment on this thread has missed the point entirely, it being that the left is in defeat at the time of writing, and populist forces from the right are where the current hegemonic terrain lies, but this is an understandable misconception when you believe somehow that the Democrats are a socially progressive leftist trend who have expanded the state apparatus, which in historical and material reality just isn't the case . That is of course the other side of the gramscian coin, and to read Gramsci or thus topic in general I think one should first understand or at least stamp to get your head round his 'philosophy of praxis', without that dialectic starting point you'd be lost.

John_LA
06 September 2014 19:23

As a republican conservative, this is an eye-opening article! What we have here is an intellectual, professor no less, confronting the reality that even a partial implementation of socialism, having brought about “continuing decline: throughout the financial crisis” of their own making, has nothing to offer to compete with capitalism in the way of recovery. Instead of admission of failure, she decides to put forward a solution based on Gramsci’s principles,... like it was a fresh new approach. It has been a bitter experience to watch Gramsci’s principles at work in America. Obama, the ideologue, as the cat’s-paw to George Soros along with the far left cooption of the Democratic Party, judicial system, press, Hollywood, educational system, etc. have followed Gramsci’s principles and demagogued America’s civil society against itself. Social destruction, cultural Marxism, is firing on all cylinders. Although, if we look more closely, we find the general population isn’t buying it. That is why government popularity is at an all-time low – and I mean LOW. Government officials, Democrat and mainstream Republican, have the bit in their teeth and are running amok expanding the government, violating the Constitution, implementing illegal as well as unconstitutional programs, laws, and turning agencies of the government into coercive entities against the people. Gee, sounds like the complete success of socialism, and if you mean following the road to hell, we might even get there. However, even while the left is calling everybody who disagrees with them a racist, unrepentant neocolonialist, greedy, squanderer of the world’s wealth and resources, the proletariat is beginning to notice the persistence of the continuing economic decline. Yes, the excrement Lenin referred to is beginning to wonder if socialism isn’t what they vaguely remember what they were told it was - utopia. Worse, the masterminds like Sally Davidson are beginning to doubt – not that socialism can’t be crammed down the throat of an unwilling population, not that the most prosperous successful government the world has ever produced can’t be destroyed, not that a civil society can’t be unraveled with demagoguery, factionalism and class envy, and not that recovery can’t be blocked by the biggest Cloward-Piven strategy ever devised using the national debt to drive the world practically into the second dark ages. No, they are beginning to doubt whether they and all the other elitists can survive the coming planned calamity and still maintain their lifestyle at the expense of the rest of the population the way all previous socialist tyrannies have. They are beginning to doubt whether the new socialist order at its best would really be better than “vulture capitalism” at its worst. However, the most interesting thing is that her reaction to this realization is to go from dispensing the Kool-Aid to drinking it, and not only drinking it, but savoring each nuance as one is transformed from lucid to delusional. First, begin with a lie – “throughout the current financial crisis their (socialist democrats) popularity has been plummeting, largely because they have been unable to make a principled stand against those responsible (she means capitalists here) for what has happened.” However, it is irrational, even for a socialist democrat, to take a stand or make an argument much less a principled one against themselves. It is a triumph of Gramscian leftist strategy that perverted the entire loan/mortgage industry into making loans to unqualified recipients that brought on the financial crisis. This triumph consisted of dislodging common sense (making loans to qualified applicants) and replacing it with a political program that mobilized a good social aspiration (more people owning their own home) into a moral imperative by (disabling standards of financial qualification established by years of experience) and in the name of a “caring society” making loans to unqualified applicants. The results of which have been “historical” to say the least. Both Hall and Davison see the laws of economics as simply a Gramscian hegemony project that can go either capitalist of socialist, and it is up to you which you believe will work. What they don’t see or won’t tell you is that it is not. Free market economics is the language of experience, moral imperative and common sense because it works, and statist utopian socialism throughout all history and experience simply does not work. And no amount of Gramscian mind games or self delusion will make it work or even let you think it is working, when it is not.

telroeqzo
27 November 2012 04:29

ZpT35e , [url=http://ulolhezaiwlk.com/]ulolhezaiwlk[/url], [link=http://wdxsikgcbqvc.com/]wdxsikgcbqvc[/link], http://yfyyoctbkdas.com/

qwcmnv
27 November 2012 04:29

Pgp3yy , [url=http://gwarnfvgrprq.com/]gwarnfvgrprq[/url], [link=http://ikniirayktlb.com/]ikniirayktlb[/link], http://duhrtiqmqvxe.com/

cejsep
27 November 2012 03:37

gvr0to , [url=http://adhxncvlljff.com/]adhxncvlljff[/url], [link=http://myllrjxutwdo.com/]myllrjxutwdo[/link], http://leshtrmxxido.com/

jkdeedu
26 November 2012 04:59

Kxjy3z , [url=http://waosfsvhiawa.com/]waosfsvhiawa[/url], [link=http://bqocpkpzhleo.com/]bqocpkpzhleo[/link], http://jznaawlhaeoj.com/

lzzouuum
26 November 2012 04:10

RBBabu , [url=http://lvrmzzcgxaaq.com/]lvrmzzcgxaaq[/url], [link=http://ahscuclqunyf.com/]ahscuclqunyf[/link], http://thiuupsxqmix.com/

Araceli
23 November 2012 22:06

“All men are intellectuals”, evreyone of us has the possibility, the rational ability to use his or her intellect in a proper, useful way. Nevertheless, only few people are regarded, in our society, as intellectuals. According to Gramsci being intellectual was, and to me still is, seen as a social status rather than being seen as the fundamental precondition of every human being. According to Gramsci, the organic intellectuals are not the solution for this problem; as a matter of fact, an organic intellectual is not a simple, traditional intellectual that stands apart from society, but it is an intellectual extremely integrated with it. An organic intellectual operate on a cultural, ideological and semiotics level, helping articulating a specific hegemony with the aim to maintain the status quo. Gramsci believed that the only way education could have use to criticize the hegemonic status quo was the creation of a working class culture made by working-class intellectuals. In Gramsci opinion’s this is the only way in which education can become popular, innovative and critical. Gramsci expressed these theories more than 50 years ago and, unfortunately, I have to say that, nowadays, they are preeminently remaining theories rather than practice. Having experienced both an Italian and an American university I have seen how the Italian system still makes the gap professor-teacher much more clear than in the American system. In an university like JCU this gap is less emphasized and less perceived by students, but, nevertheless, the fact that professors are less seen as “detached intellectual” does not make JCU an anti or non hegemonic university.

Vivek
23 November 2012 10:29

What I believe that Gramsci is syaing with the following quote is that all men are intellectuals however most men don't have the capital to do what those in power can do because there is a distinction between classes. In regards to education, it can be argued that it functions in the same way because it divides us all into little departments of what we are good at and what we are meant to do, and like Marks would state this is important for the capitalist system because it will only help to perpetuate capitalism because good forbid that we have a holistic education and we are too smart to overthrow the capitalist system. Also from an early age through standardized test, we are continually told what are our areas of competence and then latter on we are told what major to choose for, like John Cabot, on the basis of what is our area of strength according to the result of our standardized test. Also I think that another way that capitalist and hegemony work together in the education system is through the idea of meritocracy by perpetuating the myth that if you work hard one day you too will be able to get a certain kind of job and when someone does make it that far you are told that the only reason you haven't been able to is because you haven't worked hard enough. I think the best example of this is shown in the grading scale of the school or universities like John Cabot where the student is predisposed to fail because there is a 50 percent chance that you will fail then succeed, and hopefully you will fail so that you can spend more money making up the class and increase the profits of the University. Another example of this is the Dean's List where only the hardest working and brightest students who passed all of their exams and get good grade are shown to the whole student body that if you worked hard as these few students have some day you too will be able to be part of this list. I think that Universities purposefully create a division of major and etc because it helps the system of hegemony so that through separation so that like a factory we all specialize on a certain area of work, because for example, if we all knew how to build a car what would be the point of working in a factory. Its true that JCU and other facilities allow for critical thinking, however, the student is indoctrinated to think critically in regards to one area of study which cripple you if you don't know how to understand other areas of society. Also, JCU is part of the hegemonic system because it allows you to think that you have a choice when you don't because in order to attend this school you have to fit into their standards and they trick you into thinking that they have your best interest and are giving you what you need through the wording of their catalog.

Add comment

Name


Enter the code shown:


The Policy Network Observatory promotes critical debate and reflection on progressive politics. It is centre-left orientated but determinedly challenges social democracy. It is pro-European but restlessly questions EU institutions and practices.

Most read this month

Search Posts

search form
  • Keyword
  • Title
  • Author
  • Date posted