At the beginning of this course, the readings were related to which talked about literature. Continuing in the semester, the readings we have read and discuss are involving other subjects like philosophy, photography, economics, etc. If I wanted to be confused by philosophy, I would have just taken another philosophy course than the one I took last semester. After reading Karl Marx’s “From Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” it makes me question if I still want to study a career in economics. I can see how Marx relates this with literary theory because both subjects are complicated, literary theory more than economics. When I say economics is also complicated, I refer to what Marx has wrote, “His explained from external circumstances. As to how fat these external and apparently fortuitous circumstances are but the expression of necessary Course of development, political economy teaches us nothing.” (652) Do you not think that when you are learning something, it is supposed to teach us that particular thing? Marx continues to grab our attention talking about topics of economics and then says, “Precisely because political economy does not grasp the connection within the movement, it was possible to counter pose…” (652) Marx further continues with economy talk with workers and alienation. What I think when Marx says “alienation” in his text is that since the worker is a small thing in the economic system, he/she puts thought into the labor instead of themselves. Karl Marx explains this when he talks about putting more into God instead of themselves, as well as nature. Going back to my title for this blog, he also adds God, life and nature. Do these topics all relate to literary theory? That is my question in general, do other topics apply to this confusing subject known as literary theory? Overall, Karl Marx is going against the norm of political economy stating that the “workers” are more of what they produced, than for the, to think that hey have the possibility of gaining what they made instead of giving it up for the capitalist economy. He says do not worry because in the end, it will not matter since death will take us later on in life. Maybe the next time I am on my economics lecture, I will think about Karl Marx and our discussion from comparative literature to understand the basics of both English and economics. 

Raymond Williams discusses the definition of hegemony and its extended definition under Marxism. Antonio Gramsci furthers that definition to be: rule under political, social and cultural aspects, in contrast to the traditional definition of simply political rule or domination. Williams later states that hegemony goes even beyond culture, identifying the “whole social process,” in reference to man’s ability to define their entire life, and going beyond ideology, the system of meanings and values.
Hegemony goes beyond culture and ideology through the the prevalent inequality within society. Within a class society comes the dominant and the subordinate. Naturally, the subordinate are limited through inequality and are, in a sense, forced upon the ideologies handed to them by their dominant figures. Likewise, the subordinate’s culture is limited in a hegemony.
Before moving on, I’d like to agree that the social and cultural aspects of a domination are relevant and important. Having solely political rule would put one in absence of the subordinate’s beliefs, ideals, traditions, and more. Realizing the personal aspects of one’s subordinate is important to maintaining a healthy relationship, which, I believe, is extremely necessary. The lack of understanding between the dominant and subordinate can lead to a crumble in their society.
Williams describes the forms of domination and subordination to be one of two advantages of hegemony. The norm of society dictates that there should be a ruling class, that there ought be the dominate and the dominated. A society where everyone is equal would be a communist society, would it not? (forgive me if I’m wrong). The second advantage is the cultural activity of hegemony, which goes beyond super-structural expressions. Traditions and practices brings forth personal relationships, where people mutually use their resources on leisure, entertainment, art, etc. In this aspect, those of any class, in a sense, can be equal. Despite the social stratification that hegemony implies, its cultural aspect serves as a somewhat unifying attribute.
Williams also tackles the issues of hegemony. A “lived” hegemony is a process rather than a system, “it has continually to be renewed, recreated, defended, and modified. It is also continually resisted, limited, altered, challenged by pressures not at all its own.” That being said, a hegemony seems rather fickle, and it may not necessarily be a reliable system. It is understandable, however, because politics, social and cultural views are constantly changing as time progresses. I don’t believe that to be a weakness, however, as society simply needs to (and always has been) adapt to the changes.

I wasn’t able to make it in time, unfortunately, but the artist Thomas Hirschhorn installed a temporary monument to the work on Antonio Gramsci in the Bronx this summer: here’s an article from the NYT and a couple of reviews giving a sense of the aims of the artist and the basic structure of the monument.

Karl Marx believed that within a capitalist society “the whole of society must fall apart into the two classes – the property-owners and the property-less workers” (652). It is with these property-less workers which Marx aligns himself and in “Economic and Political Manuscripts” describes how through any attempts the workers may use to better their situations, they will inevitably end up in far worse states than they started. The property-less workers have one main goal, to create as much ‘property’ as they possibly can in order to gain more wealth, however as Marx duly notes, from this property in and of itself the worker gains nothing. In fact “the worker become all the poorer the more wealth he produces” (653). This irreversible gap between what the worker produces and what he gains from his production is what Marx defines as ‘alienation’ of the worker to his product. As his life’s work, “the worker puts his life in to the object but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object” (653). He gains nothing from the work he spends tireless hours creating for others to enjoy and which he is unable to participate in after creating. To the worker, in Marx’s eyes, “the product of his labour is an alien object” (653) and not something one can ever attain genuine happiness from because it will always be completely separate from his being.

As Marx illustrates how ‘labor’ occupations -which I take to mean in the twenty first century as manual/factory labor, office or service jobs – alienate the individual from his true self, I start to wonder what would be classified as an occupation which does not ‘alienate’ the individual from his true ‘self’? Ultimately unalienating occupations to my perspective are ones in which monetary compensation are not of primary concern, where instead man is able to use all of his human faculties to create something that is of value not only to others but also to himself as a growing individual. When one’s main concern is to make as much money as possible, it is fairly conceivable that he or she will stoop to derogatory levels of action as a human being he would have never thought he would reach up until that point. When money becomes the solution to all of one’s problems, it is possible that one stops being a human being entirely and simply lives as an ‘alien’. He lives to consume the objects which mean nothing and are ultimately just the combined efforts of other individuals who he will never know or care about. In alienating oneself from the products he produces in order to make money, he alienates himself from not only himself but also from humanity entirely. He is no longer human, and that is just how the “property-owners” in charge want the “property-less workers” to see themselves, for then they are easier to control. That capitalism and the necessity of making money are the root sources of the necessity of alienated labor within western society is probably Marx’s main point in the essay, revealing yet another defining fault in our capitalist society. Although I am not and will never be a Marxist, I do see the validity in the problems alienation of labor insure for society, however to solve said problems seem to me almost impossible without complete societal upheaval.

From what I understand about gramsci’s writings from the prison notebooks is that he believed that intellectuals (as in just extremely smart people in general) were not their own special group of people in society. More specifically, Gramsci believed that every group in a society that had practical use for the advancement of said society had their own demographic of intellectuals, or, people who could take whatever field they were in an improve its station. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Gramsci also introduces hegemony as a potential problem, that is the domination of traditionally made intellectuals that further the agenda of whatever specific social group is in charge. Gramsci also believed that, simply being a smart individual was not enough to justify being called an intellectual. He believed the intellectuals were essentially the go-getters, the ones who could take charge and create opportunities for their social sphere to thrive, in spite of the challenge of hegemony. He uses the example of entrepreneurs, “at least the elite amongst them must have the capacity to be an organizer of society in general, including all its complex organism of services…because of the need to create the conditions most favorable to the extension of their own class.” The entrepreneur must create positions for those around him to help improve his current position, as well as find opportunities to do so. (Norton pg 1002) Even with such qualifications, Gramsci argues that another factor that determines whether or not the term intellectual is appropriate is to look at their place “within the general complex of social relations.” (Norton 1004) Going back to the entrepreneur, Gramsci believes it’s not enough for him to possess the qualities of an intellectual, and successfully improve his demographics’ standings if it does not somehow effect or improve “general social relations which specifically characterize [his] position within history” (1004) “All men are intellectuals, but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals.”

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…