Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937)
Tugrul Keskin
Gramsci’s most notable contribution to Marxist theory is his conceptualization of hegemony. While he borrowed the term from Lenin and a number of other Russian Marxists, he formed it into a theoretical framework for examining and explaining relations of power in society. He conceptualized hegemony as domination by a combination of permission and coercion through ideological and political leadership, existing within the relationship between classes and other autonomous social forces. By autonomous social forces, he means the social forces that exist autonomously of economic relations, which is one of the fundamental divergent points from Marx.
For Gramsci, history can not simply be reduced to ‘economism’, which is term he used in reference to Marx’s economic determinism, or historical materialism. Marx’s reductionist argument systematic removes the socio-cultural, or national-popular, sphere of relations that exist outside of the realm of production. That is, the social forces that are related fundamentally to freedom, human rights, democracy, such as nationalism, patriotism, race, ethnic, and gender relations. These autonomous social relations can not be incorporated into ‘economism’ unless they are reduced to mere products of the economic, which should be apparent to most as an oversimplification. Rather, Gramsci suggests these cultural elements lie outside the realm of economic relations and, therefore, must be examined as an autonomous sphere of social relations. Whereas Marx examines exploitation, Gramsci examines coercion and consent as relations of power, which is engrained in everyday life.
A historic bloc arises when the hegemonic class creates strong alliances within and among different classes and social forces, i.e. a bloc of society. History can be observed through the transition of historic blocs, the rise and fall of hegemonic classes.
Hegemony, through relations of power, produces a hegemonic class. Once it becomes hegemonic, culminating in a historic bloc, it must strive to maintain its position. At different historical stages, the hegemony of the capitalist class can become unstable due to contradictions in the economic structure and/or loss its ideological influence among its alliances, which leads to, what Gramsci called, an organic crisis.
Gramsci makes a distinction between civil society, political society, and the State. The State is simply an apparatus of power, not necessarily the source of power. He appears to refer to the anatomical apparatus, that is, a group or system of organs that work together to perform a specific function. The State is not simply political society; rather it is the embodiment of political society. Civil society is the sphere of all social relations; where classes organize consent and hegemony; and the sphere where class and national-popular struggles take place.
In short, Gramsci dealt with hegemonic power and cultural theory within historical bloc. His emphasis is less materialistic than Marx argued in his theory. Exploring Gramsci’s conception of hegemony, civil society, and ideology provides an approach for examining the State as fundamentally unstable structure; therefore, civil society plays the vital role in history and social change should come bottom to top.
If you are interested in Gramsci's Marxist theory, please take a look at the following homepage International Gramsci Society
