Antonio Gramscis Theories and Solutions to the Problems of Contemporary Society - Case Study Example

Antonio Gramsci’s Theories and Solutions to the ‘Problems’ of Contemporary Society The postmodernist, post-national world is faced with the predicament of dealing with the issues of globalization that posits a clash of civilizations. It is a place where the proposition of cosmopolitanism is deemed problematic thanks to the question of multiple identities and diverse minority communities. As the idea of homogenization has been countered theoretically, the pragmatic solutions to the question of the co-existence of local cultures in a global community have not been investigated properly until the last decade of the Twentieth Century. Among the many problems of contemporary society are the issues related to identities, popular/youth culture, intellectual colonization, and the ongoing economic exploitation based on an essentially capitalist world order that persists even amidst the profusion of theories and the so-called proactive action-plans that counter it. As we theorize on the utopian precept of an all-inclusive, non-essentialist world, issues related to the existing unequal power structures and the differences among identities and communities will also have to be considered. The theories formulated by the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci are apparently the most effective ones to deal with the problems of contemporary society, if one comprehends the need to transform them in accordance with the need of the hour. Imprisoned by the Mussolini regime in Italy, the communist leader in Gramsci took refuge in the prison to elaborate on and record his thoughts on the social problems of his age. Due to the originality of his thought and the conviction he had in them, Gramsci was able to develop theories that transcend the early phase of the Twentieth Century to reach out to all possible issues and problems related to the socio-political spheres across the world. In addressing the contemporary social problems which are mainly centered around the cultural and economical imperialism, Gramsci can be seen as an original thinker who offers solutions that do not hamper the freedom or dignity of any individual or community. The question related to identities and their connection with the societies in which they exist had been addressed by Gramsci in his writings on the concepts of ‘hegemony’ and culture related to the national and popular spheres. According to Gramsci, the way the ruling class maintains hegemony, which can be roughly translated as ‘rule’ or ‘leadership’ is not essentially through it economic authority over the people, but, as Peter Brooker explains, “by actively exercising its intellectual, moral and ideological influence in the realm of civil society- a term for the social realm between the economy and state”1. This involves gaining ‘consent’ from the public, as the hegemonic structure exists only on mutual grounds. The necessity to use ‘coercion’ where consent is not naturally gained leads to resentment from the part of the rules class towards the ruling class or the dominant sects that decide upon the areas where coercion are needed. Michel Foucault’s views related to power relations arise from this situation that exists between the ruling/dominant class and subjects in the State. The rise of identity politics in the last few years can be traced to the paradoxical yet inevitable existence of hegemonic structures in democratic governments. The policy making related to minority communities or aggrieved identities like Affirmative Action or Reservation have led to unforeseen disruptions among the public. The ways in which communities/identities are defined are apt to brand them and to take the level of divisions/discriminations to worse circumstances, at least theoretically. There is always the criticism that the underprivileged sects are not be exempted from the competitive realm of social existence, thereby debilitating them, but given equal opportunities to gain competence and to make themselves capable of participating in the socio-political structure. This can be applied to all sects/communities that are analyzed and ostensibly empowered under the critical thoughts of anthropology, post-colonialism, post-modernism, feminism, gender studies, subaltern studies, identity politics and so on. Youth culture in all societies had been historically defined, though varying in details, as something that differs from the mainstream, dominant culture. This in fact makes it unique concept, both in relation to, and contrast with the various counter-hegemonic structures that exist in the society. Popular culture is also defined to an extent on the basis of the cultural aspects of the youth psyche. Gramsci defines the concept of popular culture based on the ‘national-popular’, popular literary genres like the novel, the influence of Opera and its conception of life, oratory conventions and so on. Contesting the conventional idea that popular culture caters trivial, easily digestible aspects of art, literature and aspects, Gramsci points out that “in theory nothing prevents the possible existence of an artistic popular literature.”2 He makes the point clear through the example of the great Russian novelists, who are ‘popular’ even today. However, the possibility of a national-popular culture is also explained by Gramsci, for which he observes that the operatic conception of life has a heavy influence in the Italian psyche. Every national culture, owing to its specific artistic cultural production and consumption, would is apt to nurture a national-popular culture. The idea that popular and national cultures are matters that are to be understood and analyzed critically leads to the proposition that the contemporary world has to gain a perceptive awareness on the idea of differences and the necessity to respect them. The socio-religio-philosophical attitudes to youth/popular culture usually tethers largely on intolerance. Instead of admonishing the new current of ideas in popular realms, they need to be brought to introspective surveillance in the right spirit. The fact that many of the original ideas of Gramsci, and the ones that were modified by Foucault and the Culture/Marxist critics have paved the way for many popular movements and representations shows the depth in which Gramsci saw these issues. However, the tendency to use Gramscian thoughts for fundamentalist minority groups that make their statements by force may not make the world a tolerant one, as they just tend to turn the existing power structures upside down and not to contest or alleviate them, in the process of getting rid of the need for coercion eventually. Gramsci’s view on the role of an ‘intellectual’ in the society has influenced many academicians and political thinkers, like Edward Said. The contemporary society faces the threat of intellectual colonization, where the ideologies and precepts related to intellect and problem-solving abilities related to the dominant sects can overpower alternate systems pertaining to intellect. The role of intellect in its organic ambience has been explored by Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks. He categorizes two types of intellectuals, arising from the need of the hour and by convention. He notices that the ‘organic’ intellectuals arise usually from the peasantry, though their existence is not much elaborated, even as it remains the fact that the model for a traditional intellectual takes root in the organic peasant intellectual. The reason for the existence of intellectuals and the role thus affixed to them in the socio-cultural sphere are looked at analytically by Gramsci. According to Gramsci, “All men are intellectuals”, but “not all men have in society the function of intellectuals”3. The power that the intellectuals wield to mediate with the common people and the ruling class had been analyzed by many social theorists who wrote on colonialisms of the mind and intellect, like Frantz Fanon, Ngugi wa Thinog’o and Benedict Anderson. The recent rise of many leaders from the communities conventionally regarded as underprivileged makes the concept of organic intellectuals a reality. Those who have emerged out of the day-to-day existence of being at the receiving end of oppression, with the help of the sensitive leaders who have learnt the to make the most f their situation vouchsafe the plausibility of an organic evolution of the faculty of intellect outside the academic circles. Many leaders from the tribal sects, leaders among women who have emerged out of conditions of sheer oppression and poverty, leaders of the socially and economically ostracized third sex, leaders of the lower strata of class/caste/race systems, and leaders among the slaves, though they are denied the privileges of civil/developed society show the development of their thought process and analytical skills through their well-directed activism that contest the existing power structures of the world. Gramsci’s views on ‘organic intellectuals’ is necessary in the contemporary world where institutionalized, academic intellectualism is eventually colonizing all sorts of indigenous, natural development of thought and learning. The overburdening attention given to the field of technical education, often discarding even the scientific aspects that has to be linked to it, leaves little space for humanities and social sciences in the contemporary world. The fact that the highest philosophical level of though in every sphere, no matter that be in the field of science or humanities are to be valued and appreciated can the learnt from Gramsci’s views on this subject. The existence of the predominantly capitalist world order, despite the democratic secularist concerns that are lauded and expected in the contemporary world, is the most significant problem that can be addressed, and solved with the precepts from Gramsci’s thoughts. Edward said observes in his book Orientalism: Gramsci has made the useful analytical distinction between civil and political society in whichthe former is made up of voluntary (or at least rational and noncoercive) affiliations like schools, families, and unions, the latter of state institutions (the army, the police, the central beaurocracy) whose role in the polity is direct domination. Culture, of course, is to be found operating within civil society, where the influence of ideas, of institutions, and of other persons works not through domination but by what Gramsci calls consent.4 Gramsci’s views on the social order, and the inevitable nature of hegemony, is rather based on an intelligible, socially acceptable code of conduct created with the help of the interactions made possible across the civil society. Establishing the right kind of connection among people around the world through the social and cultural agencies of civil society may be a solution to reduce economic differences. In the contemporary society where every action taken on the national economic level is based on profit, the concern for peaceful co-existence is relegated. Environmental concerns and issues of universal risk elements like global warming are apt to direct people towards the ideology of a world that is not based on narrow-minded profit-making and luxurious lifestyles that comes with it, but on the general quality of life where every sect, every individual, every animate and inanimate object in the universe, has its value and right for existence. Gramsci places a lot of importance on education, which he sees as a tiring yet liberating task every individual has to take up, depending on environment and demands where s/he exists. In his opinion, Many people have to be persuaded that studying too is a job, and a very tiring one, with its own particular apprenticeship – involving muscles and nerves as well as intellect. It is a process of adaptation, a habit acquired with effort, tedium and even suffering. (Gramsci 42) One of the major advantages such a tough tiring task brings to the contemporary world would be the tendency to respect knowledge, and along with that, a respect for, and acceptance of, all sorts of life around the globe. The meticulous effort one takes for quality education may be sufficient to ward off all sorts of intellectual colonialism, where the value and respect for education and intellect are restricted to certain fields that are utilitarian and owned by the dominant sects. The existing unequal world order where capitalist markets overpower regions which are rich in natural resources and manpower may be altered if proper education gets through the masses which are all capable of gaining the sufficient intellectual propensities to look at life perceptively and to deal with its problems. Contemporary philosophers and thinkers analysts place a lot of significance on Gramsci’s theories when analyzing the political and cultural aspects of society. However, there is a need to transform the thoughts of Gramsci so as to apply them to the issues of contemporary world. Gramsci’s theories transcend the restrictions of time and space. Even when he relates his arguments to the Italian cultural issues, he leaves ample space and scope for the application of them to similar issues around the world. The universal nature of his theories, and the fact that they have emerged from a very painful and sincere concern for the basic human condition makes them the most suitable to relate to the problems of contemporary society. References Brooker. Peter. A Glossary of Cultural Theory. London: Arnold, 2003. Forgacs, David. The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916-1935. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Horae, Quintin and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, ed. Selections From the Prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Madras: Orient Longman, 1996. Said, Edward. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2001 Read More