Gramsci, "Hegemony (Civil Society) and Separation of Powers."
I really love the point we're at in the semester. So much of what we have talked about—Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Marx, Althusser—and what I am reading in other courses is coalescing here in Gramsci in ways that I find positively invigorating. Eureka moments abound! (I need a life, I know.)
Question(s): If we can put a finer point on it, what is the State to Gramsci compared to Althusser and Marx, and who comprises it? Or, what comprises it? If the State is "Conjunctural," who is implicated in its continuance? All of us, some of us? My interest in this question borrows from a question David Wittenberg asked in the contemporary theory class he is currently teaching. Speaking of Althusser, Dr. Wittenberg posited that the definition of "the State," to Althusser, is tightly bound to Capitalism. Is there parity here between Althusser and Gramsci? And what about Marx; Hall writes in "Gramsci's relevance for the study of race and ethnicity," that Gramsci's contributions must be read as "operating on, broadly, marxist terrain" (412). But Hall also notes that Gramsci was never a Marxist in a "doctrinal, orthodox or 'religious' sense" (412).
Hall, "Ch. 20: Gramsci's relevance for the study of race and ethnicity."
On the first page of the "Hegemony" essay, Gramsci gives this definition of the State: "the State [represents] every attempt to crystallize permanently a particular stage of development, a particular situation" (506). This jives with Althusser, I think, but Gramsci's future references to the State seem to move the needle in other directions. In "Gramsci's relevance for the study of race," Hall writes that Gramsci embodied "open marxism," but also that Gramsci has been criticized for a theoretical praxis that is too concrete, too specific, too context-bound (413).
Question: How do we negotiate and parse Marx, Althusser, and Gramsci, and what synergies can be gained vis-a-vis better understanding the State?
Comments
Post a Comment