Archive for the ‘Gramsci’ Category
This article examines the concept of civil society as developed in the Gramscian theory under the prism of its ideological correlations, that is, as the field of development and reproduction of consent and submission to the political. It is in the framework of this analysis that the question of whether the Gramscian theory can become a modern instrument of theoretical elaboration of the forms that civil society is taking today is raised. Moreover, the concept of the state and the role the concept of hegemony has in the analysis of the class struggle which takes on the character of “intellectual struggle” is considered. Furthermore the relationship between the meaning of hegemony and that of ideology is developed as well as that between consent and submission. Within the aforementioned analysis, the article attempts among other things to bring forward the multiple antinomies Gramsci faces and which extend throughout his theory.
This paper explores how the ideas of a great political thinker and philosopher Antonio Gramsci, are relevant to education and science and to critical science education. One of the main points in Gramsci’s analysis is the social value and impact of certain aspects of the superstructure. He understands that education is a means which can be used for the reproduction of the social structure and that science and its uses may, in a certain way, replace religion in its function of justifying existing social structure. In analysing the role of education in capitalist society, he attempts to suggest a different use and hierarchy for education and science, moreover, one that can empower counter-hegemonic action for social change.
Son notorias la novedad y la flexibilidad de los instrumentos en las categorías gramscianas y la forma no definitiva con que cada una de ellas son presentadas por Gramsci.
La primera, está constituida por la dialéctica entre estructura y superestructura, por la importancia de las culturas nacionales, por la fuerza de la subjetividad colectiva, por la acción política de las masas. La segunda, está constituida por la supremacía de la política y por la constitución de los subalternos como fuerza no sólo dominante, sino dirigente. Nace la valoración de la irrupción de las masas en la historia que se transforman en protagonistas de la construcción de lo nuevo. El tercer núcleo es la constitución de una nueva visión, no catastrofista, de las crisis endógenas del capitalismo y de sus eventuales salidas.
Así, el realismo histórico de Gramsci -en los Cuadernos de la Cárcel- se liga a Maquiavelo, a su consideración de la autonomía de la política e introduce las argumentaciones del florentino en su filosofía de la práctica inspirada en Marx, lo cual es una fuente inspirativa en la creación del concepto de bloque histórico. Es la ética, a su vez, lo que permite a Gramsci, en esta proficua relación teórica con Maquiavelo, no subsumirse solo en la política como táctica en la configuración de su estrategia.
Bringing Marx, Gramsci and Foucault together is not so common in Germany and this is reflected in the limited number of scholars who do such work. Most critical intellectuals who refer to one of these names usually exclude the other two. For example, those who consider Marx from the perspective of the so called new reading of Marx show but little interest in most of the post-Marx-debates and would regard them as more or less misleading, ideological, and insufficiently radical. The same neglect holds for Gramsci, who is often seen by Marx scholars as the theoretician of the ‘historical compromise’. Likewise, Foucault is regarded as incompatible with their concern to reformulate and to restore Marx’ theory. For those refer to both Marx and Gramsci, Foucault is often seen as an unwitting or even deliberate supporter of neo-liberalism. Similarly, analysts of Foucault’s work obviously do not believe that the kind of analyses inspired by Marx – critical political economy, state theory, or critical theory of ideology – could contribute to “governmentality studies” or a critical history of the present. Things become even complicated if we bring Critical Theory into the picture.
This paper maps the global dimension of higher education and associated research, including the differentiation of national systems and institutions, while reflecting critically on theoretical tools for working this terrain. Arguably the most sustained theorisation of higher education is by Bourdieu: the paper explores the relevance and limits of Bourdieu’s notions of field of power, agency, positioned and position-taking; drawing on Gramsci’s notion of hegemony in explaining the dominant role played by universities from the United States. Noting there is greater ontological openness in global than national educational settings, and that Bourdieu’s reading of structure/agency becomes trapped on the structure side, the paper discusses Sen on self-determining identity and Appadurai on global imagining, flows and ‘scapes’. The dynamics of Bourdieu’s competitive field of higher education continue to play out globally, but located within a larger and more disjunctive relational setting, and a setting that is less closed, than he suggests.
Critical pedagogy problematizes the relationship between education and politics, between sociopolitical relations and pedagogical practices, between the reproduction of dependent hierarchies of power and privilege in the domain of everyday social life and that of classrooms and institutions. In doing so, it advances an agenda for educational transformation by encouraging educators to understand the sociopolitical contexts of educative acts and the importance of radically democratizing both educational sites and larger social formations. In such processes, educators take on intellectual roles by adapting to, resisting, and challenging curriculum, school policy, educational philosophies, and pedagogical traditions. This article revisits the contributions of Antonio Gramsci and Paulo Freire to critical pedagogy, giving particular attention to the related concepts of hegemony and the intellectual.
Read also: Critical pedagogy at Learning Change
Gramsci wrote “that the modern prince, the myth-prince cannot be a real person, a concrete individual. It can only be an organism, a complex element of society in which a collective will, which has already been recognized and has to some extent asserted itself in action, begins to take a concrete form.” I contend that for the past fifteen years or so, a new form of collective will has been forming around anti-globalization forces.
In this paper I propose to present the rise of this new “Postmodern prince” based on the writings of neo-Gramscians such as Robert Cox and Stephen Gill. In my view the “Postmodern prince” can be understood as the coordination on a global scale of various social and political movements on the left who are slowly trying to unite in order to resist Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism can be broadly defined as a political and economic reinforcement of corporate and class power within contemporary states as well as globally.
This paper focuses on the way a state-funded university, as an important institution of civil society, consolidates existing hegemonic arrangements and, at the same time, offers spaces wherein these arrangements can be contested. Using ethnographic data culled from structured and semi-structured interviews as well as other appropriate documentation, the author highlights some of the challenges and contradictions of a university-based workers’ education institute advocating for social change “in and against the state.” The key concept from Gramsci that reverberates throughout the essay is that of “war of position.”
This book focuses on two of the most cited figures in the debate on radical education, Antonio Gramsci and Paulo Freire. Both regarded forms of adult education as having an important role to play in the struggle for liberation from oppression. Peter Mayo examines the extent to which their combined insights can provide the foundation for a theory of transformative adult education. He considers their respective contributions to the development of such a theory, analyzes their ideas comparatively and identifies some of the limitations in their work for incorporation into a theory. The book concludes with a major synthesis of their ideas in the context of other adult educators’ more recent contributions in order to develop a theory of transformative adult education.
Antonio Gramsci is one of the major social and political theorists of the 20th century whose work has had an enormous influence on several fields, including educational theory and practice. Gramsci and Education demonstrates the relevance of Antonio Gramsci’s thought for contemporary educational debates. The essays are written by scholars located in different parts of the world, a number of whom are well known internationally for their contributions to Gramscian scholarship and/or educational research. The collection deals with a broad range of topics, including schooling, adult education in general, popular education, workers’ education, cultural studies, critical pedagogy, multicultural education, and the role of intellectuals in contemporary society.