Study of Social Work Literature – English Version
1. Antonio Gramsci
1.1 The organic intellectual
Intellectuals do not ‘be’ on theirself. It is something concrete, contracterise by the society, society
makes these intellectuals. It may assume that the intellectuals are true, well actually Gramsci says it is
not the truth because society projects it. He highlights a specific type: the group of the organic
intellectuals. We have to keep in mind the context of Gramsci (early days of capitalism): capitalism
(organization of society). It is a different type of society. The moment you have the past of the capitalism
society, you have a new sort of intellectuals: organic intellectuals (if you have everything blossoming, the
garden is blossoming with the capitalism as the gardener). The society can not contain itself without the
organic intellectuals
Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher and theorist, extensively explored the role and
formation of intellectuals in society. In his writings, particularly in the context of early capitalism,
Gramsci introduced the distinction between traditional intellectuals and organic intellectuals, shedding
light on their respective roles in shaping the dominant ideology and maintaining or challenging
established power structures.
Traditional vs. Organic Intellectuals:
a. Traditional Intellectuals: bv academics, priest
Gramsci conceptualizes traditional intellectuals as individuals closely tied to the ruling class and vested in
preserving the status quo. These intellectuals often serve the interests of the dominant class,
perpetuating existing power structures through their roles in education, culture, and politics. Traditional
intellectuals, in Gramsci's view, contribute to the preservation of hegemony, reinforcing the dominant
ideology that serves the ruling class.
b. Organic Intellectuals: bv activist, populist?
In contrast, organic intellectuals are a concept introduced by Gramsci to describe intellectuals emerging
from specific social groups or classes. These intellectuals share a cultural and experiential connection
with their social group and have the potential to challenge established power structures. Unlike
traditional intellectuals, organic intellectuals can advocate for change and contribute to the formation of
counter-hegemonic ideas that align with the interests of their respective social groups.
The emergence of organic intellectuals is contextualized within the early days of capitalism. Gramsci
suggests that as capitalism organizes society, new types of intellectuals, namely organic intellectuals,
come to the forefront. These intellectuals are essential for the functioning of the societal "garden"
cultivated by capitalism. Gramsci challenges the notion that intellectuals exist independently,
highlighting that society plays a crucial role in shaping and projecting their nature. Organic intellectuals,
emerging from the blossoming landscape of capitalism, become integral to the sustainability of the
societal structure. (meer uitleg: ‘the societal garden’ as methaphor for capitalism. capitalism plays a
role in cultivating and organizing the various elements of society. Like a garden that requires careful
tending and management, capitalism shapes the social landscape. This metaphor implies that capitalism
is not just an economic system but also a force that actively molds the social and cultural environment.
1
,Gramsci challenges the traditional notion that intellectuals exist independently of societal influences.
Instead, he emphasizes that society itself is instrumental in defining and projecting the nature of
intellectuals. In other words, the ideas and perspectives of intellectuals are not isolated from the broader
social context in which they emerge. The use of the term "blossoming landscape" suggests a period of
growth and development within capitalism. As capitalism evolves, so does the intellectual landscape.
Organic intellectuals, in this metaphor, are depicted as blossoming within this changing environment.
They become an integral part of the societal structure, contributing to its continued development and
sustainability.)
Organic intellectuals play a vital role in preserving the superstructure, encompassing culture, education,
and politics. Gramsci's emphasis on the importance of organic intellectuals reflects their significance in
shaping and disseminating ideas that support the interests of their specific social groups.
Hegemony and Intellectuals:
Gramsci places significant importance on the relationship between intellectuals, particularly organic
intellectuals, and the concept of hegemony. Hegemony, in this context, refers to the dominance of a
particular group's ideology over others, legitimized through cultural and ideological means.
Intellectuals, especially organic intellectuals, contribute to the maintenance and legitimization of the
existing social order through the development and dissemination of a hegemonic culture. This culture
serves the interests of the ruling class, reinforcing their dominance in society.
Intellectuals and Social Movements:
Gramsci's exploration extends to the relationship between intellectuals and social movements. Organic
intellectuals, emerging from various social groups, have the potential to play a crucial role in social
movements by advocating for change and challenging established power structures.
The distinction between traditional and organic intellectuals is observable in contemporary society,
where traditional intellectuals often align with existing power structures, while organic intellectuals may
emerge from diverse social groups and contribute to transformative social movements.
In conclusion, Gramsci's ideas on the organic intellectual provide a nuanced understanding of the
dynamic role intellectuals play in shaping society. The distinction between traditional and organic
intellectuals, the emphasis on hegemony, and the connection to social movements collectively
contribute to a comprehensive framework for analyzing the complex interplay between intellectuals and
the socio-political landscape.
1.2 Every individual is an intellectual
We think about common sense like the common knowledge. We hear and learn from other people.
These kinds of thoughts, it is offcourse incoherent because it comes from different sources. The
knowledge in school is a structural knowledge with a rational behind. You can find everything in common
sense, all be present at once. Gramsci says that thinkers and context is captured by the hegemonic
structure. Going to school, the media… are all forms of a better form of knowledge. Since we start from
the realisation that everybody is an intellectual, within the common sense we have a good sense. The
part of common sense, it has something to do with the relations between people. The experience of the
people, the real knowledge. If the hegemonic is taking over the knowledge, it is negative in a form.
2
,Gramsci says that “we should work toward phylosofy of praxis (something practical)”. It is teasing out
the good things of common sense, helping people retain the good sense, and develop that in the praxis.
How to concrete the better reality is with the phylosofy of praxis. It is a thought towards change and
activism. This hasn’t has to be top-down but it can come from the people, from the common sense. For
example: you may have people realising that it is unfair that 1% of the population is the richest of the
world. We have to help the people to realize that such a small amount of people are this rich. In a
hegemonic context we have to understand what is wrong.
Antonio Gramsci's assertion that "every individual is an intellectual" reflects his broader understanding
of intellectualism and its role in society. In Gramsci's thought, he challenges traditional notions that limit
intellectualism to a specific class or professional group. Instead, he contends that intellectual activity is a
universal attribute inherent in all individuals, regardless of their social background or formal education.
Gramsci's perspective on intellectualism is deeply tied to his concept of "organic intellectuals."
According to him, everyone possesses the capacity for intellectual engagement and critical thinking,
irrespective of their social status. This idea challenges the elitist view that reserves intellectual pursuits
for a privileged few with formal education or specialized knowledge.
By asserting that every individual is an intellectual, Gramsci emphasizes the potential for people from all
walks of life to contribute to the development of ideas, cultural production, and the shaping of societal
norms. He encourages a broad and inclusive understanding of intellectualism, one that encompasses
the diverse ways in which individuals engage with and contribute to the formation of social and cultural
life.
In this context, Gramsci's notion challenges social hierarchies that limit intellectual influence to a specific
class or group, fostering a more democratic understanding of intellectual participation. It suggests that
intellectual activity is not confined to academic institutions but is embedded in everyday life,
encompassing various forms of knowledge, experience, and cultural expression.
In essence, Gramsci's declaration that every individual is an intellectual underscores the democratic
potential for a wide range of people to actively participate in the processes of intellectual inquiry,
cultural production, and the shaping of societal values.
1.3 The relationship between intellectuals and the two major superstructural levels
«What we can do, for the moment, is to fix two major superstructural “levels”: the one that can be called
“civil society”, that is the ensemble of organisms commonly called “private”, and that of “political
society” or “the State”. These two levels correspond on the one hand to the function of ”hegemony”
which the dominant group exercises throughout society and on the other hand to that of “direct
domination” or command exercised through the State and “juridical” government. The functions in
question are precisely organisational and connective. The intellectuals are the dominant group’s
“deputies” exercising the subaltern functions of social hegemony and political government. These
comprise:
I. The “spontaneous” consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction
imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is “historically” caused by the
prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and
function in the world of production.
3
, 2. The apparatus of state coercive power which “legally” enforces discipline on those groups who do not
“consent” either actively or passively. This apparatus is, however, constituted for the whole of society in
anticipation of moments of crisis of command and direction when spontaneous consent has failed,»
Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher, introduced a nuanced understanding of the relationship
between intellectuals and the superstructure within society. Gramsci's framework involves the
identification of two major levels within the superstructure, namely the private sphere (civil society) and
the political sphere (the state), both of which are significantly influenced by intellectuals.
Gramsci's perspective on the superstructure is rooted in the Marxist tradition, where the superstructure
is seen as a reflection of economic relations in a society. According to Marxist thought, societal
complexity is directly proportional to the complexity of economic relations. In simpler terms, as a society
becomes more complex, the superstructure becomes more intricate.
Gramsci argues that within the superstructure, there are different levels of specialization, such as in
medicine, engineering, and other fields. He suggests that the degree of specialization is directly related
to the complexity of society. As society becomes more complex, there is an increased need for
specialization in various domains.
In the Marxist framework, the foundation of society, referred to as the structure or basis, is
characterized by economic relationships between classes. The two primary classes identified in this
context are the workers and the owners. The superstructure, situated above the basis, is not directly
economic but encompasses cultural aspects. This includes the organization of education, social relations,
and politics, forming a reflection of the underlying economic structure. (meer uitleg: we're mainly
looking at how people interact economically—specifically, the relationships between different classes in
society. In this context, there are two primary classes: the workers (those who work for a living) and the
owners (those who own and control the means of production, like factories or businesses). Now, the
"superstructure" is something a bit different. It's situated above this economic base and doesn't directly
involve economic activities. Instead, the superstructure includes cultural elements—things related to
how society organizes itself culturally. This involves areas like education, social relationships, and politics.
Essentially, the superstructure reflects and is influenced by the economic relationships in the society's
base. To put it even more straightforwardly, Marxists believe that how a society is organized
economically (who owns what, who works for whom) shapes everything else in that society—the way
people think, how they relate to each other socially, and even how politics works. The superstructure is
like the "cultural layer" on top of this economic foundation, and it's influenced by the economic structure
beneath it.)
Within the superstructure, politics plays a crucial role, and the exercise of hegemonic power is essential
to preserve the existing structure. Hegemony, in Gramsci's terms, involves the dominance of a particular
group's ideology over others, achieved through consent rather than coercion. Intellectuals are key
players in exercising hegemonic power within the superstructure, working to maintain and reinforce the
existing social and economic order.
The private sphere and the political sphere are identified as two distinct levels within the
superstructure. The private sphere encompasses aspects of society that are not directly related to the
state or political institutions but still play a role in shaping cultural norms and values. The political
sphere, on the other hand, involves formal political institutions and processes.
4
