Scan barcode
burstona's review
3.0
This book is an absolute slog. Long, disjointed, and heavily invested in intellectual debates no longer relevant due to Gramsci's prolonged imprisonment. But in disorganized tome, there's wisdom for those patient enough to wade through.
banandrew's review
5.0
There’s so much in Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks. Italian history, practical Marxism, a 1920's Italian perspective on American business. How could you not want to read it?
Gramsci’s writings cover a wide ground. He interprets Machiavelli in a modern context, describing political parties as “the modern Prince” and explores the opportunities consequences that follow. He muses about America’s capitalistic spirit, its connection to Taylorism, and if Ford’s invasive approach to managing personal morality in employees’ lives will come to affect Europe. He discuss Italian history in depth, particularly exploring the city-countryside conflict and how regional differences between northern and southern Italy affect political movements.
Where his writing remains the most relevant a century later, though, is his “Study of Philosophy”. Gramsci is intensely focused with the practical application of philosophical theory. How are new philosophical conceptions of the world accepted into “common sense”? How are masses of people turned into active citizens interested in revolution? Certainly his own experience as political activist and leader contributes.
Gramsci explores how a new conception takes hold of a social group, comparing a rational approach to an authoritative one, and instead making a more sociologically-based conclusion in the power of groups. “Philosophy can only be experienced by faith”, faith “in the social group to which [someone] belongs”. And in fact, Gramsci makes a highly rational case for the “man of the people” to trust his social group above others:
How, then, to spread ideas? Gramsci draws from the history of organized religion, which “maintains its community of faithful” by “indefatigably repeating its apologetics… and maintaining a hierarchy of intellectuals who give to the faith… the dignity of thought”, and turns his observations into recommendations for cultural movements:
This latter point relates closely to the concept of “organic intellectuals”, a key element in Gramsci’s model — a role involved at a local, community level, diffusing ideas among people who wouldn’t encounter them otherwise. Gramsci lists occupations that typically fill this role: politicians, priests, administrators, in addition to the traditional intelligentsia. Today this seems close to occupations we’d call “knowledge workers”.
However, Gramsci is careful to separate this role from that of traditional intellectuals. He emphasizes “contact with the ‘simple’” as an antidote for “creating a specialised culture among restricted intellectual groups”. He later goes further, criticizing common trends among intellectuals:
This is a critical conclusion with relevance far beyond the time Gramsci was writing for. Pedantry and hyper-rationalism abound, particularly in debates online: writers and commenters vie for the most logical and rational argument and are shocked when it rarely convinces. Gramsci’s critiques show us that these fallacies are anything but new, while pointing in a better direction.
Taken as a whole, the book contains a challenging set of writings to get through. Gramsci’s reference points fit typically within 19th- and 20th-century Italian (and sometimes French) history. Quirks in the writing are, according to the editor, typically due to circumventing the censor, given Gramsci’s circumstances — these include misattributed quotes and articles to a list of euphemisms that grows the longer you read. The editor could have found-and-replaced all instances of “the founder of the philosophy of praxis” with “Marx”, but instead leaves the euphemistic verbosity to the reader’s experience.
Edward Said frequently cites Gramsci’s concept of “organic intellectuals” and describes his geopolitical emphasis in history as particularly influential. Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks don’t contain a system for geopolitical thinking as much as they do examples, but his concepts clearly had an impact on Said’s thinking and writing.
In conclusion: Gramsci’s ideas on public discourse and changing the contents of “common sense” alone make his notebooks worth reading, even if you skip past the Italian history. But don’t skip it if you can help it.
Gramsci’s writings cover a wide ground. He interprets Machiavelli in a modern context, describing political parties as “the modern Prince” and explores the opportunities consequences that follow. He muses about America’s capitalistic spirit, its connection to Taylorism, and if Ford’s invasive approach to managing personal morality in employees’ lives will come to affect Europe. He discuss Italian history in depth, particularly exploring the city-countryside conflict and how regional differences between northern and southern Italy affect political movements.
Where his writing remains the most relevant a century later, though, is his “Study of Philosophy”. Gramsci is intensely focused with the practical application of philosophical theory. How are new philosophical conceptions of the world accepted into “common sense”? How are masses of people turned into active citizens interested in revolution? Certainly his own experience as political activist and leader contributes.
For a mass of people to be led to think coherently and in the same coherent fashion about the real present world, is a “philosophical” event far more important and “original” than the discovery by some philosophical “genius” of a truth which remains the property of small groups of intellectuals.
Gramsci explores how a new conception takes hold of a social group, comparing a rational approach to an authoritative one, and instead making a more sociologically-based conclusion in the power of groups. “Philosophy can only be experienced by faith”, faith “in the social group to which [someone] belongs”. And in fact, Gramsci makes a highly rational case for the “man of the people” to trust his social group above others:
Anyone with a superior intellectual formation with a point of view opposed to his can put forward arguments than he and really tear him to pieces logically and so on. But should the man of the people change his opinions just because of this? In that case he might find himself having to change every day, or every time he meets an ideological adversary who is his intellectual superior. […] The man of the people thinks that so many like-thinking people can’t be wrong […] and he remembers, indeed, hearing expounded, discursively, coherently, in a way that left him convinced, the reasons behind his faith.
How, then, to spread ideas? Gramsci draws from the history of organized religion, which “maintains its community of faithful” by “indefatigably repeating its apologetics… and maintaining a hierarchy of intellectuals who give to the faith… the dignity of thought”, and turns his observations into recommendations for cultural movements:
1. Never to tire of repeating its own arguments (though offering literary variation of form): repetition is the best didactic means for working on the popular mentality.
2. To work incessantly to raise the intellectual level of ever-growing strata of the populace, in other words, to give a personality to the amorphous mass element. This means working to produce élites of intellectuals of a new type which arise directly out of the masses, but remain in contact with them to become, as it were, the whalebone in the corset.
This latter point relates closely to the concept of “organic intellectuals”, a key element in Gramsci’s model — a role involved at a local, community level, diffusing ideas among people who wouldn’t encounter them otherwise. Gramsci lists occupations that typically fill this role: politicians, priests, administrators, in addition to the traditional intelligentsia. Today this seems close to occupations we’d call “knowledge workers”.
However, Gramsci is careful to separate this role from that of traditional intellectuals. He emphasizes “contact with the ‘simple’” as an antidote for “creating a specialised culture among restricted intellectual groups”. He later goes further, criticizing common trends among intellectuals:
The popular element “feels” but does not always know or understand; the intellectual element “knows” but does not always understand and in particular does not always feel. The two extremes are therefore pedantry and philistinism on the one hand and blind passion and sectarianism on the other. Not that the pedant cannot be impassioned; far from it. Impassioned pedantry is every bit as ridiculous and dangerous as the wildest sectarianism and demagogy. The intellectual’s error consists in believing that one can know without understanding and even more without feeling and being impassioned. […] One cannot make politics-history without this passion, without this sentimental connection between intellectuals and people-nation.
This is a critical conclusion with relevance far beyond the time Gramsci was writing for. Pedantry and hyper-rationalism abound, particularly in debates online: writers and commenters vie for the most logical and rational argument and are shocked when it rarely convinces. Gramsci’s critiques show us that these fallacies are anything but new, while pointing in a better direction.
Taken as a whole, the book contains a challenging set of writings to get through. Gramsci’s reference points fit typically within 19th- and 20th-century Italian (and sometimes French) history. Quirks in the writing are, according to the editor, typically due to circumventing the censor, given Gramsci’s circumstances — these include misattributed quotes and articles to a list of euphemisms that grows the longer you read. The editor could have found-and-replaced all instances of “the founder of the philosophy of praxis” with “Marx”, but instead leaves the euphemistic verbosity to the reader’s experience.
Edward Said frequently cites Gramsci’s concept of “organic intellectuals” and describes his geopolitical emphasis in history as particularly influential. Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks don’t contain a system for geopolitical thinking as much as they do examples, but his concepts clearly had an impact on Said’s thinking and writing.
In conclusion: Gramsci’s ideas on public discourse and changing the contents of “common sense” alone make his notebooks worth reading, even if you skip past the Italian history. But don’t skip it if you can help it.
jpowerj's review
3.0
It's another one of those books that's very weird to "review", since it's such a classic and was so influential that it's hard to separate these writings from their cultural context. But anyways, my 3 star choice here is just because I don't really think this particular volume does a good job of presenting and/or explaining Gramsci's thought. What I mean is, I found myself very confused and with very little explanation throughout the book, since the (extremely long) introduction and almost all of the footnotes give the most minute details of Italian politics from 1850-1930, without (IMO) actually explaining the _content_ of the writings. So in the end, what I got from this volume was more a set of biographies of various people and parties in Italy since 1850 instead of an exegesis of Gramsci's thought. Maybe in the end the best thing for me would just be a book _about_ Gramsci's thought rather than a presentation of primary sources... so perhaps I'm being unfair with this one ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
rcthomas's review
2.0
Gramsci is a bit of a challenge to read, in my opinion. His ideas on the development of proletarian intelligentsia and the role it plays in combating cultural solidification/hegemony inherent in developing and developed capitalist societies. His critique of economic determinism that is often the hallmark of communist societies and their proponents is refreshing. Overall, its a tough yet interesting read, but I wouldn't approach it unless you really want to get heavily into different theories of Marxism.