Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:35:32 +0200 (EET)
From: j laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi>
Subject: M-TH: Bourdieu and Gramsci (fwd)


Hmm... I'm not sure how many of thaxis-subscribers have subbed to
Bourdieu-list, but I suppose that the number of them/us is quite
modest. Therefore I forward this nice, compressed presentation of
Antonio Gramsci's central ideas and comparison of them with those of
Pierre Bourdieu's. (I took first two paragraphs away - they refer to
earlier discussion and don't add anything to Bayer's presentation.)
Hope this is of some interest.

Jukka

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 23:43:29 +0100
From: Paul Bayer <pbayer-AT-ibm.net>
Reply-To: bourdieu-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Bourdieu and Gramsci

Certainly Gramsci and Bourdieu are intellectuals of different times, of
different fields and traditions and with different conditions. Gramsci
was politician, he had to elaborate his ideas during a few years in
prison, without the possibility to discuss them, to proof them, to do
empirical field work. Bourdieu is scientist with all possibilities and
time of scientific work, without direct political responsability. So you
are right that Bourdieus work and categories are elaborated, while
Gramscis work remains rudimentary and fragmentary. So indeed it makes no
sense to compare Gramsci and Bourdieu like comparing two scientists,
because Gramsci was politician, who evolved his ideas with other
purposes under different conditions, with different material (his
political experience) than Bourdieus (sociological fieldwork).

The explosive effect of Gramscis work
====================================was and remains his analysis of the errors and the collapse of left and
democratic policy in western Europe during the twenties. He found that
the main reasons for the fail of progressive policy were a simplified
underlying social theory, an inadequate political theory, strategy and
practice and the incapacity to concretely renew the social and
economical structures. These are insights that today seem very common.
The most important thoughts of Gramscis were, that for a renewed
progressive policy there was a need for:

1) greater reflection of intellectuals about their own position and
   function in society
2) a deeper insight in popular culture, everyday life, common sense,
   (concepts of common sense, popular culture, literature, journalism)
3) a relational thinking of economic and social structures and policy,
   (civil society {anatomy} is structured by economic structures
   {skeleton}, politics must regard civil society as agent of economy),
4) a better knowledge about the influence of labor organization in
   society, (discourses about fordism, taylorism, parasitism, passive
   revolution)
5) a non-fatalistic and non-deterministic comprehension of social
   processes, (historical bloc, position war and movement war,
   cesarism, corporatism)
6) an effective political theory of power (discourse about Machiavelli)

Gramsci himself underlines (in Quaderno 8) the "provisory character" of
his notes, that he has to make "often unproofed observations, that could
be seen as first approaches" caused by the "vastness and uncertainity of
the subject", further that he is not able to make an "encyclopedic
compilation, which could fill all possible and imaginable gaps". But
with his provisory approach he arrives at advanced political insights
and questions, even for modern political theory.

The parallels in Bourdieu
========================are that he works out some of the same questions and insights, Gramsci
regarded essential for left policy (autoreflection of intellectuals,
theories of habitus, practice, culture ..., relational thought,
specimens of capitals, theory of space/field/positions/power).

The differences between Gramsci and Bourdieu
===========================================--apart from different results and insights-- are that Bourdieu
elaborates very much his themes remaining very cautious in drawing
political consequences, and that Gramsci remains very rudimentary in his
theoretical concepts though trying to translate them suddenly in
political concepts.

Who may be interested in reading both?
=====================================There is no need to read Gramsci in order to understand Bourdieu. But
someone who agrees with Gramscis political insights (1-6, see above) and
wants to work in political field should read both and compare them. This
may enlarge his capacity to translate Bourdieus scientific results into
political action. Analysts of policy may find in both approaches a great
material in order to understand better the events and evolutions in
political field.

Why should Bourdieu read Gramsci?
================================A few weeks ago, there was an article of Bourdieu in Liberation against
the president of the german federal reserve, Tietmayer. I am content
about this intervention of Bourdieu and about the attention he created
in France and even in Germany. Against neoliberal policy he suggests to
mobilize all progressive forces in Europe against the "Europe of the
banks" and for an "european welfare-state".

I agree; but how can we do this? How we will able to organize Bourdieus
european intellectual platform or even an entire social movement? Here
Bourdieu remains very indefinite and abstract. I think there will be no
chance to do this without a new _integrated_ economic, social and
cultural policy. Particularly the equal integration of the different
policies would be a strategic advantage against neoliberal policy, which
subordinates the social affairs and policies under the mechanisms of
money. This integration could be the objective and the result of an
european intellectual platform and discourse (with participation of
sociologues, economists, entrepreneurs, syndicalists, philosophers ...).
This was already an idea of Gramsci: unity of economic and moral
reforms:
	"... intellectual and moral reforms cannot be separated from economic
reforms, because the program of economic reforms is just the concrete
form of each intellectual and moral reform." (Quaderno 13, §1, p.1561)

The translation of Bourdieus critics of neoliberal policy in political
action must (seen with a realistic spirit) be made by professional or
semi-professional politicians who are anchored in political field and
are also involved in autonomous intellectual discourses (for example by
participating in Bourdieus "forum"). And certainly one of the greater
difficulties in organizing this forum is to organize the reciprocal
comprehension and acceptance between the different intellectuals who
come from different intellectual fields. The point is, that in Bourdieus
own terminology we must found a new intellectual (meta-) field to
achieve this. This will be a hard work -- remember Bourdieus analysis
about evolution of the literally field in "les regles de l'art". And
unfortunately, analyzing social fields is a different work than building
ones.

Best regards,

Paul Bayer,
Munich / Germany



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---