Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 00:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bryan A Case <godwin-AT-umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Althusser and Gramsci


Thanks for an excellent summary.  It raises in my mind an odd tangent: 
does the modern emphasis on cultural studies, in neglecting (or elding, or
underemphasizing) the role of the State (cap S) leave space for an
anarchist critique?  such a critique - classically focused on - but
*never* limited to - the State seems complementary to a
vulgar-(counter)hegemonic overfocus. 




--Bryan A. Case a/k/a Bryan.Case-AT-um.cc.umich.edu a/k/a godwin-AT-umich.edu--
	"I have come to die for your sins," Jesus told a stooped figure
passing him on the road. 
	"Then what am I to die for?" the old man asked.
	Jesus took a small notebook from his pocket and copied the 
question.  "If I may have your name and address," he said, "an answer 
will be sent to you."
				-A.J. Langguth, JESUS CHRISTS

On Fri, 12 Aug 1994, Jonathan Beasley Murray wrote:

> I thought I'd forward this on (though I suspect I've said something 
> similar to this elsewhere on the list--me and my broken record).
> 
> In answer to Nick Lawrence, yes I guess I was going for one of my wilder 
> statements when I suggested we could so simply de-Lacanize Althusser.  
> And I wouldn't try to date any particular "epistemological break" (about 
> which I thought Gene's comment was interesting).
> 
> However, as the following also shows, I am interested in the 
> institutional contexts to thought--and the possible uses that a writer 
> may open up which may remain neglected for a number of contingent, 
> material (dare I say it) reasons.  In none of this, however, would I wish 
> to discover a "true" Gramsci, or an "authentic" Althusser--though I do 
> believe some interpretations are better than others, pragmatically.  
> Rather, it's useful to examine the fate of various Gramscianisms or 
> Althusserianisms, their effects and consequences.
> 
> Anyway, here goes on Gramsci:
> 
> On Fri, 12 Aug 1994, Bryan A Case wrote:
> 
> > I'm curious - as I set out on a reading of THE PRISON NOTEBOOKS - just 
> > why was the Birmingham adoption of Gramsci a mistake?  How was he 
> > misrepresented, etc.?  Thanks in advance.
>  
> In (very) brief:
> 
> Gramsci's main contribution, as I see it, is a re-conceptualization of 
> civil society and its relation to the State.  There's an excellent essay 
> by Norberto Bobbio (in a book whose name I forget for the moment; it's 
> the book that also contains an essay by Negri) tracing 
> the evolution of the concept of civil society from Hegel through Marx to 
> Gramsci.  Whatever (and I would have to refresh my memory on this, too), 
> the main thing is that civil society is situated as part of a fairly 
> complex structure with some intellectual pedigree (pedigree not itself 
> being an unqualified good; think of this as a Foucauldian discursive 
> context if you will).
> 
> As the Birmingham School took up Gramsci, they conflated culture (a word 
> floated around above all by Williams, but also debated with Thompson et. 
> a.) with civil society, and lost the structural analysis.  (In 
> Theory-speak, of course the discursive context into which a piece of 
> terminology is imported will shape that terminology, and the horizons of 
> its possible uses in dramatic ways.)
> 
> Although many British Marxists in the 70s (especially the 
> historians--there's interesting stuff on this by Tom Nairn and Perry 
> Anderson, for example), didn't completely lose sight of the State, 
> gradually, and especially with the export of cultural studies to the US, 
> the term culture, fortified with the Gramscian term "hegemony" acquired 
> more and more conceptual autonomy.
> 
> Hence (very briefly and schematically) we can get to a situation where 
> almost anything is counter-hegemonic and thus subversive--listening to 
> Madonna or reading the romance, for example--because the essentially 
> Gramscian term hegemony (and thus by implication counter-hegemony) has 
> been almost completely dissociated from its original framework.  As far 
> as I can see, the results of all this--viz. American cultural 
> studies--are clearly two sandwiches short of a picnic (though of course I 
> over-generalize massively).  A short, sharp dose of Bourdieu should clear 
> up any notion of the celebratory.
> 
> One of my many projects is to trace through this trajectory in a little 
> more thoroughness.  Tell me what you think.
>  
> > --Bryan A. Case a/k/a Bryan.Case-AT-um.cc.umich.edu a/k/a godwin-AT-umich.edu--
> 
> Unfortunately, as I'm moving state (small s) on Monday, I have few books 
> to hand, and little time to clarify any more than this... still, all 
> feedback is always welcome.
> 
> Jon
> 
> Jon Beasley-Murray
> Department of English and Comp. Lit.
> U. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> jbmurray-AT-csd.uwm.edu
> 



     ------------------