BUTTIGIEG, Joseph. (1995) - Gramsci On Civil Society. Boundary 2. Vol. 22. #3.

Gramsci on Civil Society
Author(s): Joseph A. Buttigieg

Source: boundary 2, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 1-32
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/303721 .
Accessed: 24/11/2014 13:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to boundary 2.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gramsci on Civil Society
Joseph A. Buttigieg
Antonio Gramsci's analysis of civil society, much like his study of
the role of intellectuals in society and his concept of hegemony, has long
Inorderto avoidcumbersomefootnotes,I have indicatedinthe textthe titlesof Gramsci's
articlesfromwhichI quote and have providedthe date of publicationof the newspaperin
whichtheyfirstappeared.These articlesare easy to locate inthe followingvolumesof the
criticaleditionof Gramsci'spre-prisonwritings,wherethey are reproducedin chronological order:Cronachetorinesi:1913-1917, ed. S. Caprioglio(Turin:Einaudi,1980);Lacitta
nostro Marx:1918-1919,
futura:1917-1918, ed. S. Caprioglio(Turin:Einaudi,1982);//II
Nuovo:1919-1920, ed. V.Gerratanaand
ed. S. Caprioglio(Turin:
Einaudi,1984);L'Ordine
A. Santucci (Turin:Einaudi,1987); Socialismo e fascismo. L'OrdineNuovo: 1912-1922
(Turin:Einaudi,1966);and La costruzionedel Partitocomunista:1923-1926 (Turin:Einaudi, 1971).Gramsci'slettersare also chronologicallyorderedand hence easy to locate,
in either the Italianor the (more complete) English-languagecriticaledition-see Lettere dal carcere,ed. E. Fubiniand S. Caprioglio(Turin:Einaudi,1965);and Lettersfrom
Prison,2 vols., ed. F. Rosengarten(New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1994). Forthe
extractsfromthe PrisonNotebooks,I have providedthe pertinentnotebookand section
numbersthatwouldenable the readerto locate them quicklyin the Italiancriticaledition,
Quadernidel carcere, 4 vols., ed. V. Gerratana(Turin:Einaudi,1975), and, in the case
of the firsttwo notebooks, in Prison Notebooks,vol. 1, ed. J. A. Buttigieg(New York:
ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1992).
Press.CCC0190-3659/95/$1.50.
boundary222:3, 1995.Copyright
? 1995by DukeUniversity

2 boundary2 / Fall1995
been recognized as one of the most originaland importantfeatures of the
politicaltheory he elaborated in his Prison Notebooks. Scholars have debated at great length the differences and similarities between Gramsci's
concept of civil society and Hegel's, whether it represents a significant departure from traditionalMarxist thought, and what place it occupies (or
should be assigned) withinthe history of political philosophy. Outside the
specialized fields of social and politicaltheory, however, civil society has
not always, or everywhere, been a familiarterm, even among well-informed,
politicallysophisticated general readers. Inthe United States, for example,
civil society does not appear in many basic dictionaries (such as those
most widely used by universitystudents), and it is rarely,if ever, encountered in mainstream political discourse. What brought the concept of civil
society to the attention of a broaderspectrum of politicalobservers, at least
in the United States, were the events that resulted in the political transformation of the Eastern European countries and the dismantling of the
formerSoviet bloc, or, rather,the efforts to interpretand account for the unexpected, breathtakinglyrapiddevelopments occurring duringthat period.
The phrase civil society recurredfrequentlyin the writingsand speeches of
Eastern European intellectualswho were participatingin, when not actually
stimulatingand guiding, the sociopolitical recomposition of their countries.
Predictably,it was quickly picked up by many journalists, commentators,
and pundits who were only too anxious to find some general theory or abstract concept that would help them explain the complex phenomena they
were witnessing. (One must not forget that the overwhelming majorityof
the politicalexperts and Sovietologists in the West had completely failed to
anticipate the events that, in the space of a year or two, were to utterlyreconfigure the geopolitical order.)This is not to suggest that the increasingly
frequent allusions to the concept of civil society were always-or even in
most cases--accompanied by a clear understandingof its intricategenealogy and of its many different nuances, or, even less, by an awareness of
Gramsci's perspicacious treatment of it. Inthe late 1980s and in the 1990s,
the term civil society was employed, more often than not, somewhat like a
magical explanatoryformula,and its meaning remained vague, since those
who invoked it rarely bothered to define it in any illuminating,systematic
way or to explain convincinglywhy it (or the phenomenon it supposedly described) came to assume such overwhelming importance at this particular
time and specifically in Eastern European countries.
Those who looked into Gramsci's works for some insight that would
shed lighton the events that transpiredin Eastern Europe invariablyzeroed

Buttigieg/ Gramscion CivilSociety 3

in on one brief passage: "Inthe East the state was everything, civil society
was primordialand gelatinous; in the West there was a proper relation between state and civilsociety, and when the state trembleda sturdystructure
of civil society was immediately revealed"(Notebook 7, ?16, p. 866). Itwas
in the last month or two of 1930 that Gramsci, in a fascist jail, jotted down
this observation in one of his notebooks. Almost six decades later, these
remarks,pluckedout of their historicalcontext, acquired (or, rather,were endowed with) a propheticquality;they supplied a ready-made explanation of
the disintegrationof the communist regimes once dominated by the Soviet
Union. Thus, for example, in a New YorkTimes article, "The Rise of 'Civil
Society' " (25 June 1989), FloraLewis,the newspaper's senior foreignaffairs
correspondent at the time, used this often-quoted passage from Gramsci
as the basis for declaring: "TheCommunist ideal is destroying itself as the
century ends because it could not create the 'fortresses and earthworks'of
civil society, nor accommodate them."This, of course, is a perfectlytenable
diagnosis that could be reasonably buttressed with arguments drawnfrom
Gramsci--although one must hasten to add that the rest of Lewis's article
offers a hopelessly garbled account of Gramsci's views. At the same time,
however, the isolation of this particularpassage from the rest of Gramsci's
extensive discussions of civil society is fraught with problems. First of all,
the "Oriental"state to which Gramsci refers in this instance is quite specifically czarist Russia; to apply his characterization of the Russia of 1917 to
the Soviet Union of 1989 is, to say the least, ahistorical. Such a simplistic
applicationalso tends to obscure the fact that in his analyses of civil society,
Gramsci focuses primarily,not to say exclusively,on the anatomy of modern
Western states; the countries to which he devotes special attention, apart
from Italy,are France and the United States. The main value of Gramsci's
concept of civil society, which is intertwinedwith his theory of hegemony,
resides in its exposure of the mechanisms and modulations of power in
capitalist states that purportto be democratic. When Gramsci'sinsights are
employed principallyas an instrumentfor explainingwhat went wrong in the
Soviet Union and its satellites, attention is deflected away from his forceful,
demystifyingcritiqueof the liberal/capitaliststate, its ethos, and its claims to
universality-a critiquethat urgently needs to be revived and reelaborated
today as a remedy to the pervasive complacency and the poverty of oppositional criticismthat have followed in the wake of the short-lived euphoria
triggered by the end of the cold war.
Another, more serious problem arises when Gramsci's brief comparison between "East"and "West"is removed from its originalcontext and

used (anachronistically)as a key for interpretingthe Soviet/Russian phenomenon rather than as a stimulus for research into the anatomy of the
state in its prevalent Western form:it may lend credence to the notion that
the state and civil society are two separate and opposed entities. When
Gramsci's remarks on "East"and "West"are treated in isolation, it is easy
to overlook or conceal his most distinctive contributionto our understanding of civil society. Gramsci regarded civil society as an integralpart of the
state; in his view, civil society, far from being inimicalto the state, is, in fact,
its most resilient constitutive element, even though the most immediately
visible aspect of the state is political society, with which it is all too often
mistakenly identified. He was also convinced that the intricate,organic relationships between civil society and politicalsociety enable certain strata
of society not only to gain dominance withinthe state but also, and more
importantly,to maintain it, perpetuating the subalternityof other strata. To
ignore or to set aside these crucial aspects of Gramsci's concept of civil
society is tantamountto erasing the crucial differences that set his theory of
the state apart from the classic liberalversion. This is precisely what Flora
Lewis does in her article, when she quotes Gramsci's remarks merely as a
pointof departurefor reiteratingthe most tiresome shibboleths: the omnipotence and omnipresence of the state made communist countries despotic;
the autonomy of civil society in the United States ensures freedom. Why invoke Gramsci to support these kinds of assertions? The same point would
have been better reinforced by a quotation from Locke or, for that matter,
from Ronald Reagan! The only reason why Lewis finds it necessary to turn
to Gramsci is that she wants to explain to her readers the significance of
civil society-a term with which most of them (including,probably,Ronald
Reagan) are not acquainted. Whilepretendingto explain Gramsci'sconcept
of civil society, Lewis ends up misconstruing it as simply another version
of what, in U.S. politicalparlance, is routinelycalled the "privatesector" or
"privatesphere." She also has a novel explanation for the absence of civil
society fromthe politicalvocabulary in the United States: "Americansdon't
talk about civilsociety because they take it for granted. Itis the society."The
triumphalistic,self-congratulatorytone of this assertion fails to conceal its
unintended irony:if Americans need to be introducedto Gramsci'sthought,
it is precisely so that they would cease taking civil society for granted, develop a better critical understandingof it, and start thinkingof alternatives
to the currentconfigurationsof power.
Gramsci's concept of civil society, like most of his ideas and categories, is not to be found encapsulated in a single sentence or passage.


Rather, it emerges gradually,starting with some relativelystraightforward
observations in the earliest journalisticwritingsand culminatingin the complex, though fragmentary,formulations recorded in the prison notebooks.
Yet, even before turning to Gramsci's texts, it is importantto take cognizance of certain misleading assumptions and prejudices that have become
ingrained notions (or that, as Gramsci would say, have become "common
sense") thanks to the pervasive influence of the liberaltradition--assumptions and prejudices that have often hindered, sometimes in obvious ways
and at other times more subtly, an understanding of Gramsci's thinking
on civil society. The most obvious of these assumptions is the identification of the "state"with the "government"or "governmentapparatus."Thus
conceived, the state is the embodiment of power, which it exercises by
enacting laws and enforcing them. This conception is often accompanied
by the conviction that the activities of the state (i.e., government) must be
held strictly in check, since its incursions into the "private"sphere almost
always result in a diminutionof individualfreedom. From this viewpoint,
then, the existence of the state poses a threat to freedom, but it cannot
be eliminated entirely because, in order to avoid anarchy, it alone can be
allowed to exercise coercive force against external and internalenemies of
the social order. The private sphere (i.e., civil society as distinct from and
opposed to the state, in the liberalscheme of things), on the other hand,
is regarded as the terrainwhere freedom is exercised and experienced. In
the reductive rhetoric of politicians, these liberal concepts are translated
into diatribes against so-called big government and exhortations to transfer
responsibilityfor the delivery of "public"services (includingnot only transportation, communications, and utilities, but also health care, education,
and even the incarcerationof criminals)to the "privatesector"--in the name
not only of efficiency but also of greater freedom from government "control"and greater "freedomof choice" for individuals(often referredto, in this
context, as "consumers").Withinthis kindof rhetoric,the term civil society
or private sphere designates not so much the terrain of freedom in some
general abstract sense but ratherthe "free-market"system, more or less
specifically. Further,it is commonly assumed that freedom and democracy
mean virtuallythe same thing, and that democracy entails a free-market
economy or vice versa. Thus, many differentterms have lost their precise
meaning and are now routinelyused as if they were interchangeable: civil
society(privatesphere),freemarket,democracy,freesociety,freecountry,
et cetera. Infact, there exists a very large contingent of expert economists,
influentialpolicy advisers, and powerfulgovernment officials who believe,

2 / Fall1995
6 boundary
or workhardat propagatingthe belief,that the creationof a free-market
economyconstitutesthe necessary firststep in the process of developing
civilsociety and establishinga democraticsystem.
These assumptionsconstitutethe basis of a widespreadprejudice
that has been at the rootof manyconfusedand confusinginterpretations
of Gramsci'swritings.The prejudice,baldlystated, goes as follows:Since
Marxist(orsocialist)theoryis categoricallyopposed to laissez-fairein the
economicsphere,socialismfavors(some wouldsay inevitablyleads to) the
installationof an omnipotentstate; therefore,socialismwouldsuppress
the privatesphere (i.e., civilsociety) and hence erase the terrainof freedom. This prejudiceis alimentedby liberaltheory,but nothinghelped reinforceit morestronglythanthe tragic-pathetic
historyof the now defunct
EasternEuropeancommuniststates. So firmlyentrenchedis this prejudice
have becomevirtuallysynonymousin
thatsocialismand "biggovernment"
itis heldon
minds.
Nor
is
this
merelya vulgarmisconception;
manypeople's
to fiercelyeven by prominentintellectuals,such as the NobelPrizewinner
to Friedrich
von Hayek'sRoad to
MiltonFriedman,who, in his introduction
of ChicagoPress, 1994),sets upa simplebinaryoppoSerfdom(University
sition:on one side, he posits unbridled
capitalism,whichensuresvoluntary
and
and
cooperation,prosperity, freedom; on the otherside, socialism,with
the governmentcoordinatingall activities,whichensures economicfailure
and serfdom.Howdoes one beginto explainthat Marxisttheory,farfrom
actuallyenvisagesthe end ofthe
authority,
advocatingstronggovernmental
state? OrthatGramsci'svisionof a socialorderbased on consensus andrid
of coercivestate powerdoes notconstitutea departurefrom,muchless an
abandonmentof, the socialistideal?Inorderto readGramsciintelligently,
this prejudiceneeds to be set aside.
The mainquestionaddressedby Gramscihas nothingto do withthe
desirabilityor otherwiseof a strongstate; indeed, Gramsciis even more
radicallycommittedto whittlingthe coercive powerof the state than the
mostdogmaticlibertarian.
Gramsci,however,also recognizesthatcoercion
and dominationby force are not the only,nor necessarilythe most effecin society.He, therefore,explores
tive,means of controland subordination
that liberaltheoryis
civil
of
the
and
of
state,
society in particular,
aspects
loathto examine-namely, the relationsof powerand influencebetween
or "state")and
politicalsociety (i.e., what the liberalscall "government,"
civilsociety (i.e., the "private
sector,"in liberalvocabulary),whichmutually
reinforceeach otherto the advantageof certainstrata,groups,and institutions. Thus,for Gramsci,civilsociety is best describednot as the sphere

onCivilSociety 7
/ Gramsci
Buttigieg
of freedombutof hegemony.Hegemony,to be sure, depends on consent
(as opposed to coercion),butconsent is not the spontaneousoutcomeof
albeitthroughextremelycomplex
"freechoice";consent is manufactured,
diverse
and
mediums,
institutions, constantlychangingprocesses. Furtherinsociety
consent is notevenlydistributed
more,the powerto manufacture
(or,to put it in the metaphoriclanguageof sportsthat permeatespolitical
oratoryin the UnitedStates, civilsociety is not a level playingfield);indeed, not everyoneis in an equal positionto understandhow consent is
and there are even those who remainunawareof the fact
manufactured,
thatconsent is manufactured
and actuallybelievethatthey give theirown
consent "freely"
andspontaneously.Farfromopposingliberaldemandsfor
a minimalstate and an extensionof the sphere of civilsociety,Gramsci's
elaborationof the Marxisttheoryof the state exposes (justas Machiavelli
had exposed the mechanismsof governmentin a differenthistoricalcontext)those apparatusesand processes of powerat workincivilsociety,as
wellas inthe relationsbetweencivilsocietyand politicalsocietythatliberal
theorygenerallyignores.His purposeis not to represscivilsociety or to
restrictits space but ratherto developa revolutionary
strategy(a "warof
thatwouldbe employedpreciselyinthe arenaof civilsociety,with
position")
the aimof disablingthe coerciveapparatusof the state, gainingaccess to
politicalpower,and creatingthe conditionsthat could give rise to a consensual society whereinno individualor groupis reducedto a subaltern
status.
It is importantto bear in mindthat Gramsci'stheoreticalor philosophicaltreatmentof this subjectemerges out of, and even depends on,
his detailedstudyof the concretepoliticalandculturalhistoryof Westernespecially Italianand French-society, that it is animatedby the urgent
need he feltto acquirea morethoroughunderstanding
of the sociocultural,
of Italyin orderto be betterable to
economic,and politicalconfiguration
devise an effectivestrategyto revolutionize
it,andthatit is the fruitof a long
process of directpoliticalengagement,discussions, experiences,reflecthatstretchbackto hisearliestyearsof socialist
tions,and reconsiderations
activism.Inotherwords,Gramsci'sinsightson the state and civilsociety
are deeply rootedin a concreteand specificsequence of turbulentevents
and developments(the Russian Revolution,WorldWarI, rapidindustrial
rise of fascism),especiallyas they
development,postwarsocial instability,
were experiencedin Italyand, above all, seen fromthe pointof view of a
firstinthe socialistworkers'movementandsubsequently
majorparticipant
in the shapingof a communistparty.It is also importantnot to lose sight

of Gramsci's specific intellectualand politicalformation,the early stages of
which he describes succinctly in a letter (6 March1924) to his wife Giulia:
The rebelliousinstinctwhich, when Iwas a child,was directedagainst
the rich because I was unable to pursue my studies-1, who obtained a 10 in all subjects in elementary school-whereas the sons
of the butcher, the pharmacist, the shopkeeper all went to school
well-dressed. That rebellious instinctgrew against all the richpeople
who oppressed the peasants of Sardinia;and at that time I thought
that it was necessary to struggle for the national independence of
the region: "Drivethe mainlanders to the sea!" How many times did
I repeat those words! Then I came to know the workingclass of an
industrialcity and I understood the real meaning of those things of
Marx'sthat I had first read out of intellectualcuriosity.Thus I became
passionate about life, the struggle, the workingclass.
Another significant formative influence on the young Gramsci-which he
mentions elsewhere in his writingsbut not in this particularletterto Giuliawas liberalism,or ratherthose elements of liberalismthat he encountered
(and was initiallyattracted to) in the "Southernist"politics of Gaetano Salvemini and in the philosophy of Benedetto Croce. Gramsci also sympathized, though not uncritically,with the radical strain of liberalismchampioned by his friend Piero Gobbetti.
In his early journalism,Gramsci adopted and promotedcertain positions that, in theory, at least, were advocated by liberals.Thus, for example,
he argued in favorof free trade, calling for the abolitionof the government's
protectionist policies. These policies, designed to strengthen the country's
growing modern industry,which was concentrated almost exclusively in the
North, were often defended on nationalistic grounds, and therefore had
a rather popular appeal. On the surface, protectionist laws appeared advantageous to the urban working class, which gained numerical strength
as well as increased political leverage as northern industry continued to
grow; in fact, many reformistsocialists and trade union leaders supported
protectionism.Gramsci strived hardto explain to his readers that, while appearing to favor the seemingly common interests of industrialcapital and
the industriallabor force, the government's protectionist policies were, in
reality,perpetuating the misery and exploitationof an enormous segment
of the population, especially the poverty-strickenpeasants in the South,
who remained trapped in a quasi-feudal socioeconomic system. In IIGrido
del Popolo of 19 August 1916, Gramsci reprintedtwo articles by antisocialist


liberals promotingfree trade-"Contro il feudalismo economico" (Against
economic feudalism) and
il libero scambio non e popolare"(Why
"Perche
free trade is unpopular)by the economist Luigi Einaudi and the Catholic
philosopher Lorenzo Michelangelo Billia,respectively. By publishingthese
two articles, Gramsci explains in his introductorynote, he meant to stimulate serious discussion on an issue of immediate concern to the proletariat.
While lamenting the failure of socialist writers to expose the underlying
motivations of protectionism and its injuriouseffects on the working poor,
Gramsci makes an assertion that, prima facie, at least, one would expect to
find in a liberalmanifesto ratherthan a socialist newspaper: "Thestruggle
for the freedom to have bread, the freedom to obtain all consumer goods
cannot be deferred."The antidogmaticGramsci, however,has littlepatience
with ideological labels; he enjoins his readers to "extractwhatever is useful
from the search for truth, no matter its source." Einaudiand Billiamaintain
that the question of free trade cannot be confined to economics; it is also a
moral issue, and for that reason, in Gramsci's view, what they have to say
on the subject "has universalsignificance, it transcends class boundaries."
What endows the liberals' position on free trade with universal significance and enables itto transcend class divisions is, of course, the fundamental principlethat informs it, namely, the rightof individualsand groups
to operate freely as long as they do not curtail the freedom of others-a
rightthat is protected by,simultaneously: (1) limitingto a minimumthe incursions of the state's coercive apparatus into the sphere of civil society, while
juridicallyempowering the constitutive elements of civil society to contest
all such incursions; and (2) ensuring that the state possesses a coercive
apparatus capable of restrainingany individualor group from encroaching
upon the freedom of others. Gramsci's discovery of some common ground
with the liberals is not confined to their position on the question of free
trade; he also espouses the fundamental principleon which their position
is based. In "Dirittocomune" (Common law)-Avanti!, 22 August 1916-for
example, he fiercely condemns the police use of plain-clothes agents to
keep watch on certain private buildings (such as the offices and meeting
places of legally constituted workers' associations and political organizations) and to spy on and harass the law-abidingindividualswho frequented
them. Every citizen with a sense of human dignity,Gramsciwrites, is aware
of "the rightto protect at all costs his freedom to live, to choose his own
way of life, to select the activities he wants to pursue, and that he has the
rightto prohibitcurious outsiders from poking their noses into his private
life."Why,then, are police exempt from the punitivesanctions imposed on

whoever violates the basic right to privacy and freedom of association?
Only because, Gramsci laments, "the Italians have such little awareness
of what freedom really is." Once again, Gramsci's argument seems to be
taken straight out of a textbook of liberalism.Hence the obvious question:
What leads the antireformistGramsci to espouse certain fundamentalprinciples of liberalismand, at the same time, to embrace a Marxismthat is
committed to the dissolution of liberalism? The answer is to be found in
Gramsci's concept of the state, which he takes to be integral, comprising
both the juridical-administrative
system and civil society. He rejects the liberal notion that the state consists solely in a legal and bureaucraticorder,
which remains neutral and indifferentto class interests while safeguarding
the autonomous development of civil society.
From Gramsci's point of view, the liberal state represents the concrete realization in history of fundamental liberties, but only as they were
gained by, and for, a particularclass-the bourgeoisie. That is to say, the
fundamental principles of civil rights, or the "rightsof man," normallyassociated with liberalismmay very well be universal, but in the liberalstate,
these rights are secured and protected in a form that privileges the bourgeoisie and perpetuates its socioeconomic dominance. Theoretically,the
proponent of liberalismwillargue that the social and economic advantages
enjoyed by the bourgeois (or any social group, for that matter)can be challenged, attenuated, or even erased through the initiatives and activities
that everyone is free to undertake within the sphere of civil society-as
long as the "rules of the game" (embodied in the system of government,
which liberaldoctrine equates withthe state) are observed. Gramsci would
counterargue that the rules of the game were established by the dominant
class and are themselves an integralpart of what needs to be transformed
before the fundamental principles of freedom and justice can be extended
to the point of eliminatingall forms of subalternity.Furthermore,Gramsci
would go on to argue, the very fact that there exists a coercive apparatus to ensure compliance with the rules of the game is itself indicative of
the nonuniversal character of the liberal/bourgeoisstate, notwithstanding
its appeals to universal principles.
One of Gramsci'searliest attempts to articulatemore or less systematicallythe relationof socialism vis-a-vis liberalismis the essay "Treprincipii,
tre ordini"(Three principles, three orders) in La Citta Futura, 11 February
1917. The rights of man and the individualfreedoms ensconced in liberal
doctrine are the product of a long history of struggles and revolutionary
movements, Gramsci explains. The outcome of these struggles was the


establishment of bourgeois civilization,and it could not be otherwise, because "the bourgeoisie was the only effective social force and the only one
reallyat workin history."This fact by itself does not diminishthe progressive
and universal character of the rights that were gained. "Was the principle
that asserted itself in history through the bourgeois revolutiona universal
one? Certainly,yes." But then Gramsci hastens to add:
Universaldoes not mean absolute. In history,there is nothing absolute and fixed. The assertions of liberalismare boundary-ideaswhich,
once they were recognized as rationallynecessary, became ideaforces; they were realized in the bourgeois state, they helped give
rise to an antithesis to that state in the form of the proletariat,and
then they became worn out. They are universal for the bourgeoisie, but they are not universal enough for the proletariat. For the
bourgeoisie they were boundary-ideas; for the proletariatthey are
minimalideas. And, in fact, the integralliberalprogramhas become
the minimal program of the socialist party. In other words, it is the
programthat we use in our day-to-day existence, as we wait for the
arrivalof the moment that is deemed most useful for [ ... ]
The last few words of this paragraphwere erased by the censor, but one can
surmise from the context that Gramsci was referringto the opportune time
for launching the revolutionthat would topple the bourgeois state. When
Gramsci wrote this article, and for the next few years, there was reason to
believe that in some countries, among them Italy,the conditions favoring
a socialist revolutionwould soon be at hand. As it turned out, of course,
quite the reverse happened; the bourgeois state proved itself much more
resistant than Gramsci and his fellow revolutionariesimagined--although
the fact that the fascist dictatorshipprevented its total disintegrationa few
years later confirmed its fundamental weakness. Later,in prison, Gramsci
would reflect at length not only on the failureof the revolutionaryprojectbut
also, and more fruitfully,on the complex reasons why the bourgeois state,
in its variableforms, is so durable,so resourceful,as to be able to withstand
the fiercest onslaughts and survive the most debilitatingcrises.
The young Gramsci overestimated the revolutionarypotential of his
time, but he was by no means unaware of the difficultiesinvolved or of the
enormous amount of work that needed to be done before the subaltern
classes could seriously vie for power. Already,in "Treprincipii,tre ordini,"he
was able to identifya majorsource of strength of bourgeois rule in the most
politicallydeveloped and economically advanced states--the examples he

12 boundary
2 / Fall1995
uses are BritainandGermany.Inthese countries,Gramsciexplains,people
havebecomeconvincedthatthe idealof a state thattranscendsclass interests can be attainedthroughthe continualperfectingof the presentsystem.
Fosteringand cultivatingthis convictionare legislativeand administrative
traditionsthatconveya sense of fairnessor reasonableness;inotherwords,
the government,though controlledby the bourgeoisie,still protectsthe
basic rightsof the workingclass and allowsit the socialspace to organize
itselfandcompeteforgovernmentpower.The socialpoliciesof the liberals
in Britain,for instance,assumed the formof what Gramscidescribes as
a "kindof bourgeoisstate socialism-i.e., a non-socialistsocialism."Their
didnotlooktoo unkindly
on the
posturewas such that"eventhe proletariat
state as government;convinced,rightlyor wrongly,that its interestswere
being lookedafter,it conductedits class strugglediscreetlyand without
In
the kindof moralexasperationthatis typicalof the workers'movement."
Germany,as in Britain,the subalternclasses do not haveto resortto desperatemeasures,such as takingto the streets in open rebellion,to secure
theirbasic rights.Why?Because inthose countries,"onedoes notsee the
fundamentallaws of the states trampledon, or arbitraryrule hold sway."
Inotherwords,these are states wherethe rulesof the game are carefully
observed;hence, there is a sense of orderand stability.And,as Gramsci
observes,commonsense (which,inthisarticle,he describesas the "terrible
slave-driverof the spirit")inhibitspeoplefromdisruptingthe orderlystatus
quo and makes them scared of the uncertaintiesthataccompanyradical
change. As a result,"theclass strugglebecomes less harsh,the revolutionaryspiritloses momentum.The so-calledlaw of least effortbecomes
popular-this is the lawof the lazywhichoftenmeans doingnothingat all.
InItaly,bycontrast,things
Incountrieslikethis,the revolutionis less likely."
are notso wellordered,inlargemeasurebecause the rulingclasses pursue
theirinterestsblatantly,imposingallthe sacrificesnecessaryforeconomic
Thisleads Gramscito believethatItalyis a prime
growthon the proletariat.
buthe is also awarethatthe groundfor
candidatefora socialistrevolution;
a successful revolutionhas yet to be prepared.Thereare manyelements
in this articlethatforeshadowthe morethoroughand incisiveanalyses of
the prisonnotebooks.
Even beforehe developedhis concepts of civilsociety,hegemony,
and so on, Gramscicouldalreadyperceivehowa dominantclass becomes
securelyentrenchednot by forcefullyrepressingthe antagonisticclasses
butratherby creatingand disseminatingwhathe calls a formamentis,and
by establishinga system of governmentthat embodiesthis formamentis

onCivilSociety 13
/ Gramsci
Buttigieg
and translatesit intoan order,or,betterstill,makesit appearto be orderliness itself.Forthisto happen,of course,the dominantclass orclasses must
acceptthatthe governmentapparatuscannotalwaysassert theircorporate
interestsnarrowly
anddirectly;the necessaryfictionthatthe governmentof
the state transcendsclass distinctionscan remaincredibleonlyif concessions are made to addressthe most pressingneeds and to accommodate
some of the aspirationsof the disadvantagedstrataof the population.The
groupsthatare out of powerin this kindof state are allowedto aspirefor
power,butthe prevailingformamentiswillinducethemto pursuetheirgoals
in a mannerthatdoes notthreatenthe basic orderor orderlinessas such;
in otherwords,they willnot aimto overthrowthe state and establisha new
kindof state but insteadwillcompetefora greatershare of influenceand
poweraccordingto the establishedrulesof the game. (Thisis whattrade
unions,forexample,haveoftendone;inthe UnitedStates today,the same
functionis performedby so-calledlobbygroups.)Consequently,the notion
thatthe social ordercan be perfectedthrough"fairand open"competition
becomes entrenchedas commonsense-in otherwords,as an ingrained
formamentis,whichseeks to remedyproblemsand injusticesthroughreformsfoughtforandnegotiatedamongcompetinggroupswithinthe existing
overallstructureof the social order,thus leavingthe juridical-administrative
apparatusof the state moreor less intact,whilethe campaignsforchange
are wagedwithinthe sphereof civilsociety.Itis a formamentisthatmakes
the revolutionary
ideaof eliminating
competitiveness(i.e.,greed)as the primarymotivatingforce in society seem unreasonable,unrealistic,or even
dangerous.
Gramscibitterlyopposed reformiststrategy both in the Socialist
inthe tradeunionmovement,since, in his view,it served onlyto
and
Party
strengthenratherthanunderminethe bourgeoisstate. Insteadof opposing
the state, reformistscollaboratedwith it; they did so not only in parliament (i.e., withinthe politicalapparatusof government),wherethey were
and to some extentby nationeffectively"domesticated"
by transformism
alism,butalso in the institutionsof organizedlabor(i.e., in the economic
spherelocatedincivilsociety),whichtheytendedto reduceintoinstruments
conceivedcorporateinterestsandimmediateneeds of
servingthe narrowly
the workingclass withinthe existingeconomicstructure(andwithlittlerestrata,such as the peasantry).Thisdoes not
gardforotherunderprivileged
meanthatGramsciadvocateda frontalassaultagainstthe state. Quitethe
opposite.As is wellknown,he was relentlessin his polemicsagainstanarchism,includingthe anarchistcurrentsinsyndicalism,whose violent,direct

14 boundary
2 / Fall1995
attackson the state he regardedas worse than ineffectualbecause they
were conduciveto reaction.Revolutionary
activity,forGramsci,has littleor
nothingto do withincitingpeople to rebel;instead,it consists in a painsan alternativeformamentisby
takingprocess of disseminatingandinstilling
intellectual
means of culturalpreparation
(i.e.,
developmentandeducation)
on a mass scale, criticaland theoreticalelaboration,and thoroughgoing
These kindsof activitiescan onlybe carriedoutincivilsociety;
organization.
indeed,at one andthe same time,they requirethe creationof, and helpto
extend,new spaces in civilsociety beyondthe reachof the governmental,
and juridicalapparatusesof the state. Whereasreformists
administrative,
Socialwith
collaborate the state, the most urgenttask of the revolutionary
ist PartyforGramsciconsists in establishingits own, differentconcept of
the state. He sketchesthe broadoutlinesof a revolutionary
strategyin both
in
the
and
terms
il
"Dopo Congresso"(After congress),an
positive
negative
articlehe publishedin IIGridodel Popolo,14 September1918,soon after
the 15thCongressof the ItalianSocialistParty,at whichthe "intransigent
had outvotedthe reformistblocof the party:
fraction"
revolutionary
and reformistspiritmustbe destroyed;we must
The collaborationist
set down exactly and precisely what we mean by "state.". . . It is
necessary to establishand to make it widelyunderstoodthat the

of the bourgeoisstate, thatit
socialiststate ... is not a continuation
is not an evolutionof the capitaliststate whichis made up of three
powers-the executive,parliament,and the judiciary.The socialist
state is, rather,a continuationand a systematicdevelopmentof the
has
workers'organizationsandthe localbodieswhichthe proletariat
the
individualistic
within
into
existence
to
able
been
bring
already
regime.The immediatetask of the proletariat,therefore,must not
favorthe extensionof state powerand state interventions;
instead,
its goal shouldbe to de-centerthe bourgeoisstate and to increase
the autonomyof local and trade unionbodies beyondthe reachof
regulatorylaws.
Once again, certainelements of Gramsci'srevolutionary
position,if taken
in isolation,appearto have a liberaltimbre:developmentof independent
professionalorganizations,resistingthe growthof the centralizedpowerof
the autonomyof localassociations,et cetera.Interestthe state, reinforcing
ingly,Gramsciconcludesthis paragraphwitha referenceto Britain,which
he considersto be a paradigmof liberalismand advancedcapitalism:"The

/ Gramsci
onCivilSociety 15
Buttigieg
kindof orderthatthe capitaliststate has come to have in Englandis much
closerto the Soviet regimethanourbourgeoisieis willingto admit."
In his characterization
of Britain,Gramsciis obviouslyresortingto
for
hyperbole polemicalpurposes. He knowsfullwell that, in reality,the
Britainintoa socialistcountryare infinitesimalchances of transforming
unlikeItaly,wherethe possibilityof a successfulsocialistrevolution
actually
existed,even if remotely.GramsciinvokesBritainas an examplebecause
he wantsto stress the importanceof enlargingthe sphereofcivilsociety.His
thinkingseems paradoxicalon this point:on the one hand,he believesthat
in a countrysuch as Britain,wherecivilsociety is verydevelopedand the
coerciveapparatusof the state remains,forthe mostpart,concealed,revolutionaryaspirationstend to languish;on the otherhand,he is convinced
thatthe preparation
thatmustnecessarilyprecedea socialistrevolution
can
onlytake place inthe sphereof civilsocietyandactuallyrequiresan expansion and an intensification
of the kindsof activitiesthatwouldenlargeand
the
terrain
of
civil
diversify
society.Thereis a cynicalexplanation:Gramsci
criticizesthe authoritarianism
of the Italianstate and makes demandsfor
the kindsof civillibertiesand the freedomof associationavailablein a liberalstate onlybecause he wantsto acquirespace withinwhichto organize
and mobilizethe cadres of the revolution.This, however,is definitelynot
the case, forwhen Gramscibemoansthe povertyof civilsociety in Italy,he
is as much(andperhapseven more)concernedwiththe miserablelevelof
education,and intellectuallifeinhis country
generalculture,moralintegrity,
as he is withthe repressivecharacterof its governmentandthe intolerance
of its rulingclass. The roadto socialismina nonliberalbourgeoisstate such
as Italy,Gramscimaintains,is hamperednotonlybythe tacticsof intimidationdirectlyor indirectly
employedwithimpunitybythe dominantclass and
its governmentbutalso-and muchmoreseriously-by the culturalbackwardnessof the masses as a whole,the politicalunpreparednessof even
the organizedsectors of the workingclass, the intellectualineptitudeand
confusedmotivationsof manyof the socialistleaders,the overallabsence
of clear ideas and rigorousthinkingabout why the system needs to be
changed,howto go aboutchangingit, andwhatwouldreplaceit.Gramsci
and his confreresin the OrdineNuovogroupsoughtto remedythese deficienciesthroughtheirinvolvementin the factorycouncilmovement,their
culturaland educationalinitiatives,theirtheoreticaland criticalwritings,
and theirworkwithinthe SocialistPartyand laterthe CommunistParty.At
the same time,though,Gramsciremainsconvincedthatthis kindof work

2 / Fall1995
16 boundary
alone cannotbearfruitas long as the whole nation(includingthe various
strataof the bourgeoisie)remainsmiredin pettypolitics,moralcorruption,
intellectualdisorder,and culturalpoverty.Gramscigives no credence to
the ingenuousbeliefthat "worseis better"--thatthe morerepressive,cordestitute,and so on, the bourgeoisstate is, the
rupt,morallyand culturally
transformation.
betterthe prospectsforrevolutionary
Rather,he perceives
a connectionbetween the deplorableconditionof Italiansociety and the
weaknesses of the socialistmovement,a connectionhe articudebilitating
lates explicitlyinhis article"DopoilCongresso."The relevantpassage from
this articlemeritsquotationat some length,because itforeshadowsone of
the majorunderlyingconcernsthatanimatesmanyof the reflectionsinthe
prisonnotebookson the numerousfailuresof the ItalianLeft.The Italian
SocialistParty,Gramsciwrites,
has providedan arenaforbizarreindividualsand restless spirits;in
the absence of the politicalandeconomiclibertiesthatspurindividuals to actionand that continuallyrenewthe leadinggroups,it was
the SocialistPartythatfurnishedthe lazy and somnolentbourgeoiThe mostfrequentlyquotedjournalists,the
sie withnew individuals.
capableand activemembersof the bourgeoisieare desertersfrom
the socialist movement;the partyhas been the gangwayto political success in Italy,it has been the most efficientsieve forJacobin
individualism.
The inabilityof the partyto functionintermsof class was related
was stillin its into the backwardstate of society in Italy.Production
it
not
the
was
still
was
trade
weak;
(as
is) parliamentary
regime
fancy,
but despotic-in other words, it was not capitalistbut petty bourgeois. Likewise,Italiansocialismwas pettybourgeois,meddlesome,
of some state privileges
a channelforthe distribution
opportunistic,
to a few proletarian
groups.
The importancethatGramsciattachesto the free developmentof a
vibrantcivilsocietymanifestsitselfmostclearlyinhis manyarticlesdealing
with:(1)the oligarchicand repressivecharacterof the Italiangovernment
of the dominantbourgeoisculture
apparatus;(2) the narrow-mindedness
liberalsthe self-proclaimed
and the failureof the intellectuals--including
to providea forcefulcritiqueof the retrogradesocialstructuresof the country and to move the nationtowardthe type of capitalismand democracy
and (3) the need
practicedinadvancedWesterncountries,such as Britain;
for the culturaland politicalpreparationof the subaltern classes priorto the

/ Gramsci
onCivilSociety 17
Buttigieg
transitionto socialism.Evenas moderncapitalistproductionslowlygains
groundin Italy,Gramsciobserves in "llpassivo"(The shortfall)in Avanti!,
6 September1918:"Theinstitutionsare backward... the policeforce is
organizedas itwas underthe BourbonsinNaples,or KingCharlesAlbertin
Piedmont,whenall movementsbythe citizenswere regardedas conspiratorial:it hobblescivilexistence,it causes an enormousdeficitin the social
balancesheet."In"Lademocraziaitaliana"
(Italiandemocracy)-in IIGrido
del Popolo,7 September1918-he bemoans the weakness of the political organizationsof the bourgeoisie,theirinabilityto formulate,disseminate, and defend clear ideas and concreteprogramsin the publicarena.
Inthe confusionand absence of continuitythat characterizeItalianpolitical life,the newspapersbecomedemagogicplatforms,the forumsof sterile
polemics.Underthese conditions,oppositionto the governmentamounts
to littlemorethan mere rebelliousness;problemsare solved "insalons, in
the officesof banksand industrial
firms,in sacristies,or inthe corridorsof
withoutstrongnationalpoliticalparties,the people, including
parliament";
the majorityof the bourgeoisie,cannot participatein the formulation
of a
nationalagenda and a cogent governmentpolicy.Gramsciconcludeshis
assessment of Italiandemocracywithsome veryharshwords:"Becauseof
its lackof scruples,its reluctanceto accept and to respectpartydiscipline
in policymatters,its love of vacuous noveltyand stale 'fashions,'Italian
bourgeoisdemocracyis condemnedto havingno worthypoliticallife. Instead, it is condemnedto consumingitselfinfactionalconflictsand always
Read withthe
remainingthe swindledand scornedvictimof adventurers."
benefitof hindsight,these harshwordsseem to foretellthe rise to power
of the adventurerpar excellence, Mussolini.Gramsci,of course, was no
prophet,and the Fascist seizure of powerin 1922 took him by surprise,
as it didvirtuallyeveryoneelse. Nevertheless,his diagnosisis correct:the
of civilsocietyhas catastrophicconsequences.
impoverishment
Gramsciattributesthe decrepitudeof politicallifeand culturein Italy
to a numberof factors,amongthemthe retrogradeinfluenceof the Catholic
in its authority,
Church,which,in its effortsto guardagainstany diminution
the
of
constantlychallenged legitimacy the secularstate, underminedthe
developmentof moderndemocraticstructures,which, undernormalcirandthus retardedthe
cumstances,accompaniesthe evolutionof liberalism,
growthof autonomousinstitutionsin civilsociety. Still,Gramscireserves
his fiercestcondemnationsforthe Italianmiddleclasses and the intellectuals. On morethan one occasion, he comparesthe pettybourgeoisieto
monkeys, that is, creatures who can mimicthe rightgestures but who lack

2 / Fall1995
18 boundary
ideas and values and are incapableof lookingbeyondtheirown most immediateneeds or interests-they have no sense of history,no sense of the
universal.Inone such mercilessattack,"Lascimmiagiacobina"(TheJacobin monkey)-in Avanti!,22 October1917-Gramscidescribes the Italian
pettybourgeoisieas follows:
of law;hence, they are monTheyhave no sense of the universality
keys.Theyhave no morallife.The ends they pursueare immediate
and extremelynarrow.Inorderto attainjust one of theirgoals they
sacrificeeverything--truth,
justice,the most deeply rootedand inIn
of
laws
humanity. orderto destroyone of theirenemies
tangible
they are willingto sacrificeallthe guaranteesthatare meantto protect every citizen;they are even willingto sacrificethe guarantees
meantfortheirown protection.
As the last phrasemakesclear,Gramsciholdsthe bourgeoisieresponsible
forfailingto safeguardeven its ownlong-terminterest,forignoringthe very
basic principlesthat provideit, as a class, withits own raisond'etre.Beof its middleclasses, Italyhad yet
cause of the pettynarrow-mindedness
to benefitfromthe legacy of the FrenchRevolution,"whichhas profoundly
transformedFranceand the world,whichhas been affirmedamong the
masses, whichhas shakenand broughtto the surfacedeep layersof submergedhumanity"-andthis proveddetrimentalnotjustto the bourgeoisie
itselfbutto the Italianpeople as a whole,includingthe subalternclasses.
This is anotherway of sayingthatthe Italianbourgeoisie,whileanxiousto
protectits privilegesand preserveits dominanceover othersocial strata,
lackedthe inclinationand abilityto provideleadershipforthe countryas a
whole at a time when Italywas being inexorably(thoughmost unevenly)
transformed,by historicalforcesthatwere beyondanybody'spowerto halt,
intoa modernindustrial
capitaliststate. Morethananyone,the intellectuals
wereto blame,especiallythose intellectualswhocharacterizedthemselves
as liberals.In "Iliberaliitaliani"(Italianliberals),in Avanti!,12 September
1918,Gramsciwrites:
Theyhave neverfoughtfortheirideas;they have placedthemselves
at the service of capitalistparasitism;they have not even attempted
to launchthe projectof educatingthe masses-a task whichthe Englishliberalshavecarriedout intheircountry,sacrificingthemselves
and stimulatingthe healthyenergies of bourgeoisproductionto bestirthemselvesand to spend moneyin orderto ensurethe success

onCivilSociety 19
/ Gramsci
Buttigieg
value insofaras it destroys
of a societal drivethathas revolutionary
old institutionsand decrepitformsof production.
InItaly,Gramsciconcludes,it is leftto the socialistsandtheirorganizations
to assume the responsibilities
that properlybelongto, butare shirkedby,
the liberalintellectuals.
Gramsci'sidea of the politicalpartyas a collectiveintellectualthat
carries out its primaryand most importantfunctionsin civilsociety animates his writingsand activitiesfrombeginningto end. It is this idea that
lies at the rootof Gramsci'salmostobsessive concernwithquestionsof
cultureand of organization(whichis often,forhim,a corollaryof intellectualdiscipline),aboutwhichso muchhas been written.Whatneeds to be
stressed over and over again is this:Gramsciinsistedadamantlythatthe
transformation
of society starts in civilsociety, and, ideally
revolutionary
or theoreticallyat least, it is not fullyaccomplisheduntilthe extensionof
civilsociety is so completethat it no longerneeds a coerciveapparatus
to protectit. Forthis reason,Gramsciforcefullyand repeatedlyrejectedall
seizure of the state over
argumentsthat gave priorityto the revolutionary
the formationand the cultivation
of a broad-basedrevolutionary
culture(or
to use one of his favoritephrases).Longbefore
"conceptionof the world,"
he refinedhis conceptof hegemony,Gramsciwas convincedthatthe revolutionarypartyhad to exerciseits leadershiprolefirstand foremostin civil
society by,among otherthings,fosteringthe developmentof an independentsociocultural
andpoliticalconsciousnessamongthe subalternclasses
and bypromoting
the formation
of self-regulatedautonomousorganizations
workers
and
thisneededto be done beforeany
moreover,
among
peasants;
to
assume
attempts
governmentalpower.In"Primaliberi"(Freedomfirst),
in IIGridodel Popolo,31 August1918,Gramscipolemicizedagainst the
young socialistAlfonsoLeonetti,who maintainedthat the socialisttransformationof mass consciousness couldtake place onlyafterthe Socialist
of the proletariat,
Partyacquiredstate powerand,throughthe dictatorship
secured the freedomof the oppressedclasses. The basic errorunderlying
Leonetti'sargument,Gramsciexplains,is the conceptionof the political
partyas somethingseparatefrom"thepeople":
Thus, Leonettispeaks of "us"and the "people"as if they were two
separateentities:we (who?),the partyof action;the people,a blind
and ignorantherd.He conceives of the partyof actionin the same
did;as a ridiculousclash betweena handwayas the carbonari1848
fulof conspiratorsand a handfulof policemen.He does notthinkof

2 / Fall1995
20 boundary
it in its presentform,as it is shaped bythe modernpoliticalstruggle
withthe participation
of countlessmultitudes.
Yearslater,in his prisonnotebooks,Gramsciwent on to explainthat the
inabilityof the old ActionPartyto bringto fruitionthe revolutionary
potentialof the Risorgimentowas due, in largemeasure,to its failureto establish broad-basedand close relationshipswiththe masses. Inthe polemic
against Leonetti,however,Gramsci'sfocus is on the contemporarysituation:the strugglefor politicalpower,in modernsociety, is carriedout in
Andthis particiof the "countlessmultitudes."
publicwiththe participation
pationtakes place, concretely,in civilsociety.Therefore,Gramsciasserts,
it is throughtheiractivitiesand autonomousorganizationsin civilsociety
thatthe subalternmasses mustfirstacquiretheirfreedomor independence
fromthe rulingclasses andthe alliedintellectuals,thatthey mustfirstlearn
to become themselvesa leadingforce:
Education,culture,the widespreadorganizationof knowledgeand
experience constitutethe independenceof the masses fromthe
intellectuals.The most intelligentphase of the struggleagainstthe
despotismof career intellectualsand against those who exercise
authorityby divinerightconsists in the effortto enrichcultureand
heightenconsciousness. Andthis effortcannotbe postponeduntil
free. Itis itself
tomorrowor untilsuch timeas whenwe are politically
action.
the
for
itself
the
and
condition
it
is
stimulus
freedom,
Underlyingthe mainargumentthat Gramsciemploysagainst Leonetti in "Primaliberi"is an insighthe graduallydevelops into something
resemblinga generalprincipleor basic thesis-namely, that the success
stable governmentalcontrol
of a social groupin acquiringand maintaining
the
workit carriesout in civil
much
in a modernstate depends as
upon
society priorto accedingto poweras on its subsequentabilityto extend
its influenceover (and/orabsorbwithinit) increasinglylargersegments of
civilsociety. It is noteworthythat this principleserves as the pointof departurefor the note in whichGramscibroaches,for the firsttime in the
prisonnotebooks,the questionof hegemonyand the corollarydistinction
between domination(dominazione)and leadership(direzione).The note,
entitled"Politicalclass leadershipbeforeand afterassuminggovernment
withthe contrastingfortunesof
power"(Notebook1, ?44), deals primarily
the ActionPartyand the Moderatesduringthe Risorgimentoand its aftermath,but it also touches upona wide rangeof largerissues. Immediately

/ Gramsci
onCivilSociety 21
Buttigieg
the specifictopicof the note, Gramsciarticulatesthe prinafterintroducing
ciple that willguide his historicalanalysis,and this guidingprinciple,as it
turnsout, is nothingotherthanthe conceptof hegemony,albeitstillin its
embryonicform:
The politico-historical
criterionon whichour own inquiriesmustbe
that
a class is dominantin two ways, namelyit is
is
this:
grounded
It leads the alliedclasses, it dominates
and
"dominant."
"leading"
the opposingclasses. Therefore,a class can (andmust)"lead"even
beforeassumingpower;when it is in powerit becomes dominant,
but it also continues to "lead.".
. Political leadership becomes
an aspect of domination,in that the absorptionof the elites of the

enemy classes results in theirdecapitationand rendersthem impotent.Therecan and there must be a "politicalhegemony"even
beforeassuminggovernmentpower,and in orderto exercise political leadershipor hegemonyone mustnot relysolely on the power
and materialforceprovidedby government.
Gramscithen proceeds to explainthat the success of the Moderatesin
establishingtheirleadershiprole did not ensue froma directstrugglefor
powerbutratherfromtheirplace andfunctionwithincivilsociety.The Moderates "succeededin establishingthe apparatusof theirpoliticalleaderthatis throughindividual,
ship... informsthatcan be called'liberal,'
'private'
initiative."
Eventhoughthey had no "official"
partyprogram,organizational
plans,ora preestablishedstrategy,the Moderateswereperfectlypositioned
in civilsociety to lead Italy'srelativelyhomogenousupperclasses and to
extendtheirinfluenceamongthe potentialorganizersand leaders(i.e.,the
intellectuals)of the subordinatesocial strata. Firstof all, the Moderates
themselvesactuallybelongedto the socialgroupswhose interestsand aspirationsthey representedand expressed (in Gramsci'sterms,they were
organicintellectuals);in otherwords,they were themselves a prominent
presence invirtuallyeverymajorsector of the "private"
sphere:"theywere
intellectualsand politicalorganizersand, at the same time, heads of busicommercialandindustrial
ness, greatlandowners-administrators,
entrepreetc."
constituted
the only compactand historically
neurs,
Secondly,they
progressiveintellectualgroup(whichmeans, inGramsci'sterms,a groupin
a positionof leadership)inthe country;hence, "theModeratesexerciseda
powerfulattraction,ina 'spontaneous'way,overthe wholemass of intellectualswho existedinthe countryin a 'diffuse'and 'molecular'
state to fulfill,
albeit minimally,the needs of public education and administration."Thus,

2 / Fall1995
22 boundary
the Moderates,in effect, created an alliancebetween the rulingclasses
and the intellectualsfromall of the othersocial strata,includingthose that
werepotentiallyadversarial.Byso doing,of course,theyvirtuallyparalyzed
the opposition;butmost noteworthyof all is the factthatthey were able to
achievethis,thanksprimarily
to the favorablepositiontheyoccupiedincivil
society.
Atthis pointin his analysis,Gramscimakesanotherquasi-axiomatic
statement:
Hereinis revealedthe truthof a criterionof historico-political
research:theredoes notexistan independentclass of intellectuals,but
however,the intellectualsof the hiseveryclass has its intellectuals;
class
exercise
such a powerof attractionthat,
toricallyprogressive
inthe finalanalysis,theyend up bysubordinating
the intellectualsof
the otherclasses andcreatingan environment
of solidarityamongall
the intellectuals,withties of a psychological(vanity,etc.) and often
of a caste (technico-juridical,
corporate)character.
Once again,the pointthatneeds to be stressed in this instanceis thatthe
describedhere by Gramscioccurs withphenomenonof "subordination"
out coercion;it is an instanceof powerthat is exercisedand extendedin
civilsociety, resultingin the hegemonyof one class over others who, for
theirpart,acquiesce to it willinglyor, as Gramsciputs it, "spontaneously."
Infact, in the veryfirstsentence of the next paragraph,Gramscistresses
that"thisphenomenonoccursspontaneously."
However,he hastensto add
lasts onlyas long as the rulingclass remainsprothat this "spontaneity"
gressive-that is, onlyas longas it looksbeyondits narrowcorporateclass
interests,seeks to advancethe wholeof society,and continuesto expand
its presence in the "private"
sphere, or, as Gramsciputs it, "continuously
of new spheres
its
enlarg[es] compassthroughthe continualappropriation
or
class
loses its posithe
of industrial-productive
If, when,
activity."
ruling
other
in
civil
tion of leadership
society-when, among
things,it ceases to
addressat least the mostpressingneeds of the otherclasses,
satisfactorily
anditsownconstituentgroupsseek to protectonlytheirownimmediateand
versus landowners)corporateinterests-its
competing(e.g., industrialists
of
attraction
disappears,the ideologicalbloc that held it together
power
in formswhich
and
gives way to "'constraint'
disintegrates, "spontaneity"
in
are less and less disguised and indirect,ending up downrightpolice
measuresand coups d'etat."
The success of the Moderateswas extremelylimited,and whatever

onCivilSociety 23
/ Gramsci
Buttigieg
progressivefunctiontheyservedwas short-lived.Tobe sure,theywereable
to attractaroundthem the majorityof intellectuals,butthis was advantageous to themonlyin negativeterms:itpreempted,orgreatlyretarded,the
organizationof powerfuland effectiveoppositionalgroups.Yet,neitherthe
intellectualsof the upperechelons
Moderatesthemselves,as the "organic"
of society, northe intellectualsthey attractedfromthe othersocial strata
provedcapableor willingto pursuea progressiveagenda forthe country
as a whole.The welfareof the Southwas ignoredin ordernot to alienate
the old nonproductive
class of big landowners,whose wealthand power
dependedon a parasitic,quasi-feudalsystem that shouldhave been renderedobsolete bythe emergenceof the modernbourgeoisstate. Also,the
powerfulindustrialbourgeoisieof the Northcared littlethatthe economic
and trade policiesthey adoptedwere ruinousto the nation'sagricultural
base. The Moderatesand theirpoliticalheirs neverreallyachievedhegemonyinthe fullsense of the term.(Infact,when Gramsci,inthis note,sets
out to illustratehow a class becomes hegemonic,he offersthe historyof
the JacobinmovementinFranceas an example,notthe Moderatesin Italy.)
Proofof thisis to be foundinthe measuresused bythe Italianrulingclass to
repressdissent,inthe failureof the bourgeoisieto significantly
expandthe
terrainof civilsociety,andfinallyinthe Fascistcoupd'etatandsubsequent
which,morethan anythingelse, made manifestthe absence
dictatorship,
of a democraticculturein Italy.The culprits,in Gramsci'sview,were the
cultural,economic,and politicalleadersof the bourgeoisieand those who
alliedthemselveswiththem-in short,the intellectuals.Thatis why,as far
backas 1918,in "Primaliberi,"
Gramsciwas underlining
the importanceof
Inorder
obtaining"theindependenceof the masses fromthe intellectuals."
to acquirethis independence,the workersand peasants had to do more
thansimplyjoinorganizations,such as tradeunions,thatrepresentedtheir
interests;they needed to educatethemselves,to learnto lookat the structureof the state fromtheirown perspective,andto developthe capacityto
imaginea differentkindof society and the collectivewillto struggleforit.
Gramsci'smanycontributions
to this educativeprocess included-in additionto his close involvement
withthe factorycouncilmovement,the Ordine
Nuovogroup,and the organizationalworkof the CommunistParty-not
onlysevere critiquesof the bourgeoisiebutalso numerousarticlesoffering
alternativeoppositionaldescriptionsand interpretations
of Italianhistory,
the structureof the state, and the anatomyof Italiansociety.Gramsciwas
offeringhis readersthe ingredientsfordevelopinga differentrepresentation
of reality,a different forma mentis, a differentunderstanding of history, in

24 boundary
2 / Fall1995
shorta differentculturefromthe one handeddownto them.Repeatedly,he
wouldraiseandinvitereflectionon the mostbasicquestions,as forexample
in his articleof 7 February1920,"Lostato italiano"(TheItalianstate):
Whatis the Italianstate? Andwhy is it what it is? Whateconomic
forces and whatpoliticalforces are at its base? Has it undergonea
process of development?Has the system of forces that broughtit
into existence remainedintact?Whatinternalfermentshave been
responsiblefor the process of development?Whatexactly is the
positionof Italyin the capitalistworld,and how have outsideforces
influencedthe internalprocess of development?Whatnew forces
has the imperialist
warrevealedand stimulated?Whatdirectionare
the currentlines of forcein Italiansociety mostlikelyto movein?
These were by no means rhetoricalquestionsforGramsci;he was
profoundly
preoccupiedbythem,as can be seen notonlyin his journalistic
but
writings inthe documentshe preparedforpartydiscussions,meetings,
and congresses. Inthe last essay he wrotebeforehis arrest,the unfinished
"Alcunitemi della quistionemeridionale"
(Some aspects of the Southern
he
to
was
answer
the
Question),
question,"Andwhyis it whatit is?"
trying
withspecific referenceto the ItalianSouth. The mannerin whichhe addresses thatquestionreveals,morethan anythingelse, the overwhelming
importancehe attachedto civilsociety.His analysisfocuses on the social
structureand class relationsin the South and, above all, on the regional
and nationaleffectsof the roleplayedbythe Southernintellectuals.When,
afterhis arrest,he conceivedof the programof studythat wouldeventually resultin the compositionof the prisonnotebooks,he thoughtof it as
a continuationand an elaborationof the ideas he had sketchedin "Alcuni
temidellaquistionemeridionale,"
onlythistimehe wouldexpandthe scope
of his inquiryto embracepracticallyall aspects of Italiancivilsociety and
its history.Inhis letterof 19 March1927to TatianaSchucht,he describes
one aspect of his projectas a studyof "theformationof the publicspiritin
Italyduringthe last century;that is, researchon Italianintellectuals,their
origins,theirgroupingsin relationto culturalcurrents,theirvariousmodes
of thinking,etc."The underlyingmotifof his studies, he explains,willbe
"thecreativespiritof the people in its variousphases and stages of development."In his list of topics for study on the openingpage of the first
notebook,Gramsci'smainfocus is stillon the historyof civilsocietyin Italy;
this is especiallyobviousin the firstthree items of his list: "1)Theoryof
2) Developmentof the Italianbourgeoisieup to
historyand historiography.

/ Gramsci
onCivilSociety 25
Buttigieg
1870. 3) Formationof Italianintellectualgroups."Manyof the otheritems
inthe listare oftencharacterizedas "cultural"
topics,butforthe mostpart,
to
are
Gramsci's
desire
and assess the conexamine
too,
they,
inspiredby
ditionof civilsociety in Italyin its variousaspects. The prisonnotebooks,in
readas a complexresponseto the questions,"What
fact, can be fruitfully
is the Italianstate? Andwhyis itwhatit is?"-a response,moreover,thatis
guidedand conditionedby Gramsci'sconvictionthatan inquiryof this kind
necessitates thoroughand detailedstudyof civilsociety,includingits most
recondite,orless exalted,elements.Fromthisperspective,forexample,the
literatureand
importanceof Gramsci'snotes on second-rate"Brescianist"
on the almostcomicalintellectualineptitudeof "Lorianist"
social scientists
becomes evident:theyare notcriticalcannonadesagainsteasy targetsbut
rathera crucialpartof Gramsci'sinvestigationintothe reasonswhyItalian
civilsociety had become so sick, so culturallyimpoverished,so politically
impotentthat it lackedthe criticaland moralfiberto resistthe demagogic
destituteand repugnantas fasonslaughtof a movementas intellectually
cism. Similarly,
the extensivecritiqueof Croce'sphilosophyis muchmore
thana polemicalincursionintothe historyof ideas;it is an integralcomponent of the largerinquiryintothe social irresponsibility
of the intellectuals
whose alliancewiththe rulingclasses anddetachmentfromthe masses hinderedthe developmentin Italyof a civilsociety robustenoughto withstand
the violentwave of reactionaryextremism.Manyothermajorelements of
the notebooksacquiregreat resonancewhen read fromthis perspective,
includingthe sections on the Risorgimento,Machiavelli,religion,popular
culture,subalternhistory,journalism,and the languagequestion.
This is not to suggest that the concept of civilsociety is the key
to the interpretation
of the prisonnotebooks:there is no single avenue
into the labyrinthof Gramsci'stext. Besides, the concept of civilsociety
is itselfelucidated,elaborated,and theorizedin the course of the writing
of the notebooks.The point,rather,is this: Gramsci'smost insightfulobservationson civilsociety are, more often than not, intertwinedwith his
andconcreteanalyses of a widediversityof specificphenomena.
particular
One must resist the temptationto concentrateexclusivelyon those few
passages where Gramsciattemptsto articulatethe concept (orfacets of
it)formallyand systematically.Thereare numeroussections in the prison
notebooksthat make no explicitmentionof the term civilsociety and yet
are of fundamentalimportanceto Gramsci'sdevelopmentof the concept.
Mostimportantamongthese are the passages thatdeal withsome aspect
or another of hegemony; indeed, in the prison notebooks, hegemony and

2 / Fall1995
26 boundary
civilsociety are interdependent
concepts. Gramsciarrivesat the concept
of hegemonythroughthe detailedstudyof civilsociety,and, moreover,his
descriptionsof the complexinteractionsamongindividualsand institutions
in civilsocietyconstitutea concrete,materialexpositionof the apparatuses
andoperationsof hegemony.Atthe same time,his developmentof the concept of hegemonyenables himto elaboratethe sketchyviews he initially
expressedin hisjournalistic
writingsandto developa morecomprehensive
of it bothmateriallyand theoretically.
understanding
The site of hegemonyis civilsociety;in otherwords,civilsociety is
the arenawhereinthe rulingclass extendsand reinforcesits powerby nonviolentmeans. Hence, in the prisonnotebooks,the close scrutinyof civil
society and the studyof hegemonyare virtuallyone and the same thing,
and the formerserves to reaffirmthe concrete realityof the latter.Froma
note that,interestingly
enough,does not explicitlyemploythe termshegeone
and
civil
can see how,forGramsci,the studyof one goes
society,
mony
hand in handwiththe other.The note, entitled"Cultural
topics. Ideological material"
(Notebook3, ?49), opens withwhat,ineffect,is a description
of the overarchingresearchprojectthatenglobes mostof the fragmentary
contentsof the notebooks:"Astudyof how the ideologicalstructureof a
meantto
rulingclass is actuallyorganized:thatis, the materialorganization
" What
and
the
theoretical
or
'front.'
develop
preserve,defend,
ideological
Gramsciis proposinghereis nothingless thana studyof hegemony;he then
to listthe componentsof the materialorganization
of
proceedsimmediately
for
the ideologicalstructurethatneed to be studied.The list is remarkable
attentionto the materialparits detailandtestifiesto Gramsci'sunwavering
he
to
the
attaches
the
molecular
aspects, so to speak,
ticularity, importance
of civilsociety. On the top of the list, he places "themost dynamicpart
of the ideologicalstructure,"
by whichhe means the press, or, moreaccuthe
entire
including
publishingindustryandeveryformof publication,
rately,
the most humble:"publishing
houses (whichhave an implicitand explicit
current),politicalnewspapers,reprogramand whichsupporta particular
views of every kind,scientific,literary,philological,popular,etc., various
The otherthingshe lists range
periodicalsincludingeven parishbulletins."
fromthe obvious,such as libraries,schools, associationsand clubs of all
kinds,andthe pervasiveactivitiesof the CatholicChurch,to the seemingly
innocuous,such as architecture,the layoutof streets and theirnames. All
of these thingsconstitutethe "formidable
complexof trenchesand fortifistructureof
cationsof the rulingclass."The serious studyof this "material
ideology"wouldentaila task of colossal proportions,and, yet, it is impor-

/ Gramsci
onCivilSociety 27
Buttigieg
tantforGramscibecause "inadditionto providinga livinghistoricalmodel
of such a structure,it wouldinculcatethe habitof assessing the forces of
agency in societywithgreatercautionand precision."
By readingthe prisonnotebooksselectively,manycommentators
orunwittingly
havewittingly
of the ineluctable
concealedthe fullimplications
relationsthat Gramsciestablishes between hegemonyand civil society.
Therehas been a tendencyto stress the nonviolent,noncoercivecharacter
of the hegemonicrelationsthat obtainin civilsociety,and thus to underemphasizethe extentto whichthese are uneven relationsof powerthat
strengthenand help perpetuatethe gripof the dominantclasses overthe
state as a whole. It is a tendencyoften inspiredby the desire to portray
Gramscias "democratic"
and, therefore,acceptableand relevantto conculture
thatjustifiablyabhorstotalitarianruleand that
temporarypolitical
withtotalitarianism;
associates
Marxist
unjustifiably
thoughtautomatically
but it is a misguidedtendency,not because Gramsciwas an undemocraticor antidemocraticthinkerbut because his workreveals the limits,
insufficiencies,and exclusionarycharacterof the democraticsystems we
inhabit,exposing,as it does, how and why subalterngroupsare denied
access to power.Hegemonyis noncoercivepower,butitis powernonetheless; indeed,the flexible,andoftencamouflaged,apparatusesof hegemony
providethe dominantgroupsin society withthe most effectiveprotection
againsta successfulfrontalattackfromthe subalternclasses. Once a particularsocial groupor groupingbecomes hegemonic,it means that it has
not onlyacquiredcontrolof the politico-juridical
apparatusof the state but
also permeatedthe institutionsof civilsociety-in Gramsci'ssense of the
terms,it has assumed leadership(direzione)in the culturalsphere.
Civilsociety is notsome kindof benignor neutralzone wheredifferent elements of society operateand compete freelyand on equal terms,
regardlessof who holds a predominanceof powerin government.That
wouldbe the liberalview,whichmisleadinglyportraysthe formalrestraints
imposeduponthe use of forceheldin reservebythe governmental
apparatus of the state as a boundarylinethatdemarcatesthe separationbetween
the state and civilsociety.The pervasivenessof this liberalview is such
thatit has oftenskeweddiscussionsof Gramsci'stheoryof hegemonyand
of his conceptof civilsociety- specifically,those discussionsthathighlight
the distinctionbetweencoercionandconsent,betweenpoliticalsocietyand
civilsociety.Inreality,Gramsci'swritingsaimto expose howdominationof
politicalsocietyand leadershipof civilsocietyactuallyreinforceeach other,
how the powerof coercionand the powerto produceconsent are inter-

28 boundary
2 / Fall1995
twined.Tobe sure, Gramscidoes distinguishbetweenpoliticalsociety and
civilsociety,buthe does so primarily
forthe purposesof analysis,since the
apparatusesof one are quitedifferentfromthe apparatusesof the other.
WhatGramscidoes not do is separate politicalsociety and civilsociety
into state and nonstate;on the contrary,he regardsthem as the constitutiveelements of a single, integralentity-the modernbourgeois-liberal
state. The distinctionbetween politicalsociety and civilsociety, Gramsci
explicitlyasserts ina note entitled"Relationsbetweenstructureand superstructures"
and notorganic;in
(Notebook4, ?38), is "purelymethodological
concretehistoricallife,politicalsociety and civilsocietyare a single entity."
The sourceof the false distinctionis liberaltheory,whichassigns economic
activityto the sphere of civilsociety in orderto place it beyondthe reach
of governmentregulation.Gramsciidentifiestwo majorflaws with liberal
theory,whose mainthrustis to legitimizeandjustifya "free-market"
system:
(1) it is based on an economisticconceptof the state and civilsociety;and
(2) it contradictsreality,since "laissez-faireliberalism,too, must be introduced by law,throughthe intervention
of politicalpower:it is an act of will,
not the spontaneous,automaticexpressionof economicfacts."
Gramsci'scritiqueof the economisticbasis of liberaltheoryis accompaniedby a critiqueof the economismthat lies at the root of syndicalisttheory.There is, however,a fundamentaldifferencebetween the
liberalsand the syndicalists:the liberalsspeak forthe dominantgroupsin
society,whereasthe syndicalistsrepresenta subalternstratum.Syndicalist
and
theory,accordingto Gramsci,"isan aspect of laissez-faireliberalism"
debilitatesthe workingclass because it sacrifices"theindependenceand
autonomyof the subalterngroup. . to the intellectualhegemonyof the
dominantgroup."Economismentrapsthe workingclass in an economiccorporatephase and hence perpetuatesits subalternstatus. No groupcan
escape fromsubalternityunless, and until,it is capable of "leavingbehindthe economic-corporate
phase in orderto advance to the phase of
politico-intellectual
hegemonyincivilsocietyandbecomedominantinpolitical society."Inhis second versionof thispassage (Notebook13,?18),which
appearsunderthe title"Sometheoreticaland practicalaspects of economism"in the special notebookdevotedto his reflectionson Machiavelli,
the phrase "politico-intellectual
hegemony"is changed to "ethico-political
whichfurtherreinforcesthe noneconomisticcharacterof hegehegemony,"
mony.Butwhat this passage (bothin its earlierand laterversions)illustrates most clearlyis that (1) hegemonyin civilsociety and dominationof
politicalsociety go handin hand;and that (2) when a groupsatisfies itself

/ Gramsci
onCivilSociety 29
Buttigieg
withsimplyobtainingsome measureof corporateautonomyincivilsociety
and intellectualleadershipof
whileremainingsubjectto the ethico-political
Gramsci
those whodominatepoliticalsociety,itdoomsitselfto subalternity.
in Notein
he
drafted
in
a
note
first
a
different
makesthe same point
way
book 3, ?90, underthe title "Historyof the subalternclasses," and later
and a newtitle,"Methodological
includedwithsome modifications
criteria,"
in Notebook25, ?5, his special notebookon the historyof subalternsocial
groups.TheobservationswithwhichGramsciopens the noteare especially
illuminating:
The historicalunityof the rulingclasses occursinthe state, andtheir
historyis essentiallythe historyof states and of groupsof states.
But one must not thinkthat this unityis purelyjuridicaland political, althoughthatformof unityhas its own importancewhichis not
merelyformal.The basic historicalunity,in its concreteness,is the
outcomeofthe organicrelationsbetweenthe state orpoliticalsociety
and "civilsociety."The subalternclasses, by definition,are not unifiedand theycannotbecome unifieduntiltheyare able to becomea
withthatof civilsociety,
"state":theirhistory,therefore,is intertwined
itis a "disjointed"
anddiscontinuouspartof the historyof civilsociety
and hence of the historyof states or groupsof states.
The restof the notetracesthe variousphases subalterngroupsgo through
on the way towardrealizingthe need to learnto speak forthemselves,to
create theirown autonomousorganizations,and,throughthem,to acquire
the abilityto move beyondcorporateself-consciousnessand growto the
the "State."
Therearecomplexissues
pointof becoming,at least potentially,
involvedhere that, if they were to be fullyexpounded,wouldrequireinter
alia a close study of Gramsci'sconcept of the role of the politicalparty.
Thiscannotbe done here,althoughit is important
to pointout, even ifonly
in passing, that the politicalpartyas Gramsciconceives it must always
seek to carryout its functionin civilsociety,even if,or when, it accedes to
governmentpower.Inthis context,however,a differentpointneeds to be
stressed in orderto counterthe prevailing
thinkingof ourtimethatequates
civilsocietywithfreedomand democracy,and thatalltoo readilyconfuses
calls forpartyorganizational
rigorand unityof purposewithlatenttotalitarianism.WhatGramscihas shownis thatalthoughthe historyof civilsociety
may be the historyof the acquisitionof certainbasic individualrightsand
of the growthof free enterpriseeconomies,it is notthe historyof freedom
toutcourt,foruntilnowthe historyof civilsociety has also been the history

2 / Fall1995
30 boundary
of the dominanceof one socialgroupoverothers,the historyof groupsthat
remainfragmented,subordinated,and excludedfrompower.Civilsociety
can only be the site of universalfreedomwhen it extends to the pointof
becomingthe state, thatis, whenthe need forpoliticalsociety is obviated.
The positionof a rulingclass, then, is moresecure when it couples
dominanceof politicalsociety with hegemonyin civilsociety. In orderto
achieve this, Gramsciexplainsin Notebook4, ?38, the rulingclass must
sacrificeits narrowcorporateself-interest;it has to movebeyondeconomic
and politicalcontroland seek to establish"intellectual
and moralunity,not
on a corporatebuton a universallevel-the hegemonyof a fundamental
social groupover the subordinategroups."Forthis to happen,the governmentalapparatusmust,to some extent,rise above (or be seen to rise
above)immediateclass interests:
is seen as a group'sownorganismforcreating
Thestate-government
the favorableterrainforthe maximumexpansionof the groupitself.
Butthisdevelopmentandthis expansionare also viewedconcretely
as universal;thatis, theyare viewedas beingtiedto the interestsof
the subordinategroups,as a developmentof unstableequilibriums
betweenthe interestsof fundamentalgroupsandthe interestsof the
subordinategroupsin whichthe interestsof the fundamentalgroup
prevail-butonlyup to a certainpoint;thatis withoutgoingquiteas
faras corporateeconomicselfishness.
Thereare two ways to readthis passage. One readingwouldemphasize
howthe expansionof civilsociety serves to curbeconomic-corporate
egotismandaccommodatesome of the needs and interestsof the subordinate
classes. The otherreadingwouldpointout thatby exercisingrestraint,the
governmentapparatusactuallyreinforcesand extendsthe holdon power
of the rulinggroupsover the whole of society.Both readingsare correct,
of course, but only the latterreadingbringsinto reliefthe fact that civil
society is notjust a zone of freedomfromcoercionor sanctionedviolence
butalso, andat the same time,the sphereof hegemony,the terrainof power
exercisedby one groupor groupingoverothers.
The acquisitionof a hegemonicpositionin civilsociety is ultimately
to the rulingclasses thanthe acquisitionof controloverthe
moreimportant
apparatusof government.The latter,it is true, allowsthe
juridico-political
dominantinterestgroupsin a society to imposetheirwillby force should
it provenecessary,butif it were theironlysource of power,they wouldbe
rendereddefenseless by a coup d'etat.Hegemony,bycontrast,insuresthe

on CivilSociety 31
/ Gramsci
Buttigieg
dominantgroupsagainstthe consequences of a coupd'etatand, inall likelihood,even preventsa successful coup d'etatfromoccurringin the first
place. Yet,none of this shouldbe construedto mean thatGramsci,in any
way,suggests thatthe growthof civilsociety,whichnormallyaccompanies
the extensionand expansionof powerof a dominantgroupfromthe economicand politicalspheres to society as a whole, is catastrophicto the
of the fewover
subalternsocialgroups.Thestruggleagainstthe domination
of
the many,if it is to be successful,mustbe rootedin a carefulformulation
a counterhegemonic
conceptionof the socialorder,inthe disseminationof
institutionssuch a conception,andinthe formationof counterhegemonic
whichcan onlytakeplace in civilsocietyand actuallyrequirean expansion
of civilsocietyin
of civilsociety.Thisis whyGramsciregardedthe corruption
Italyas tremendouslydisadvantageousto the interestsof subalterngroups.
of civilsociety:amongthem,
He identifiedmanyaspects of this corruption
the weakness of the politicalpartieswho exercisedpoorleadershipin civil
society,the failureof successive governmentsto riseaboveimmediateclass
the lackof integrityof
interestsand theirreadinessto functiondictatorially,
politicaland intellectualleaders.The poorconditionof civilsociety in Italy,
forGramsci,was most evidentin its culturaldecay:
Hence, impoverishmentof culturallife and the petty narrowmindedness of high culture:sterile eruditionin place of political
history,superstitionin place of religion,the daily newspaperand
the scandalsheet insteadof books and greatperiodicals.Ordinary
everydayfractiousnessandpersonalconflictsinsteadof seriouspolitics. The universitiesand all the institutionsthatdevelopedintellectualandtechnicalskillswere imperviousto the lifeof the partiesand
the livingrealityof nationallife,and they createdapoliticalnational
cadres witha purelyrhetoricaland non-nationalmentalformation.
(Notebook3, ?119)
This is the kindof passage fromthe prisonnotebooksthat manyreaders
historicalphenomenon-pass overbecause itseems to portraya particular
Italyin the 1930s-that is long past and has no bearingon ourtime. Itis
frompassages such as this, however,that one learnsto appreciatewhy
Gramsciwas so deeplyconcernedwithcivilsociety,why he examinedits
many aspects in such minutedetail. Passages such as this shouldalso
inspirethe readersof the prisonnotebooksto studycivilsociety critically,
as Gramscistudiedit. ForwhatGramscinoticedis as truetodayas it was
in his time, even if the actualcircumstanceshave changed--namely,that

2 / Fall1995
32 boundary
is veryfragileandso arethe formsof freedomthatcome
moderncivilization
withit. InGramsci'stime,the impoverishment
of civilsociety preparedthe
groundforfascism.Inourtime,civilsociety in the developedcountriesappears to be relativelysafe, and it wouldbe demagogic(andahistorical)to
suggest that fascism of the same kindthat flourishedin the 1930s might
return.Yet,what kindof conclusionswouldwe arriveat if we were to examinethe conditionof civilsociety today,in the way Gramsciexaminedit,
indetail,andfroma subalternpointof view?Whatare we to make
critically,
of the "pettynarrow-mindedness
of highculture"
-not the "highculture"of
Gramsci'stimebutof ourown?Andwhataboutpresent-daypoliticalrhetoric?Whataboutthe apoliticalmentalityof manyof today'sintellectualsand
technicalexperts?Couldone confidentlyattest thatthe 1980s and 1990s
a new brand
have notproducedtheirownformof intellectualcharlatanism,
Whatabout the fragmentationand
of what Gramscicalled "Lorianism"?
lack of leadershipamong the increasingnumbersof destitute,powerless
people-bereft of hope-in the mist of affluentsocieties? These are the
questionsthatGramsci'swritingson civilsocietyshouldcompelthe reader
of todayto reflecton.
Gramsci'sconceptof civilsociety mayindeedbe of some use when
it comes to explainingthe reasons underlyingthe collapse of the totalitarian regimesin EasternEurope.Muchmorevaluable,however,is Gramsci's
distinctiveapproachto the analysis of civilsociety-an approach,a critical method,thatshouldanimatea new series of inquiriesintothe present
conditionof civilsociety in differentpartsof the globe.The resultsof such
inquiriesare likelyto be disconcerting;this shouldcome as no surprise,
for the prisonnotebooksremaina poignantdocumentnot because they
provideready-madeexplanationsbut because they raise difficultand unsettlingquestionsand are an antidoteto complacency-the sort of political
and intellectualcomplacencythathas takenholdof civilsocietysince 1989.


BUTTIGIEG, Joseph. (1995) - Gramsci On Civil Society. Boundary 2. Vol. 22. #3.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUTTIGIEG, Joseph. (1995) - Gramsci On Civil Society. Boundary 2. Vol. 22. #3.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gramsci on Civil Society

Author(s): Joseph A. Buttigieg

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

Gramsci on Civil Society

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

Buttigieg/ Gramscion CivilSociety 3

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

Buttigieg/ Gramscion CivilSociety 5

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

Buttigieg/ Gramscion CivilSociety 9

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

Buttigieg/ Gramscion CivilSociety 11

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

necessary to establishand to make it widelyunderstoodthat the

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

. Political leadership becomes

an aspect of domination,in that the absorptionof the elites of the

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

This content downloaded from 200.145.118.183 on Mon, 24 Nov 2014 13:32:31 PM

You might also like