Midwest Modern Language Association

After Gramsci
Author(s): Joseph Buttigieg
Source: The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 24, No. 1, Cultural
Studies and New Historicism (Spring, 1991), pp. 87-99
Published by: Midwest Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1315027
Accessed: 22/09/2010 02:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mmla.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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.

Midwest Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association.

http://www.jstor.org
 AfterGramsci
JosephButtigieg

In 1935, the yearduringwhichAntonioGramsci,physicallydestroyedby nine

yearsof imprisonment,abandonedthe writingof his prisonnotebooks,Luigi
Russo, the eminentliteraryhistorianandcritic,gavea talkin the town hallof
Cesenato markthe twentiethanniversary of the deathof RenatoSerra.In his
address,RussoextolledRenatoSerra's totalfidelityto the"religionof literature,"
his "aristocratic his asceticism,his epicureandelightin poetry,his
solitariness,"
removalfrom mundanesocialrelations.For Russo, the criticalwritings of
RenatoSerraembodiedthe old humanistictraditionwhichit wasincumbenton
contemporary youthto developandenrich;andSerra's lifewasa "sweetmartyr-
dom"in theserviceof hisreligionof literaturewhich"movedandtormented" his
soul.
Russo concluded his talk at Cesena with a brief discussionof Serra's"literary
testament,"Esamedi coscienzadi un letterato(The Examinationof Conscienceof a
LiteraryMan), written shortlybefore the thirty-year-oldSerrabecameone more
youthful victim of a senselesswar. This smallbook, which accordingto Russo,
"we all read and annotatedin the trenches,"contains elements of the decadent
skeptical aestheticismthat was much admiredin Italianintellectualcircles (and
especially among the exponents of literary hermeticism)during the turbulent
yearsbetween the two great wars. Here arethe passagesfrom Serra'stext quoted
by the adulatoryRusso:

Perhapsthebenefitof war,asof otherthings,is in itself:a sacrifice

whichis made,a
dutywhichis fulfilled.Onelearnsto suffer,to resist,to enjoyoneselfalittle,to live
moreworthily,with deeperbrotherliness, with greaterreligioussimplicityasindi-
vidualsandas nations-until they areunlearned....
It is uselessto expecttransformations
orrenewalsfromwar... it is uselessto hope
that literary men will return changed, improved, inspiredby war. . . . Each one
returns-those who return-to the work one had left behind;tired perhaps,
moved,absorbedas if emergingfroma flood;but with the soul, the habits,the
facultiesandthe qualitiesone hadbefore.
Thewaris a fact,likemanyothersin thisworld- it is enormous,but thatis all. A
fact amongmanyotherspastor future;it addsnothingto you, it takesnothing
awayfromyou. It changesabsolutelynothingin theworld. Not evenliterature.1
In 1943, anotheryoung, promising Italianliteraryman, the twenty-four-year-
old GiaimePintor, wrote his own very differenttestamentbeforeundertakingthe
leadershipof a dangerousmission as part of the Italiananti-fascistresistance-a
mission during which he was killed. Pintor, who grew up and lived virtuallyhis

JosephA. Buttigieg 87
entire life in the fascist epoch, receivedhis literaryeducation in a milieu domi-
natedby the ideasof Croce and Carducci(Renato Serra'steacher)and the poetry
of the late Italian romanticists, the decadents, and the hermeticists. Pintor
directedhis attention, for the most part, to Germanliteratureanddevotedconsid-
erableenergy to the translationof works by Rilke, Hesse, Trakl, Kleist, Hof-
mannsthal,and others. Nonetheless, Pintor'scriticalviews andculturalattitudes
were not markedlydifferentfrom those which circulatedin the Italianliterary
coteriesand universitygroups of his time. He could be fairlydescribedas a "left-
wing" fascist who, like some other eminent "left-wing" fascists such as Vasco
Pratoliniand Elio Vittorini, becameincreasinglydisenchantedwith the drift of
events in war-time Italy and was ultimately spurredto translatehis disaffection
into active revolutionaryopposition.
The war experiencetransformedPintorutterly, as he attestedin his finalletter:

Inrealitythewar, thelastphaseof triumphant fascism,hashadgreatereffecton us

thanat firstappeared. Thewarhasphysicallydivertedmenfromtheirhabits,it has
forcedthemto takenotewith theirhandsandwith theireyesof thedangerswhich
threatentheverybasesof everyindividual life,it haspersuaded themthatthereis no
possibilityof salvationin neutralityandisolation.. . . If it werenot forthewar,I
wouldhaveremainedan intellectualwith mainlyliteraryinterests.. . . Only the
warhasresolvedthesituation,overpowering certainobstacles,clearingtheground
of manyconvenientevasionsandputtingmebrutallyin contactwith anirreconcil-
ableworld.
At a certainmomenttheintellectuals mustbe ableto transfertheirexperienceon to
the groundof commonusefulness;eachone mustbe ableto takehis placein an
organizationof combat.
Musiciansandwriters,we mustrenounceourprivilegesso as to contributeto the
liberationof allmen.Contraryto whatis affirmed in a famoussaying,revolutions
succeedwhen they arepreparedby poets andpainters,providedthe poets and
paintersknowwhattheirroleshouldbe. . . . Asforme, I assureyouthattheideaof
joiningthepartisans at thistimegivesmeverylittlejoy; I havenevervaluedasI do
now themeritsof culturedlifeandI amawarethatI amanexcellenttranslator anda
good diplomat, but in all a
probability mediocre Nevertheless,
partisan. it is the
left
only possibility open, andI welcome it.2

Copies of GiaimePintor'sletter-testamentwere circulatedby his friendsduring

the last yearsof the Germanoccupationof Italyand it was eventuallypublishedin
1946 in the commemorativevolume, In memoria di GiaimePintor(Turin:Einaudi,
it
1946). (Subsequently, reappeared in a selectionof Pintor'swritings, edited and
introduced in 1950 by Valentino Gerratana-the same Gerratanawho later
undertook the monumentaltask of preparingthe criticaledition of the complete
text of Gramsci'sQuadernidel carcere.)
The three eventsjuxtaposed here- Renato Serra'sdetachedreflectionson the
GreatWar, Luigi Russo's eulogizing of Serra'saristocratichumanismandadher-

88 AfterGramsci
enceto the"religionof literature," andGiaimePintor'srenunciation of his"privi-
leges" as an intellectual in favor of direct militant in
engagement politicalstrug-
gle- pointto someof the salientfeaturesof Italiansocio-cultural historyduring
the thirty-one-year traumathat startedwith Italy'sinterventionin the First
World War, was exacerbated throughthe riseof fascism,andendedwith the
humiliating debacle of the Second WorldWar.
Afterthefallof MussoliniinJune1943andevenmoreso aftertheconclusionof
the SecondWorldWarin 1945,it was hardlypossibleto evadequestionsabout
therolewhichtheintellectuals hadplayed,or hadrefrained fromplaying,during
the fascistascendancy. Why did the intellectuals not providethe leadershipto
combatfascism?What was so wrongwith the humanistictraditionthatit led
some of its ablestexponents-most notably,perhaps,GiovanniGentile-to
becomevigoroussupporters of or apologistsfor the fascistregime?And, as for
many of those intellectuals who professedto havelittle sympathyfor fascism:
whatwasso importantabouttheirloftydiscussions of philosophy,aesthetics,lit-
erature, etc. that kept them farremoved from or elseon the outermarginsof the
political arena? Why did it take so long for so manyof Italy'sfinestintellectsto
come to the samerealizationas did the twenty-four-year-old GiaimePintor,
namely that the gravity of the national situation did not justify theirposturesof
detachment, silenceand inaction? And, above all,why was Italian "high"culture
so distantanddisconnectedfromthe socio-political life of the "people-nation"
thatit failedto provideeffectivecriticalinstruments forcombattingthebroaddis-
and of
semination widespreadacceptance a confusedandcontradictory fascist
ideology?Thesequestionsdominatedthenumerousdebatesandpolemicswhich,
takenasa whole,constitutethepublicarticulation of thenationalexamination of
conscienceundertaken duringthe immediatepost-fascistperiod.
Thefundamental issuesbehindthesequestionsandtheensuingpolemics"find
theirmostlucidexpressionin theworkof AntonioGramsci," asGiulianoMana-
cordahas rightlyobserved.3The systematicpublicationof Gramsci'swritings
was launchedin 1947with the appearance of Lettere dalcarcere (PrisonLetters),
whichwasfollowedby the six-volumethematiceditionof theQuaderni delcarcere
(PrisonNotebooks).Thus a good ten yearsafterhis death,Gramsci's writings
becamethe focalpointof a nationaldebatealreadyin progress.Yet, it is easyto
forget-but very importantto remember-thatwhile Gramsci'sreaderswere
examiningthe problematic relationship of cultureandpoliticsin Italywith the
benefit of hindsight,Gramscihad addressedthe same issues, producedhis
analyses,andprovideda diagnosisof the problemsbesettingthe nationwithout
the disastrousstoryfromthe vantagepointof its ending.
At theverysametimethatRenatoSerrawasreflecting"poetically" on theulti-
mateinsignificance of the GreatWarandon theimpractical natureof literature,
andat the sametimethatLuigiRussoandhis fellowsoldierswerefindingtheir
consolationin thetrenchesreadingSerra's breviaryof the"religionof literature,"
Antonio Gramsciwas giving up his studyof linguisticsat the Universityof

JosephA. Buttigieg 89
 Turin,participating in workers'protests,andwriting articleson culturaland
socio-politicaltopicsfor the socialistpaperII GridodelPopolo.In his veryfirst
articleforII Gridoin 1914(anarticlethatwas to be usedagainsthimfor many
yearsby hisenemieswho insistedoninterpreting it asaninterventionistappeal)in
which he discussedthe of
question neutralityvis-a-viswar, Gramsci exhortedhis
socialistcomradesnot to "abandon ourselvesforthe slightestinstantto anoverly
ingenuouscontemplation andBuddhistrenunciation of ourobligation."4By the
timeRussodeliveredhis orationon Serraextollingthe meritsof contemplation
andrenunciation aswell as, moregenerally,the inherentvaluesof the Western
humanistictradition,Gramscihadalreadyprepared in detailthegroundworkfor
a thoroughcritiqueof thattradition,the exposureof its moralbankruptcy, and
the condemnation of its servitudeto elitistinterests.5A full twentyyearsbefore
GiaimePintoraffirmedthe needfor intellectuals to sacrificetheirprivilegesand
join thestruggleforfreedomfromfascism,Gramscihadalreadygivenuphisindi-
vidualfreedom(forthe restof hislife, asit turnedout) andnot merelyhisprivi-
legesasanintellectual in orderto sustainanuncompromising oppositionto Mus-
solini. It is importantto rememberthat Gramsci'spoliticalactivitiesand his
writingshavetheirbeginningon theeveof theFirstWorldWar,andthatSerra's
examinationof conscience,Russo'sexaltationof Serra,andPintor'sintellectual
testamentall occurred,in one senseor another,"after"Gramsci.
Yet, Gramscididnot becomea prominentfigurein thedebateregardingpoli-
ticsandcultureuntilwell afterhis deathandalsoafterthe Italiannationalcrisis
was overandthe reconstruction of its politicalinstitutionsandcivilsocietywas
fully under way. His ideasand his examplebecamea prominentfeatureof a
nationaldebateconductedby intellectuals,for the mostpart,fromcomfortable
armchairsand underpoliticalconditionsthat protectedall interlocutorsfrom
reprisal.All thatwasleft of Gramscithe"practical politician,"asPalmiroTogli-
atticalledhim,werehistexts;andalthoughthesewerein thehandsof theItalian
CommunistParty,they quicklybecamethe patrimonyof the whole nation.
Inevitably,individuals with significantly differentpoliticalallegiances, who had
actedor not actedin a varietyof waysunderthe fascistregime,wereonly too
anxiousto alignthemselves witha Gramscian positionandeagerlyclaimedatleast
a partof Gramsciforthemselves.Theprocessof theappropriation andcooptation
of Gramsci'stexts (and, one might add, of Gramsci's"martyrdom") started
almostinstantlywith thepublication of hiswritings.As ChantalMouffepointed
out, "Sincehisdeathin 1937,Gramsci hasbeensubjectto multipleandcontradic-
toryinterpretations, ultimately linked to the politicallineof thosewho claimed
anddisclaimed him.Sowe havethelibertarian Gramsci,theStalinistGramsci,the
socialdemocratGramsci,the TogliattianGramsci,the TrotskyistGramsci,and
so on."6In his reviewof Letteredalcarcere, even BenedettoCroceclaimedthat
Gramscidoesnotbelongto anyparticular politicalfaction- "asanintellectualhe
was one of us." Not surprisingly, Crocelaterchangedhis mind.7
One literarycritic who very early on attempted to place Gramsciin a line of

90 AfterGramsci
Italiandemocratic progressive intellectualsstretchingbackto the literaryhistor-
ian, criticand politicalactivist Francesco De Sanctiswas LuigiRusso. Russo's
politicsare not easy to define:an he
idealist, nonetheless hadhisdifferences with
a
Croce; great admirer of De Sanctis's commitment to nationalcultural renewal,
he nonetheless producedscholarlyworkof apredominantly academic character;a
proponentof anti-metaphysical aestheticsandcriticism,he nonetheless remained
stronglyattachedto the culturaltraditionhe inheritedand to a neo-idealistic
notionof continuity.LuigiRussosoughtto emphasizethe ItalianandWestern
characterof Gramsci'sthoughtas opposedto the "Eastern" Marxistelements.
"Gramsci's thought,"Russowrotein 1949,"notwithstanding its contactwith
the Easternworld,is completelyinfusedwith theWesternspirit.We mightalso
say,makinga concessionof the idolatribusandthe idolafori, thatit is a thought
essentiallyrootedin the Italiantradition."8 Russowasnot alonein hisattemptto
situateGramsciwithin the mainstream of Italianculturalandintellectualhis-
tory-many differentinterestsstoodto gainfromsucha collocation.The non-
communistsandanti-communists couldembraceGramsciasapre-eminently Ital-
ianthinker,thecommunistscoulddemonstrate thattheir"patronsaint"farfrom
propoundingan importedor alienideologydevelopedideasandthemesalready
rootedin awell-established Italiantradition,andtheprofessional intellectualsand
academicians could insertGramsciinto the familiarcontext of long-standing
ongoingcultural,literaryandphilosophical debates.Moreover,everyonecould
convenientlyforgetthe "Westernspirit"hadalsoproducedfascistculture.
Themosteffectiveandmostreadilyavailable wayto situateGramsci withinthe
mainstream of theItaliantraditionwasto linkhimto CroceandDe Sanctis.Very
conveniently,the volumeLetteratura e vitanazionale(Literatureand National
Life),in the originalthematically organizededitionof theQuaderni, openswith a
noteentitled"Returnto De Sanctis."Thisnoteis alsothefirstentryin Gramsci's
twenty-thirdnotebook(1934)which he entitled"LiteraryCriticism"and in
whichhe collected,rearranged andmodifiedseveralnoteson literatureandcriti-
cism scatteredthroughoutthe earliernotebooks.The first draftof the note
"Returnto De Sanctis"is foundin notebook17 (1933-35)whereit formspartof
a longerentrywhichis madeupof threepartsundertheheading"Popular Litera-
ture"(QC, 1940).9The full significance of Gramsci's commentson De Sanctis
maybe betterappreciated whenexaminedin theiroriginalcontext.Theopening
paragraph of the Gramsci firstdraftreadsas follows:
Popularliterature.
Besides suchquestions as"WhyItalian isnotpopular
literature in
Italy,""DoesanItalian theaterexist?"etc.,theothershouldbeposed:"Isit neces-
saryinItalytoprovoke areligious reformliketheprotestantone"- andtheother:
"of the unpopularity of the Risorgimento, or ratherof the indifferenceof the
peopleduringtheperiodof struggleforindependence andnational unity"(the
natureof theItalian
apolitical peopleandhencetheinstability andtherebellious-
ness).An exact "catalogue" of allthesequestions which formore thana century
(sincethe FrenchRevolution)haveobsessedItalianintellectuals
. .. mayprovide

JosephA. Buttigieg 91
 thebestoutlineto reconstruct
thefundamental of Italiancultureandthe
character
which
exigencies areindicatedandmadeevident it.
by (QC 1940-41)
This paragraphis followed by the one on De Sanctiswhich is in turnfollowed by a
paragraphin which Gramscicomments on how the "individual"natureof Piran-
dello's "conceptof life and of man ... is incapableof national-populardiffusion"
(QC 1941).
The note on De Sanctiswhich occupiessuch a prominentplacein Letteratura e
vita nazionale and which has been the rallying point for those wanting to insert
Gramsci into a long-standing debate in Italian literary and cultural criticism,
reflectsGramsci'sunceasingpreoccupationwith the problemof the non-national
and non-popularcharacterof Italianliteratureand literarycriticism.10He is not
concerned here with an abstractissue internal to literatureand critical theory;
rather, his interest is social and political and his mode of posing the question is
emphaticallypractical,worldly and concrete.
Returnto De Sanctis.WhatdoesGiovanniGentile'spassword"Letusreturnto De
Sanctis!"mean?What can it and shouldit mean?Does it mean"to return"
mechanicallyto the conceptsDe Sanctisdevelopedconcerningart andliterature?
Or doesit meanto assumeanattitudetowardsartandlife similarto thatassumed
by De Sanctistowardshis time?Giventhatthisattitudeis "exemplary," onemust
examine:(1) what suchexemplariness consistsin; (2) whatattitudetodaywould
correspondto it, thatis, whatintellectual
andmoralconcernstodaycorrespond to
thosewhichdominatedtheactivityof De Sanctisandgaveit a particular direction.

Gramscithen recallsDe Sanctis'sinterest in literary"verismo"as evidenceof an

attempt to "go to the people," his work Scienzae Vita,and his politicalmove to
the "left." He continues:

An opinionof De Sanctis:"Thereis no fibrebecausethereis no faith.Andthereis

no faithbecausethereis no culture."Butwhatdoes"culture" meanin thiscase?It
means,undoubtedly, a coherent,unitaryandnationwide"conception of lifeandof
man,"a "secularreligion,"a philosophywhich hasbecomeprecisely"culture,"
thatis, whichhasgeneratedanethics,a wayof life, a civilandindividualmodeof
conduct.This required,firstof all, the unificationof the "culturedclass"andDe
Sanctisworkedtowardsthis end with the foundingof the "Philological Circle"
which was to havebroughtabout"theunionof all the culturedandintelligent
men"of Naples.But what thissituationcalledfor, especially,was a new attitude
towardsthe popularclasses,a new conceptof what is "national"differentfrom
thatof the historicright,fuller,lessexclusive,less"police-like"so to speak.It is
thissideof De Sanctis'activitythatneedsto be highlighted,thisfacetof hisactiv-
ity which,afterall, was not new but represented thedevelopment of seedswhich
alreadyexistedthroughouthis literaryandpoliticalcareer.(QC 2185-86)
Thereshouldbe little doubt that Gramscidoes not proposea returnto De Sanc-
tis's aesthetictheories, nor a retrievalof De Sanctis'sspecificviews and specula-

92 AfterGramsci
tionson the natureof literatureandliteraryhistory.GramscioffersDe Sanctisas
an exampleof militantcriticism,a criticismthatstemsfroma profoundsenseof
civic andpoliticalresponsibility,and a criticismthat is not divorcedfromthe
broadersocio-political activityandroleof thecritic;thatis, a criticismthatdoes
to
not seek establish itself asanautonomoussphereof knowledge,self-contained
within the bounds of its regulatingdiscourse.For this reason,when Gramsci
compares and contrasts De Sanctisto Croce,he doesnot do so by juxtaposing
theirgeneraltheories.Instead,he declareshispreference for the militancyof De
his
Sanctis, "passionate as
fervor," opposed to Croce's "elevatedserenity"(QC,
2188). This is not to saythat Gramscihasno interestin theoreticalissues.Far
fromit; in numerousnotesGramscicriticizesandrebutssomeof the concepts
whichformthe verybasisof Croceanaestheticssuchas, forexample,the ideaof
criticismas a transcendental act of universalsubjectivevalueandthe distinction
betweenpoetryand structure.(The detailedanalysisof Canto X of Dante's
"Inferno" is oneimportantinstanceof thepainstaking challengeGramscimounts
against Crocean poetics in the prisonnotebooks.)Yet, Gramscidoesnot offerDe
Sanctis'saestheticsasa ready-made to Croce;he doesnot suggestthat
alternative
Croceanliterarytheoryandcriticism,which dominatedthe Italiansceneuntil
well afterthe SecondWorld War, maybe overcomeor displacedby takinga
jump backwardand retrievingDe Sanctis.GramsciinvokesDe Sanctisas an
exemplaryindividualin whoselifeandworkonecouldseehow aesthetictheory,
culturalcriticismandpoliticalmilitancywerefusedin sucha mannerasto inform
andtransformone another.
Gramscihighlightsthosefeaturesof De Sanctiswhichmostcloselyparallelhis
viewof theexemplary critic:anintellectual who is deeplycommittedto theestab-
lishmentof a new culture,who participates fullyin the struggleit wouldentail,
andwho is willing to abandonhis privilegedpositionwithinthe eliteclassand
withinthe academic sanctuary in order"to go to thepeople."Gramsciseesin De
Sanctisacriticwith a politicalprogram;theculturalstruggleis anessentialpartof
thatprogram,andthetechnicalandspeculative studyof aesthetics,literature,his-
tory,philosophy and so on is an important element of theculturalstruggle.The
primary interest of a critic like De Sanctis,accordingto Gramsci,is not the
of
"refinement culture," as it was for Croce,but the cultural-politicalstruggle.
Thesearetheprincipalreasonswhy De Sanctisrepresents, forGramsci,the"type
of criticismproperto the philosophyof praxis"(QC, 2188).
All of thisnotwithstanding, Gramsci's commentson De Sanctisandon litera-
tureandcriticismin generalhaveoftenbeentaken,eversincetheirpublication,as
anoccasionforacademic debateswhichwhilesaturated with politicalvocabulary
havelittle to do eitherwith a specificpoliticalprogram,or with a concrete
strugglefortheestablishment of a newculture,andmuchlesswith anymove"to
go to the people." Indeed, Gramsci's writingson literaturehavealltoo oftenbeen
foldedinto discussionof suchperennialissuesas the relationship betweenform
and content, the separationof aestheticjudgment from ethical and moral ques-

JosephA. Buttigieg 93
 tions, the true meaning of the "autonomy"of the work of art, the properrole of
history in the study of literature,the differencebetween formalanalysisand the
sociology of literature.If one were to conduct even a cursorysurveyof postwar
Italiancriticism, one would quickly find numerousinstanceswhere Gramscihad
been used and misusedto sustainone side or anotherin argumentsaroundthese
questions. As a result, Gramsci'sideashave been divorcedfrom his overarching
political project and reducedto fragments-and, of course, there is always the
excuse that Gramsci'sQuaderniare fragmentaryanyway. But there is nothing
fragmentaryabout Gramsci'sviews regardingthe relationbetween literarycriti-
cism and politics or between the theoreticalwork of intellectualsand political
praxis.
A typicalexampleof the way in which Gramsci'sthought hasbeen fragmented
can be found in the collection of essaysMarxismoe criticaletteraria in Italia.Filippo
Bettini and Mirko Bevilacqua,the editorsof the collection, in which aregathered
essaysby some of Italy's most prominent critics from Luigi Russo and Walter
Binni to GalvanoDella Volpe and Ignazio Ambrogio, start with the thesis that
Gramsci'swritings constitute the origin of Marxistliterarycriticismin Italy. In
their view Gramsci'scontributionis twofold: on the one hand, he offersa theory
of the variousareasof the superstructure- aesthetics,criticism, literaryhistory,
linguistics, culturalpolitics, orientationsof poetics-based on historicalmaterial-
ism, and on the other he providesa "point of departurefor the difficultprocessof
overcoming Crocean idealism and of setting up an alternativemethod which
would then be takenup andconsolidatedby certainsubsequentcriticaltrendsand
resolved differentlyby each of them." Bettini and Bevilacquaaffirmquite cate-
gorically that "Gramsci'sheritage, in this field, is situatedat a level which is pri-
marily theoretical" rather than programmatic.11They then proceed to locate
Gramsciwithin the majorpostwar theoreticaldebatesstartingwith Russo's dis-
cussions centeredaroundDe Sanctisand concluding with the controversiessur-
rounding structuralism.Absent from their discussionis any sense of Gramsci's
insistencethat literatureandcriticismbe linked to the strugglefor a new national-
popularculture. The only cultureone encountersin Bettini andBevilacqua'ssur-
vey of Marxistliterarycriticismin Italy is academicculture, which only servesto
lend poignancyto Gramsci'slamentthat therearetwo culturesin Italy:one of the
elite and the other of the people- the firstfinds its expressionin the productions
of the traditionalelitist intellectuals,while the latter still searchesfor a voice that
would give it coherenceand a measureof power.
Therearealso many other criticswho have takenthe oppositeposition, namely
that Gramscihas little of value to say about literarycriticismper se and that his
greatest contribution has been to the sociology of literature.It has been argued
again and again that one looks in vain for a systematicaesthetictheory or for a
coherent method of formal critical analysisin Gramsci'swritings. This line of
approachhas the merit of keepingin the foregroundGramsci'scentralpreoccupa-
tions which were socialandpolitical;its proponentsdo not subordinateGramsci's

94 AfterGramsci
criticalmilitancyto abstractquestionsof theory. They generallyinsist, like
GianniScalia,that in his writingson literatureGramsciis aboveall concerned
with "theproblemof theorganization of cultureandof thesocio-politicalroleof
intellectuals, and hence of writers artists;andthe problemof whatwe may
and
call the 'sociology'of literatureandart."12
Thereis, however,a problemwith thisposition.It tendsto resortto a distinc-
tion thatGramscitriedveryhard,but with varyingdegreesof success,to over-
come- the distinctionbetweenformalcriticismon the one handand"sociologi-
cal" criticismon the other. When such a distinctionis drawn,one may be
temptedto thinkthatit is possibleto pursueoneavenueof studywhileignoring
theother.Oneof Gramsci's refrainsis thatthecritics/intellectualscannotbe neu-
tral, that their work cannot be pursuedoutsideof history,that is, outsidea
specificsocial-cultural-political context.It is somewhatmisleadingto arguethat
Gramsci wasmoreinterested in thesociologicalaspectsof literarystudythanin its
formalandaestheticelements.Gramsciwantedto fusethe two, he wantedthe
formalexaminationof theliterarytext to remaincognizantof the socio-political
contextwithinwhichit wascarriedout- a contextby whichit is constitutedand
whichit simultaneously helpsto constitute.He alsowantedthe criticto look at
formasitselfanaspectof history.Aboveall,hewantedtheliterarycriticsto bring
theirtechnicalknowledgeto bearupon the strugglefor a new culture,while
understanding fullyhow easilytheirtheoreticalrefinements, formalisms,philo-
sophicalaesthetics,andquestionsof poeticscouldbecomeanevasionfromtaking
partin thatsamestruggle.Gramsci's interestin literature qualiterature
canhardly
be overestimated, but thatinterestalwaysremainedfor him a partof his larger
politicalinterestandcommitment.
The centralissueconcerningGramsci'swritingson literatureandcriticism,
then,shouldnot be whetherhiscontribution is limitedoris mostrelevantto one
aspect or another of literarystudy. The issue should be whether,afterGramsci,it
is possibleto formulatea new setof questionsaboutliterature andliterarystudy,
questions of fargreaterscope than the ones literarycritics
have beenusedto dis-
cussing inside academic circles- questions about popularculture,aboutthetastes
andreadinghabitsof the uninitiated,aboutthe circulationof literature.
Thesearch forbeautyin a workof artis subordinated
to thesearchforthereason
whyit is"read,"whyit is"popular,"whyit is"soughtafter"or,conversely,
why
it doesnot touchthepeople,whyit doesnotinterestthem,demonstrating the
absenceof unityin national
cultural
life.(QC,2247)
Gramsci's urgentcallfora broaderconceptionof literarystudywasaccompan-
ied by his demystification
of the statusof the traditionalliterati.In a varietyof
waysheshowedhownarrowandlimitedtheliteraryworldcanbecomewhenit is
detachedfromthe cultureof the people-nation,andhow its authoritydepends
not on universalconsentor agreementbut ratheron a viciouscycleof self-con-
firming practiceswithin elitist coteries.

JosephA. Buttigieg 95
 Whatshouldinterest theartistmost:theconsensus onhisworkofthe"nation" or
theconsensus of the"electspirits?" Butcantherebea separation between"elect
spirits"and"nation? " Thefactthatthisquestion hasbeenposedandcontinues to
be posedin thesetermsdemonstrates in itselfa historically
determined stateof
alienationbetween intellectuals
andnation.Besides, whicharethe"spirits" deemed
"
"elect?Every writer or artist
has hisown"electspirits," thatiswehavethereality
of abreaking upof intellectuals intocliquesandsectsof "electspirits," abreakup
whichdepends precisely onthedetachment fromthepeople-nation, onthefactthat
thesentimental "content" ofart,thecultural worldis separatedfromthedeepcur-
rentsof national-popular lifewhichitselfremains brokenupandwithoutexpres-
sion.(QC,1030)
Literarycritics,likeotherintellectuals,tendto cultivatetheircliquishness and
thusfurtherdistancethemselves fromthepeople-nation. Thispostureof distance,
of marginality even(sometimesaffectedthroughself-effacing gesturesor admis-
of
sions the subordinate roleintellectuals playin a societythatis primarily inter-
estedin immediatematerialgratification) helpsfostertheimpression thatliterary
studiesarecarriedout at a considerable removefromtheconfusedandcontradic-
tion-ladencentralarenaof socio-political struggle.AfterGramsci's analysesand
this of
example, posture distance,marginality or helplessness is hardertojustify.
Thosecriticsandtheoristswho claimto be opposing,throughtheirintellectual
work,contemporary forcesof dominationneedto examinewhethertheyare,in
fact,continuing to serve theinterestsof the elitecurrentlyin powerby failingto
eliminatethe chasmthatseparates the stratumof intellectualsfromthe people-
nation.Furthermore, they need to elaborate moreeffectivestrategiesin orderto
moreeffectively the
challenge privileged status (whichoftentakestheparadoxical
formof self-declared marginality) of the "elect,"andto startconstructinga new
culturewhichgivesexpressionto theneeds,theaspirations, thesentimentsof the
people-nation. For Gramsci's of
concept hegemony is not simplya tool or a
methodfor the analysisof the economyof power, it is also(andmoreimpor-
tantly)thebasisfora politicalstrategythataimsat establishing a new anddiffer-
ent culture,thatis, an alternativehegemony.
The enthusiasmwith which Gramsci'stexts were initiallygreetedand the
seriousness withwhicha goodnumberof Italianintellectuals undertookanexam-
inationof theircollectiveconsciencein thepost-fascist, postwarperiodappeared,
at first,to be leadingtowardsa seriousconsideration of thequestionsandchoices
posedby Gramsci.It seemedpossible,for a while, that the fascistcatastrophe
mightleadto a movementforradicalculturalchangeanda severechallengeto the
inheritedhegemonicstructuresandinstitutions.Beforetoo long, however,one
couldseehow easilyoldhabitsreassertthemselves,how quicklytheoldprivileges
are reclaimed.The politicalchoiceswhich Gramsciposits as ultimatelyines-
capablewereandstillarebeingevadedascountlessintellectuals continueto pon-
der,analyze,clarifyanddebatethe significance of Gramsci's contributionto the
"philosophy of praxis."Thecircleswithinwhichthisintellectual workis carried

96 AfterGramsci
out andfindsits audiencearestillrestrictedto "electspirits"who havelittlecon-
tactwith the restof society.Eventhe scholarship surrounding Gramsci's textsis
alltoo oftencouchedinwhatGramscicalled"neolalic" language,andthepolitical
preoccupations which seemto permeateGramscian researchfrequentlyamount
to little morethan"politicsin the head,"to adapta Lawrentian phrase.
After Gramscitherehave emergedmanycriticalmovements,fashionsand
enthusiasms whichdo not beara particularly Italianstampbut whichhavehad
muchthe sameeffectsin Italyastheyhavehadin theUnitedStates,France,Ger-
many, Britain,and elsewhere.Manyof thesemorerecentcurrentshavebeen
regarded,or haveregardedthemselves,asposingseriouschallengesto the domi-
nantideologiesandpowerstructures of ourtime.Yet the distanceseparating lit-
erarycritics(andotherintellectuals) fromthe socio-politicalworldof mundane,
materialconcernshas, if anything,widened.One neednot be a Marxistlike
Gramscito notice this disturbingphenomenon.Someyearsago, a journalist-
criticwritingforthemainstream newspaper LaStampa (10March1984)observed
thata new classof itinerantintellectualshasemergedjettingfromconferences to
seminarsto conventionsalwaysmeetingthe samepeoplespeakingthe samekind
of language.Indeed,thecosmopolitan with no deeprootsin hisor her
intellectual
own society'sornation'sculture- thekindof intellectual discussedso extensively
by Gramsciin his essayon "SomeAspectsof the SouthernQuestion"and
throughoutthe prisonnotebooks-is muchmorein evidencetodaythanever
before.Thistypeof intellectualis by no meansa specificallyItalianor evenEuro-
peanphenomenon.In the UnitedStates,too, the claimsandprotestations of so
manyself-professed oppositionalcriticshavedonelittleto bringtheintellectuals'
work to beareffectivelyon the most pressingsocialandpoliticalissuesof our
time. As EdwardW. Saidhaspointedout:

Bothnewandoldcriticshavebeencontentto confine themselves to theacademic

matterof literature,to theexistinginstitutionsforteaching andemploying stu-
dentsof literature,to theoftenridiculous andalwaysself-flatteringnotionthat
theirdebates havea supremely important bearinguponcrucial interests
affecting
humankind. In accepting theseconfinements theputativeLeft,no lessthanthe
Right,is veryfarfromplayinga genuinely politicalrole.Indeed,whatdistin-
the
guishes present situation
is, on theone hand,agreaterisolationthaneverbefore
in recentAmerican culturalhistoryof theliterarycriticsfromthemajorintellec-
tual,political,moral,andethicalissuesof the dayand,on the otherhand,a
rhetoric,a pose,a posture(letusatlastbecandid) claiming notsomuchto repre-
sentas to be theafflictionsentailed by trueadversarialpolitics.A visitorfrom
another worldwouldsurelybeperplexed wereheto overhear a so-called
oldcritic
callingthenewcriticsdangerous. What,thisvisitorwouldask,aretheydangers
to?Thestate?Themind?Authority?13
The Italiancontributorto LaStampasuggestedthatthe timeis ripefora study
entitledTheLeisureoftheTheory Class.If one were,in fact,to writesuchabook,

JosephA. Buttigieg 97
onewouldfindno betterstartingpointthanGramsci's analysisof theroleof intel-
lectualsin societyandhisreflections on the separationbetweenthecultureof the
elect and the people-nation-or,to use other Gramscianterms, the distance
betweenthe intellectuals andsubalterngroups.Indeed,it is timeto undertakea
study of the "theoryclass,"a studythatwouldaskwhy Serrawasrightwhenhe
wrotethatwarchangesnothing,notevenliterature,andwhyPintor'sassessment
thatthefascistexperience lefttheintellectual
with no otheroptionthantojoin in
the politicalstrugglewasadmiredbut seemedto be of littleimmediaterelevance
to the majorityof intellectualsin postwarItaly-or anywhereelse,for thatmat-
ter. One maywish to arguethat once fascismwas over the intellectualcould
returnto hisspecificactivity.Butwhatif thatactivityis definedandcarriedoutin
a mannerwhich is not substantially differentfromthe way it was carriedout
beforeandduringthe fascistera?Why waitfora catastrophe to startexamining
whatwent wrong?Gramscidirectedhis politicalandintellectual work towards
the historicalconditionsin whichhe foundhimself.Manyof the scholarswho
foundhistextsso helpfulin theireffortsto understand therecentpastneverreally
broketheirold habitsandperpetuated the detachment of intellectualworkfrom
the socio-politicalstrugglesof the present.So, once again,we haveto askthe
samequestions:why is theintellectual's rolein societyamarginalone?How does
one situatethe intellectualwithin the currenthegemony?Why the disjuncture
betweentheprivilegedcultureandthepeople-nation-i.e.,why do thesubaltern
groupsstilllacka voiceanda significantspacein ourculture?Whatkindof criti-
cismneedsto beelaborated in orderthatthecriticmayperformwhatSaidcallsthe
"antidynastic" taskhe is constantlydivertedfrom?Gramsci's textsdo notpossess
thepreciseanswersto thesequestionsforhe livedin differentcircumstances and
workedunderuniqueconditions;butin orderto learnhow to formulatetheques-
tionseffectivelyandhow to go aboutansweringthemthereis no bettertext to
turnto thanhis prisonnotebooks."4

Universityof NotreDame
Notes

1. LuigiRusso,"RenatoSerrae il decadentismo"
in Lacritica
letteraria vol. 3 (Flor-
contemporanea,
ence:Sansoni,1977):461-83.
2. GiaimePintor,IIsangued'Europa:
1939-1943,ed. ValentinoGerratana (Turin:Einaudi,1965)
185-88.
3. GiulianoManacorda,
Storiadellaletteratura
italiana 1940-1975(Rome:Riuniti,
contemporanea:
1979)24.
4. AntonioGramsci,"Neutralit'Attivaed Operante" in Cronache
Torinesi:
1913-1917,ed. Sergio
Caprioglio(Turin:Einaudi,1980)14.
5. Gramscialsowroteon Serrain anearlyarticleforIIGrido(November1915)whichbetraysthe
stronginfluenceof Croceanaesthetictheoryon theyoungGramsci.Nevertheless,
it is noteworthy

98 AfterGramsci
thatGramscipraisedSerraforremainingoutsidethe elitistliterary-academic
circlesof his day.See
"LaLuceche si e Spenta,"in Cronache 23-26.
Torinesi,
6. ChantalMouffe,ed., Gramsci
andMarxistTheory(London:Routledge& KeganPaul,1979)1.
7. SeeBenedettoCroce,Scritti e discorsipolitici,
vol. 2 (Bari:Laterza,1963)415 ff., andTerzepagine
sparse,vol. 2 (Bari:Laterza,1955)137ff.
8. QuotedinJohnCammett,Antonio Gramsci andtheOrigins ofItalianCommunism Stan-
(Stanford:
fordUP, 1967)190.
9. All mycitationsof Gramsci's prisonnotebooksreferto thecriticaleditionof Quademi delcarcere,
ed. ValentinoGerratana, 4 vols.(Turin:Einuadi,1975).Pagenumbersto thisedition(QC) arepro-
videdin the text.
10. The natureof De Sanctis'sinfluenceon Gramsciis discussedat somelengthin RobertDom-
broski,AntonioGramsci (Boston:Twayne,1989).Fora helpfultreatmentof thegeneralcontoursof
Gramsci'sapproaches to literature
seeWilliamBoelhower,"AntonioGramsci's Sociologyof Litera-
ture"in Contemporary Literature22.4 (1981):574-99.
11. FilippoBettiniandMirkoBevilacqua, eds.,Marxismo
e critica
letteraria
inItalia(Roma:Riuniti,
1975)7.
12. GianniScalia,"Metodologia
e sociologiadellaletteraturain Gramsci"in La cittafutura,ed.
AlbertoCaraccioloandGianniScalia(Milano:Feltrinelli,1959)332.
13. EdwardW. Said,TheWorld,theTextandtheCritic(Cambridge: HarvardUP, 1983)160.
14. This essayincorporates
somepassagesfromthe text of a paper,"TheGramscian Presencein
AmericanCriticism,"deliveredat a meetingof theAmericanAssociation
of ItalianStudiesin Pitts-
burgh(1987)andreproduced in SocialismandDemocracy,
5 (1987).

JosephA. Buttigieg 99