Gramsci on education

Mr P.A. Van Heusden pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
Mon Sep 13 03:11:52 PDT 1999


On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Anyone who knows Gramsci better than I do - what do you make of this?
>
> By the way, this is only the second time Gramsci's name has appeared
> in the NYT in the last year; the previous one was in an obit for
> Italian publisher Giulio Einaudi in April.

Yoshie's answer to this is quite complete, but I'd like to make one more shortish comment - one of Gramsci most complex works is his work on Americanism. The dillema that faced Gramsci was the meaning of the 'Americanisation' of Europe. Gramsci saw Europe, and European history, as beset by contradictions emerging from the 'incompleteness' of the capitalist class's leadership at various stages (he analysed this particularly in history, where he pointed to the consequences of the lack of 'Jacobinism' (in summary, the willingness to articulate a programme which would tie the peasantry into support for the bourgeois programe) in the Italian 'Action Party' of the 19th century - and the consequent accomodation to the right, and 'passive revolution' from above).

Americanism, particularly viewed in the light of the 2nd International and beyond socialist movement, posed a contradicatory question. On the one hand, it was 'progressive', organising work 'more scientifically', clearing away the baggage of the preceding, feudal order. America was 'more modern' than Europe - and socialist theory had historically seen modernity as a step towards socialism. Every step towards 'rational organisation of production' simultaneously organised the working class more obviously as collective producers. So far so good - except that Gramsci's exploration of the failure of the 2nd International had led him towards his theories of intellectuals, and his understanding of the importance of the organisation of production in binding (through the organisation of working class intellectuals in the interest of capital) the working class to capitalism.

Americanism (and thus the 'education reforms' of Mussolini) had to be understood not merely as a system for organising production, but also as a system for organising hegemony. (In the light of the experience of the 1950s and beyond, this seems rather prescient) Teaching 'for the world', under a capitalist leadership, would necessarily mean accomodation to the capitalist world. Gramsci's comments on education must be understood next to his comments on the educative role of the Communist Party fighting to develop working class hegemony.

Peter -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk : PGP key available 'The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions.' - Karl Marx



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list