Gramsci and hegemony

The idea of a ‘third face of power’, or ‘invisible power’ has its roots partly, in Marxist thinking
about the pervasive power of ideology, values and beliefs in reproducing class relations and
concealing contradictions (Heywood, 1994: 100). Marx recognised that economic exploitation
was not the only driver behind capitalism, and that the system was reinforced by a dominance
of ruling class ideas and values – leading to Engels’s famous concern that ‘false consciousness’
would keep the working class from recognising and rejecting their oppression (Heywood, 1994:
85).

False consciousness, in relation to invisible power, is itself a ‘theory of power’ in the Marxist
tradition. It is particularly evident in the thinking of Lenin, who ‘argued that the power of
‘bourgeois ideology’ was such that, left to its own devices, the proletariat would only be able
to achieve ‘trade union consciousness’, the desire to improve their material conditions but
within the capitalist system’ (Heywood 1994: 85). A famous analogy is made to workers
accepting crumbs that fall off the table (or indeed are handed out to keep them quiet) rather than
claiming a rightful place at the table.

The Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, imprisoned for much of his life by Mussolini, took
these ideas further in his Prison Notebooks with his widely influential notions of
‘hegemony’ and the ‘manufacture of consent’ (Gramsci 1971). Gramsci saw the capitalist
state as being made up of two overlapping spheres, a ‘political society’ (which rules through
force) and a ‘civil society’ (which rules through consent). This is a different meaning of civil
society from the ‘associational’ view common today, which defines civil society as a ‘sector’
of voluntary organisations and NGOs. Gramsci saw civil society as the public sphere where
trade unions and political parties gained concessions from the bourgeois state, and the
sphere in which ideas and beliefs were shaped, where bourgeois ‘hegemony’ was
reproduced in cultural life through the media, universities and religious institutions to
‘manufacture consent’ and legitimacy (Heywood 1994: 100-101).

The political and practical implications of Gramsci’s ideas were far-reaching because he warned
of the limited possibilities of direct revolutionary struggle for control of the means of
production; this ‘war of attack’ could only succeed with a prior ‘war of position’ in the form
of struggle over ideas and beliefs, to create a new hegemony (Gramsci 1971). This idea of a
‘counter-hegemonic’ struggle – advancing alternatives to dominant ideas of what is normal
and legitimate – has had broad appeal in social and political movements. It has also contributed

1
to the idea that ‘knowledge’ is a social construct that serves to legitimate social structures
(Heywood 1994: 101).

In practical terms, Gramsci’s insights about how power is constituted in the realm of ideas and
knowledge – expressed through consent rather than force – have inspired the use of explicit
strategies to contest hegemonic norms of legitimacy. Gramsci’s ideas have influenced popular
education practices, including the adult literacy and consciousness-raising methods of Paulo
Freire in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), liberation theology, methods of participatory
action research (PAR), and many approaches to popular media, communication and cultural
action.

The idea of power as ‘hegemony’ has also influenced debates about civil society. Critics of the
way civil society is narrowly conceived in liberal democratic thought – reduced to an
‘associational’ domain in contrast to the state and market – have used Gramsci’s definition to
remind us that civil society can also be a public sphere of political struggle and contestation
over ideas and norms. The goal of ‘civil society strengthening’ in development policy can thus
be pursued either in a neo-liberal sense of building civic institutions to complement (or hold to
account) states and markets, or in a Gramscian sense of building civic capacities to think
differently, to challenge assumptions and norms, and to articulate new ideas and visions.

Refernces for further reading

Freire, Paulo (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York, Herder & Herder.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, New York,
International Publishers.
Heywood, Andrew (1994) Political Ideas and Concepts: An Introduction, London, Macmillan.

Ideological Hegemony

Gramsci accepted the analysis of capitalism put forward by Marx in the previous century
and accepted that the struggle between the ruling class and the subordinate working class was
the driving force that moved society forward. What he found unacceptable was the traditional
Marxist view of how the ruling class ruled. It was here that Gramsci made a major contribution
to modern thought in his concept of the role played by ideology.

Often the term "ideology" is seen as referring simply to a system of ideas and beliefs. However,
it is closely tied to the concept of power and the definition given by Anthony Giddens is
probably the easiest to understand. Giddens defines ideology as "shared ideas or beliefs
which serve to justify the interests of dominant groups" [Giddens 1997 p583] Its
relationship to power is that it legitimises the differential power that groups hold and as such it
distorts the real situation that people find themselves in.

The traditional Marxist theory of power was a very one-sided one based on the role of force
and coercion as the basis of ruling class domination. This was reinforced by Lenin whose
influence was at its height after the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Gramsci felt
that what was missing was an understanding of the subtle but pervasive forms of
ideological control and manipulation that served to perpetuate all repressive structures.
He identified two quite distinct forms of political control: 1. domination, which referred to
direct physical coercion by police and armed forces; and 2. hegemony, which referred to both
ideological control and more crucially, consent. He assumed that no regime, regardless of
how authoritarian it might be, could sustain itself primarily through organised state power and

2
armed force. In the long run, it had to have popular support and legitimacy in order to
maintain stability.

By hegemony, Gramsci meant the permeation throughout society of an entire system of

values, attitudes, beliefs and morality that has the effect of supporting the status quo in
power relations. Hegemony in this sense might be defined as an 'organising principle' that is
diffused by the process of socialisation into every area of daily life. To the extent that this
prevailing consciousness is internalised by the population it becomes part of what is
generally called 'common sense' so that the philosophy, culture and morality of the ruling elite
comes to appear as the natural order of things. [Boggs 1976 p39]

Marx’s basic division of society into a base represented by the economic structure and a
superstructure represented by the institutions and beliefs prevalent in society was accepted by
most Marxists familiar with the concepts. Gramsci took this a step further when he divided
the superstructure into those institutions that were overtly coercive and those that were
not. The coercive ones, which were basically the public institutions such as the government,
police, armed forces and the legal system he regarded as the state or political society and the
non-coercive ones were the others such as the churches, the schools, trade unions, political
parties, cultural associations, clubs, the family etc. which he regarded as civil society. To some
extent, schools could fit into both categories. Parts of school life are quite clearly coercive
(compulsory education, the national curriculum, national standards and qualifications) whilst
others are not (the hidden curriculum).

So for Gramsci, society was made up of the relations of production (capital v labour); the state
or political society (coercive institutions) and civil society (all other non-coercive institutions).

Gramsci's analysis went much further than any previous Marxist theory to provide an
understanding of why the European working class had on the whole failed to develop
revolutionary consciousness after the First World War and had instead moved towards
reformism ie tinkering with the system rather than working towards overthrowing it. It
was a far more subtle theory of power than any of his contemporaries and went a long way to
explain how the ruling class ruled.

Implications of Gramsci’s insights on Marxist core beliefs :

1. Now, if Gramsci was correct that the ruling class maintained its domination by the
consent of the mass of the people and only used its coercive apparatuses, the forces of
law and order, as a last resort, what were the consequences for Marxists who wished to
see the overthrow of that same ruling class?
2. If the hegemony of the ruling capitalist class resulted from an ideological bond between
the rulers and the ruled, what strategy needed to be employed?

The answer to those questions was that those who wished to break that ideological bond had
to build up a ‘counter hegemony’ to that of the ruling class. They had to see structural change
and ideological change as part of the same struggle. The labour process was at the core of the
class struggle but it was the ideological struggle that had to be addressed if the mass of the
people were to come to a consciousness that allowed them to question their political and
economic masters right to rule. It was popular consensus in civil society that had to be
challenged and in this we can see a role for informal education.

3
Overcoming popular consensus, however, is not easy. Ideological hegemony meant that the
majority of the population accepted what was happening in society as ‘common sense’ or as
‘the only way of running society’. There may have been complaints about the way things were
run and people looked for improvements or reforms but the basic beliefs and value system
underpinning society were seen as either neutral or of general applicability in relation to the
class structure of society. Marxists would have seen people constantly asking for a bigger
slice of the cake when the real issue was ownership of the bakery.

Organic Intellectuals

This brings me to my second theme. Gramsci saw the role of the intellectual as a crucial one
in the context of creating a counter hegemony. He was clear that the transformation from
capitalism to socialism required mass participation. There was no question that socialism could
be brought about by an elite group of dedicated revolutionaries acting for the working class. It
had to be the work of the majority of the population conscious of what they were doing and not
an organised party leadership. The revolution led by Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917
was not the model suitable for Western Europe or indeed any advanced industrialised country.
The Leninist model took place in a backward country with a huge peasantry and a tiny working
class. The result was that the mass of the population were not involved. For Gramsci, mass
consciousness was essential and the role of the intellectual was crucial.

It is important at this juncture to note that when Gramsci wrote about intellectuals, he was not
referring solely to the boffins and academics that sat in ivory towers or wrote erudite pieces for
academic journals only read by others of the same ilk. His definition went much further and he
spread his net much wider.

Gramsci’s notebooks are quite clear on the matter. He writes that "all men are intellectuals"
[and presumably women] "but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals". What
he meant by that was that everyone has an intellect and uses it but not all are intellectuals by
social function. He explains this by stating that "everyone at some time fries a couple of eggs
or sews up a tear in a jacket, we do not necessarily say that everyone is a cook or a tailor". Each
social group that comes into existence creates within itself one or more strata of intellectuals
that gives it meaning, that helps to bind it together and helps it function. They can take the form
of managers, civil servants, the clergy, professors and teachers, technicians and scientists,
lawyers, doctors etc. Essentially, they have developed organically alongside the ruling class
and function for the benefit of the ruling class. Gramsci maintained that the notion of
intellectuals as being a distinct social category independent of class was a myth.

He identified two types of intellectuals - traditional and organic. Traditional intellectuals are
those who do regard themselves as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group
and are regarded as such by the population at large. They seem autonomous and independent.
They give themselves an aura of historical continuity despite all the social upheavals that they
might go through. The clergy are an example of that as are the men of letters, the philosophers
and professors. These are what we tend to think of when we think of intellectuals. Although
they like to think of themselves as independent of ruling groups, this is usually a myth and an
illusion. They are essentially conservative allied to and assisting the ruling group in society.

The second type is the organic intellectual. This is the group mentioned earlier that grows
organically with the dominant social group, the ruling class, and is their thinking and organising
element. For Gramsci it was important to see them for what they were. They were produced by

4
the educational system to perform a function for the dominant social group in society. It is
through this group that the ruling class maintains its hegemony over the rest of society.

Having said that what was required for those who wished to overthrow the present system was
a counter hegemony, a method of upsetting the consensus, of countering the ‘common sense’
view of society, how could this be done?

Gramsci, in his Notebooks, maintained that what was required was that not only should a
significant number of ‘traditional’ intellectuals come over to the revolutionary cause (Marx,
Lenin and Gramsci were examples of this) but also the working class movement should produce
its own organic intellectuals. Remember that Gramsci said that all men were intellectuals but
not all men have the function of intellectuals in society. He went on to point out that "there is
no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded" and that
everyone, outside their particular professional activity, "carries on some form of intellectual
activity …, participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral
conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is,
to bring into being new modes of thought". This sounds as if he was exaggerating the
possibilities but what he was really trying to convey is that people have the capability and the
capacity to think. The problem was how to harness those capabilities and capacities.

Gramsci saw one of his roles as assisting in the creation of organic intellectuals from the
working class and the winning over of as many traditional intellectuals to the revolutionary
cause as possible. He attempted this through the columns of a journal called L’Ordine Nuovo
(New Order), subtitled "a weekly review of Socialist culture". This journal came out at the same
time as the huge spontaneous outbreak of industrial and political militancy that swept Turin in
1919. This outbreak mirrored events throughout the industrial world that shook the very
foundations of capitalist society.

Gramsci’s insistence on the fundamental importance of the ideological struggle to social change
meant that this struggle was not limited to consciousness raising but must aim at consciousness
transformation - the creation of a socialist consciousness. It was not something that could be
imposed on people but must arise from their actual working lives. The intellectual realm,
therefore, was not to be seen as something confined to an elite but to be seen as something
grounded in everyday life. Gramsci wrote that "the mode of being of the new intellectual can
no longer consist in eloquence … but in active participation in practical life, as
constructor, organiser, "permanent persuader" and not just a simple orator…" [Gramsci
1971 p10]

The creation of working class intellectuals actively participating in practical life, helping to
create a counter hegemony that would undermine existing social relations was Gramsci’s
contribution to the development of a philosophy that would link theory with practice. His
philosophy was a direct counter to those elitist and authoritarian philosophies associated with
fascism and Stalinism. His approach was open and non-sectarian. He believed in the innate
capacity of human beings to understand their world and to change it. In his Notebooks, he
asked the question: "is it better to "think", without having a critical awareness, … or, on the
other hand, is it better to work out consciously and critically one’s own conception of the
world?". He wanted revolutionaries to be critical and made it clear that "the starting point of
critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is …". [Gramsci 1971 p323]

5
The role of informal educators in local communities links up with Gramsci’s ideas on the role
of the intellectual. The educator working successfully in the neighbourhood and with the local
community has a commitment to that neighbourhood. They are not ‘here today and gone
tomorrow’. They may have always lived in the area and have much in common with the local
people or they may not. What is important is that they develop relationships with the people
they work with that ensures that wherever they go, they are regarded as part of the community
(‘one of us’). "They can strive to sustain people’s critical commitment to the social groups with
whom they share fundamental interests. Their purpose is not necessarily individual
advancement, but human well-being as a whole" (Smith 1994 p127).

Gramsci on Schooling and Education

Schooling played an important part in Gramsci’s analysis of modern society. The school system
was just one part of the system of ideological hegemony in which individuals were socialised
into maintaining the status quo. He did not write much in his Notebooks on the school system
but what he did write was essentially a critique of the increased specialisation occurring within
the Italian school system and a plea for a more ‘comprehensive’ form of education. The
vocational school was being created in order to help ‘modernise’ Italy. This new system was
"advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social
differences but to crystallise them in Chinese complexities". Gramsci describes the social
character of the traditional schools as determined by the fact that each social group throughout
society had its own type of school "intended to perpetuate a specific traditional function, ruling
or subordinate" but the answer to the question of modernising education was not to create a
whole system of different types of vocational school but "to create a single type of formative
school (primary-secondary) which would take the child up to the threshold of his choice of job,
forming him during this time as a person capable of thinking, studying and ruling - or
controlling those who rule" (Gramsci 1971 p40).

Gramsci maintained that this type of school could only achieve success with the active
participation of pupils and, in order for this to happen, the school must relate to everyday life.
This did not mean that education should not include abstract ideas but that philosophical
concepts, formal logic, rules of grammar etc needed to be acquired in school "through work and
reflection" (Gramsci 1977 p42). He was clear that learning was not something that came easily
for the majority of young people. "The individual consciousness of the overwhelming majority
of children reflects social and cultural relations which are different from and antagonistic to
those which are represented in the school curricula" (Gramsci 1971 p35). A learner had to be
active not "a passive and mechanical recipient". The relationship between the pupil’s
psychology and the educational forms must always be "active and creative, just as the relation
of the worker to his tools is active and creative" (Gramsci 1977 p42).

There was no doubt in his mind that education in modern Italy was one way in which the mass
of the population was kept in its place. In order to transform this situation, the education system
had to be confronted and changed dramatically. He did not underestimate the huge mountain
that had to be climbed. "If our aim is to produce a new stratum of intellectuals … from a social
group which has not traditionally developed the appropriate attitudes, then we have
unprecedented difficulties to overcome" (Gramsci 1971 p43).

Gramsci’s writings on education are not always easy to understand. In fact, they are quite
confusing at times. They are certainly open to misinterpretation (Allman 1988 , Entwistle 1979).
The editors of his Prison Notebooks make the point that his apparent "conservative" eulogy of

6
the old system of education in Italy was really only a device to get round the prison censors
(Gramsci 1971 p24). However, this device has had the effect of perplexing more than his
captors.

For informal educators, Gramsci stands out as a major thinker. The importance he placed on
critical self awareness, on critical social awareness, on the importance of the intellectual being
part of everyday life, on the part played by so-called ‘common sense’ in maintaining the status
quo and the transformational possibilities of education. All of these are now commonplace in
the formation of informal educators.

Is there any wonder that Mussolini’s government made it clear at his trial that they wanted to
stop his brain from working?

Further reading and references

Allman, P. (1988) "Gramsci, Freire and Illich: Their Contributions to Education for Socialism"
in Tom Lovett, (ed) Radical Approaches to Adult Education: A Reader.London: Routledge.
Boggs, C. (1976) Gramsci’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press.
Entwistle, H. (1979). Antonio Gramsci: Conservative schooling for radical politics. London:
Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Smith, M.K. (1994). Local education: Community, conversation, praxis. Buckingham: Open
University Press.

Further notes on hegemony

An Application of Gramsci's Theory on Hegemony to Modern Western Society.

Hegemony
Hegemony is where the dominant group or class in society creates the impression that its
particular interests are the general interests.
Gramsci states it this way: " The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas,
[where] the ruling class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time
its ruling intellectual force. [Where they] rule as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and
regulate the production and distribution of the idea of their age: thus their ideas are the
ruling ideas of the epoch".( Marx and Engels, German Ideology)
Intellectuals
* All people have the potential to be intellectuals, but only some have the social function of
being intellectuals.
* There are two types of intellectuals.
1). Traditional Intellectuals; which are created from past and present class relations.
2). Organic Intellectuals; the thinking section of particular social classes.
* Organic Intellectuals are created at the same time as their particular social class.
* All classes, except the Peasantry, have their own Organic Intellectuals.
* Organic Intellectuals of a class are fundamental to that class attaining Hegemony over other
classes. Their role is as the directing and organizing element of their particular class.
* To become the Hegemonic group within society, the Organic Intellectuals of the particular
class that is aiming for Hegemony must Ideologically Conquer the Traditional Intellectuals.
They must convince the traditional intellectuals that their group's ideas are better than the
existing Hegemonic group's ideas, and that the traditional intellectuals will gain some benefit

7
from changing alliances.
* Intellectuals are seen by Gramsci to be the hegemonic group's deputies with two main
functions.
1). Social Hegemony: They help to create the spontaneous consent by the rest of society for
the direction of the hegemonic group. This is created from the historic prestige of both the
intellectuals and the hegemonic group.
2). Political Government: The intellectuals operate the state's institutions of coercive power,
e.g. the legal system, to force non-consenting groups to accept the decisions of the hegemonic
group.
* Political Parties are in fact intellectuals. They operate in two ways.
1). For some groups or classes the political party is in fact their Organic Intellectuals.
2). For all groups political parties act as a cohesive force for their groups Organic Intellectuals,
and as a link to the Traditional Intellectuals.
** Critical arguments.
1. It can be argued that the original bourgeoisie have been replaced by a new managerial class
( comprising trained and credentialed managers, economists, lawyers and accountants) which
has become the new Hegemonic class.
2. This class are originally the highly skilled servants of the bourgeoisie, but as capitalism has
evolved the bourgeoisie as the owners of the means of production have been replaced by the
managerial class.
3. Whereas the bourgeoisie had a somewhat separate group of organic intellectuals, it can be
argued that the managerial class is its own organic intellectuals.
4. This is because the new managerial class is made up of trained specialists, therefore only its
own members would have the knowledge and skills to act as its own organic intellectuals.
5. This also includes the traditional intellectuals. For the new managerial class to become
hegemonic, it must gain the support of the traditional intellectuals.
6. Yet the very specialized knowledge of the managerial class would tend to weaken and
undermine the position of the traditional intellectuals.
7. From this it can be argued that not only has the managerial class gained the support
from the traditional intellectuals, but that it has to a certain extent subordinated them.;
Notice Gramsci’s formulation of the tensions between different classes as one of tension:
negotiation and consent.
8. The specialized knowledge of the managerial class, and its importance to the modern
capitalist system, has meant that the managerial class is increasingly taking the pre-eminent
place amongst the traditional intellectuals, who are now reduced to a secondary or supporting
position within the traditional intellectuals.
9. So that the new managerial hegemonic class, its organic intellectuals, and the traditional
intellectuals, are now primarily the same group.
10. This creates a major problem for Gramsci’s theory, in that any class aiming for hegemony
will now find attaining it vastly more difficult than a previous class did.
A). The new managerial class as the traditional intellectuals increasingly base their specialized
knowledge on a quasi-scientific basis.
B). Any class wishing to become dominant must now 'prove scientifically', with the use of
quasi-scientific tools such as statistically proven theories, that their ideas are better than the
existing hegemonic managerial class' ideology.
C). How this could be done when the managerial class have hegemony over traditional
intellectual thought is difficult to see.

8
9