Post by Scott on Jan 20, 2016 2:11:42 GMT
Of all the readings we looked at this week, I think the one that struck me the most (aside from the conundrum of reading Laclau—woof) was Aune. I was not struck in a good way though, because as I finished his section on Gramsci, I was blow away on his misreading of the primary Gramscian text, The Prison Notebooks. He presents a very limited reading of Gramsci’s prison notebooks in almost every way he describes what Gramsci himself “was interested in”. Here are a few of the issues with Aune’s read on Gramsci that I thought were particularly incorrect:
1. He argues that there are two types of intellectuals (organic and traditional), when Gramsci writes that everyone is an intellectual, organic I’s being those who rise from hegemonic structures to unveil common sense and move toward good sense. Where he got the idea of traditional intellectuals is beyond me, unless it is a gross simplification of the public as a whole...
2. The passage where Aune demonstrates what Gramsci’s hegemonic theory looks like in society makes the presumption that hegemonic power is inherently oppressive, a common misconception of gramscian thought. In actuality, hegemony is a relationship, first and foremost. Gramsci only illustrated that hegemonic relationships are inevitable.
3. Finally and perhaps most problematic is Aune’s statement that “Gramsci did not believe capitalism had ruined the wisdom of the people.” Instead, The Prison Notebooks show in several passages where Gramsci indicts the immoral nature of capitalism and that capitalism was the root of common sense forms of ideological domination.
These are only the major problems of his descrption of Gramsci but it is wholly problematic tome because some of them are almost directly in opposition to Gramsci’s work. Aside from these issues, I found a few insightful moments in Aune’s article, particularly his treatment of rhetoric and its role in society. I wanted to pose the question and see what you all thought of Aune in terms of:
1) his discussion of rhetoric and its role in countering hegemony or perpetuating materialist thinking as well as 2) how Gramscian theory fits into this discussion of materialism
1. He argues that there are two types of intellectuals (organic and traditional), when Gramsci writes that everyone is an intellectual, organic I’s being those who rise from hegemonic structures to unveil common sense and move toward good sense. Where he got the idea of traditional intellectuals is beyond me, unless it is a gross simplification of the public as a whole...
2. The passage where Aune demonstrates what Gramsci’s hegemonic theory looks like in society makes the presumption that hegemonic power is inherently oppressive, a common misconception of gramscian thought. In actuality, hegemony is a relationship, first and foremost. Gramsci only illustrated that hegemonic relationships are inevitable.
3. Finally and perhaps most problematic is Aune’s statement that “Gramsci did not believe capitalism had ruined the wisdom of the people.” Instead, The Prison Notebooks show in several passages where Gramsci indicts the immoral nature of capitalism and that capitalism was the root of common sense forms of ideological domination.
These are only the major problems of his descrption of Gramsci but it is wholly problematic tome because some of them are almost directly in opposition to Gramsci’s work. Aside from these issues, I found a few insightful moments in Aune’s article, particularly his treatment of rhetoric and its role in society. I wanted to pose the question and see what you all thought of Aune in terms of:
1) his discussion of rhetoric and its role in countering hegemony or perpetuating materialist thinking as well as 2) how Gramscian theory fits into this discussion of materialism
