DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT
ESSAY COVER SHEET 2020-2021
Please note that the University now has an Anonymous Marking Policy. Please ensure that you do not put your name on any item of coursework; we only require your seven digit Registration number for administrative purposes.
REGISTRATION NUMBER (seven digits)
MODULE CODE GV252
MODULE TITLE Discourse, Rhetoric and Power
CLASS TEACHER
COURSEWORK TITLE Antonio Gramsci develops the concept of an ‘integral state’. Why?
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 1
WORD COUNT
Online Submission Procedures
Please ensure that your essays are anonymised prior to uploading to FASER.
All essays must be uploaded online via the online coursework submission system (FASER). You will be able to access FASER via the my Essex portal or http://faser.essex.ac.uk/
The FASER deadline will be no later than 9.45am on the date stated in the module outline
If you have worked closely with another student in the preparation of this essay you must acknowledge it.
The student’s REGISTRATION NUMBER is: –
Please read and sign by inputting your Registration Number:
I have read and I understand the University Regulations and Procedures on dealing with cheating.
I certify that the attached is all my own work. I understand that I may be penalised if I use the words of others without acknowledgement.
REGISTRATION NUMBER: 1904475
ASSIGNMENT MARK
MARKER FEEDBACK
Antonio Gramsci develops the concept of an ‘integral state’. Why?
Introduction (273):
Antonio Gramsci is undoubtedly one of the essential Marxist theorists of the 20th century. His life was not exactly easy. Born in Sardinia in 1891, he went to Turin in 1911 and joined the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) in 1913/14. He had to give up his linguistics studies due to a lack of financial means, and from then on, he worked as a journalist for various socialist magazines (Bryer, 2021, page 1-46). In 1921 he left the PSI and the communist faction, became a co-founder of the PCI, and even briefly its chairman in 1926. In November 1926, he was arrested by the fascists. He spent almost eleven years in a fascist prison, where – in the form of the ”prison notebooks” – he put most of his theoretical work on paper, despite his increasingly poor health (Hunter, 2021, page 7).
On April 27, 1937, two days after his ”early” release, Gramsci died due to failure to treat his serious illness (Bryer, 2021, page 1-46). Some would argue that the most significant accomplishment of Mussolini was the imprisonment of Gramsci, who consequently created such an essential piece of history. Gramsci, even though being an admirer of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, certainly had a different viewpoint, especially concerning civil society and the state (Basso, 2020, page 108-136). This controversial standpoint will be the main topic of my essay. Firstly, I will shortly explain Marx, Engels, and Lenin’s traditional viewpoint on how they perceived the relationship between civil society and the state. The second and central part of this essay will focus on displaying Gramsci’s “integral state” ‘s theoretical framework, followed by the last part, explaining why he created it.
State and Civil Society in Marx, Engels, and Lenin (500):
To familiarize oneself with the terrain in which Gramsci’s thought moves, it is first necessary to have a brief recourse to the classics. According to classical Marxist understanding, bourgeois society can be divided into the “base” and the “superstructure.” The social basis comprises the totality of a social organization’s temporal relations developing directly out of production and traffic, such as the organization of production and distribution, the degree and form of division of labor, organization of labor, consumption, and reproduction (Hunter, 2021, page 7). The “superstructure” is the social structure of society. The so-called “idealistic superstructures,” which stabilize, regulate, and legitimize the (basal) social order, are called the social superstructure. Part of the social superstructure is the dominant worldviews and Ideologies and their practices and institutions, including the state, political parties, religion, the media, and the education system (Hunter, 2021, page 7).
The formation of the state in the strict sense, as a separate institution, is, according to Marx & Engels, a modern product, an aspect of the development of bourgeois society. Marx, Engels, and Lenin emphasize the state’s repressive function: In exercising its monopoly on the use of force, the state becomes the guarantor of the bourgeois property order and thus an instrument of class rule (Basso, 2020, page 108-136). Thus, Engels writes: “The summary of civilized society is the state, which in all exemplary periods without exception is the state of the ruling class and in all cases remains essentially a machine for holding down the oppressed, exploited class.” And Lenin, referring to state power, asks, “In what does this power mainly consist? In special formations of armed men who have prisons and other things at their disposal”.
Marx, however, could not provide a systematic even and philosophical reflection of the state and civil society. Engels was the one left to develop a systematic nature of the state through discussing the relationship between economic development and state power. Engle provided a different argument and took a different theoretical path, which was anticipation of Marx and class theory of the state. England focused on the economic-political, through discussing the condition of the working-class in England. Also, Engle provides a vivid description concerning the role, and nature of common law, legislation, philanthropy, and poor law through a German ideology. Marxist and Engle’s argument is based on the relationship between the state of power and class struggles based on historical materialism. The philosophers argue that a state is a product of the state’s economic foundation and a balance of economic forces.
Additionally, the Marxist provides a close relationship between production and the political or legal aspect of a state, which is also determined by social consciousness. According to Engels, economic determinism, political forces are the main determinants of a state’s economic situation. On the other side, the nature of states’ power is determined by the shifts in the needs f the economy, where state intervention is based on the state’s ability to intervene. Marx’s states that it is challenging to balance class forces because production and economy keep changing, where class changed due to the capitalist labor process’s impacts. However, the forces of production may develop or break the state of power. The state, however, is a balance of political force since political forces impact the economy, leading to class struggle. Lenin also argues that the state is made of or is an instrument of class domination but does not explain the states as a product of reality or ethical nature (Basso, 2020, page 108-136).
According to the three philosophers, civil society is a product of the political economy, which is different from Gramsci, who states that civil society is a super-cultural sphere. Lenin’s theory of social revolution, state, and civil society focus on the impacts of social forces, such as labor forces. Lenin, however, believes a state is a product of class dominance, where state development can be achieved through the end of class conflict. On the other hand, Lenin perspective on the relationship between the state and civil society is based on Marx’s theory. According to Lenin, the existence of a state makes it hard to resolve class conflict (Han, 2020, page 1-34). However, according to Hegelians, the state is used as an instrument of universalization and not an instrument to reconcile the class conflict. According to Lenin, a state is an organ for creating order, class rule, and oppression. According to Lenin and Marxist, a state is composed of particular bodies, such as the military, to stabilize class powers. Engels influences Lenin’s perspective on the state of revolution (Basso, 2020, page 108-136).
Integral State (750
Compared to Marx and Engels, who have witnessed the emergence of the Industrial Revolution and its consequences, Gramsci wrote in the 1920s and 1930s and had the situation in the developed Western industrial societies in mind. Compared to the 19th century, in the development of the modern state, other state functions had emerged in addition to the repressive ones, some of which reached deep into the realm of civil society (e.g., school, health, and social policy). The representative democratic form of government (”parliamentary”) prevailed. With the increase in power of the trade unions, a so-called ”labor aristocracy” was formed, which was integrated into the emerging regulatory regime through a policy of corporation reconciliation of interests. Gramsci witnessed the emergence of fascism and the failure of the (revolutionary) workers’ movement in many Western countries, especially Germany and Italy.
Against this background, Gramsci comes to the view (in several steps) that bourgeois rule is based not only on Coercion but equally on persuasion, i.e., on the ability of the ruling class to convince the subaltern classes of the correctness and superiority of its model of society (and thus its institutions). This ideological (i.e., political, but also cultural and moral) leadership capacity of the ruling class he calls hegemony (Dal Maso, 2021, page 1-39).
Gramsci expands the ”classical” concept of the state. For him, the ”state” is the state institutions in the narrow sense (società political) and civil society institutions (società Civile). It is in these that the supremacy of the ruling class is manifested reproduced. This unity he calls the integral state: società political + società civil = state integral, or in the language of operation: Domination = Coercion + Consensus ( Han, 2020, page 1-34). The distinction as a result of this made is to be understood as a functional differentiation. All institutions of the bourgeois society show the described double character. On the one hand, state institutions in the narrower sense also require Consensus; on the other hand, civil society institutions also exercise Coercion.
The relationship between these two aspects of the rule is complementary. Since Consensus is never total, coercive means are needed to discipline the ”unteachable”. Without Consensus, on the other hand, the use of coercive means would not be recognized as legitimate and could not be sustained in the long run. Marx and Gramsci’s concept of integral state was developed from Hegel’s critique. The integral state is considered an unstable form of the state caused by the breakdown of the anti-politics. Marx wrote Gramsci’s conception of the integral state to understanding a relationship between the state and civil society (Basso, 2020, page 108-136). Integral state states that Coercion cannot guarantee states’ power, but the state can be developed through a set of values. The theory of integral state provides a close delineation between the neoliberal projects and the corporatists. The integral state is determined by the relationship between eh accord and neoliberalism, the components of the social wage”, and deviations from the various accord statements.
Gramsci’s concept of civil society is based on the political and civil society, where an integral state is composed of both the political and civil society. An integral state considers a civil society and a political society where the political society rules over the civil society or holds coercive power (Basso, 2020, page 108-136). According to Gramsci, civil society is considered an extension of the capitalist state. According to Neo-Gramscian, an integral state focuses on consent through the government, which is considered a complex ensemble that concentrates on the consent that originates from social regulation. According to Orthodox Gramsci, an integral state is a dialectic totality, where Coercion is the condition of consent.
On the other hand, everyday politics, such as urban governance, interfere with civil society and an integral state. Some forms of an integral state include the organized governing networks in the state, the urban regimes, policies, and political leaderships, representing both civil society and political society. An integral state is explained in the three contemporary governance theories, such as the orthodox Glamscia perspective on urban governance, the governmentalization of the urban governance, and the Neo-Gramscian Urban governance (Dal Maso, 2021, page 1-39).
Why (250)
Antonio Gramsci’s ideas have become very important in civil society, especially in providing the concept of international relations and international political economy theory. Gramsci, however, argues that the political society and civil society co-exist instead of being viewed as two different regions. The main reason Antonis Gramsci came up with the integral state notion is to foster a sense of internationalism, which is created through thoroughgoing of various social forces that are present in a national state (Han, 2020, page 1-34). On the other hand, Gramsci developed the concept of an integral state for developing the governance mechanism and understanding political society and social relations. Through the concept, it becomes easier to integrate and shift political dynamics across different scales by changing the economic state (Dal Maso, 2021, page 1-39). However, the concept has helped in the shift of power across the world’s economy during the second world war, the international monetary fund, and the world bank. Also, Gramsci’s integral state concept provides a deep understanding concerning political pee-dominance through “hegemony” developed since the beginning of the nineteenth century (Dal Maso, 2021, page 1-39, page 29-44). The concept, however, was developed to provide the relationship between the state’s dictatorship and domination, which protects the power of Coercion. Gramsci does not define a state as a form of dominance but to win consent over the people’s rules. On the other hand, Gramsci came up with the concept to explain the functionalism and instrumentality of a state and explain fascism in Italy, which is considered a dominant political form in Europe (Dal Maso, 2021, page 1-39).
Conclusion (250)
The application of the integral state concept by Antonio Gramscia provides an understanding of the state and society. The state is an institutional instrument consisting of political society and civil society. The concept has made it possible to foster dialectic unity between political and civil society and shift in power. However, the concept has created several controversies, especially concerning civil society’s application globally ( Han, 2020, page 1-34). On the other hand, the concept Helps in understanding the increased globalization in the world today. Mark and Engle tend to explain the state and civil society through similar and perspectives that slightly differ. The Marxist concept of the state focuses on social transformation, where Marxism and Engles provide a unified and consistent theory of the state that focuses on class power and political forces on the economy and the overall state. However, Marxists state that the state is a political domination system controlled by social classes and categories (Dal Maso, 2021, page 1-39, page 29-44).
On the other hand, Lenin argues based on the state of revolution, where the state can be viewed as a coercive institution, hence confronted by force, or as an instrument of the bourgeoisie. The state and civil society are viewed as an instrument manipulated by the dominant classes or the capitalist class. According to Gramsci, through the concept of sovereignty, for a dominant capitalist class to maintain supremacy and authority over a state, it must create what is seen as a shared sense of morals, political and social values( Han, 2020, page 1-34). The role of Gramsci is to balance the powers in a state and prevent the capitalist class from using the state as an instrument of the bourgeoisie through a polite and Lil-tempered approach compared with the approach used by Marxism.
References:
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/30015
http://www.spsh.de/texte/Antonio%20Gramsci%20-%20die%20politische%20Theorie.pdf
Humphrys, E., 2018. Anti-politics, the early Marx and Gramsci’s ‘integral state’. Thesis Eleven, 147(1), pp.29-44.
Bieler, A., Bruff, I. and Morton, A.D., 2015. Gramsci and ‘the international’: Past, present and future. In Antonio Gramsci (pp. 137-155). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Thomas, P.D., 2015. Gramsci’s Marxism: The ‘philosophy of praxis’. In Antonio Gramsci (pp. 97-117). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Dal Maso, J., 2021. The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci: A Rereading. Historical Materialism, 1(aop), pp.1-39.
Bryer, R.A., 2021. Why Lenin failed to implement Marx’s concept of socialism: an accounting history of the Russian revolution, c. 1917–1924. Accounting History Review, pp.1-43.
Hunter, R., 2021. Critical Legal Studies and Marx’s Critique: A Reappraisal. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 31(2), p.7.
Han, L., 2020. From State to Civil Society I. In Studies of the Paris Manuscripts (pp. 1-34). Springer, Singapore.
Basso, L., 2020. Society and State in the Thought of Marx. In A Heterodox Marxist and His Century: Lelio Basso (pp. 108-136). Brill.
