A Gramscian Take on The Times And McCain

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:07

(A) Gramsci's motivation was that the predicted worker's revolution did not occur in the mot advanced capitalist countries, as Marxist theory predicted.  He therefore sought to explain why this was so, and what to do about it. The answers he came up with, described briefly below, have been adapted by people whose viewpoints are far removed from his--Rush Limbaugh, for one--so there is no need to accept his initial premises, if--like I do--one finds his descriptions of processes compelling.

(B) Grmsci attributed the failure to make an anti-capitalist revolution to the capture of worker's ideology, and organizations by the hegemonic (ruling or dominant) culture, transmitted by institutions such as the church, compulsory education, popular culture, etc. as well as appeals to bourgoise ideologies, such as nationalism, consumerism, careerism, etc. which also enjoy their own forms of instutional support.

Such institutions and ideologies have both their own independent rationale and function in their own spheres, as well as their function in the largr social system.  Gramsci's conception allows us to view both institutions and narratives at varying different levels of abstraction operating according the same over-all logic, without denying or distorting the fact that they also follow their own particular logic as well.

(C) To overcome the power of hegemony, and create a workers revolution, Gramsci argued for a two-fold strategy, First, a "war of position" to build working-class counter-institutions, and take over bourgoise ones while promulgating working-class ideology. Second, once this stage was successful, then a "war of movement" to the actual insurrection against capitalism, with mass support that Marxist theory originally predicted.

Consciously or not, the American right has adopted Gramsci's fundamental insight, but adapted it to their somewhat different position in society.  On the one hand, as Gramsci advised, they have dilligently built up their own institutional infrastructure, and attacked existing instriutional structures that they do not control, seeking either to take over or cripple or destroy them.  On the other hand, they have combined the war of position and war of movement into a more integrated whole, frequently taking advantage of a constellation of positions to launch a "war of movement" attack on an insitution they wish to cripple, destroy or take over, or an idea, principle, value, or narrative they wish to discredit, or subvert.

With this in mind, the NYT McCain story can be viewed as particularly involving:

(1) The expression of conservative identity politics, a binary worldview that involves the valorization of all things "conservative" and the demonization of "liberals" specifically, and anything generally that stands opposed to, or outside of self-defined "conservatism."  I've written about this previously, back in 2006 in diaries at MyDD here, here, here, here and here.

(2)  The narrative of "personal virtue" as the foundational concern of politics, which is a core conservative belief dating back at least to Hesiod's Works and Days, and heavily inscribed into the DNA of the Western Worlds in the writings of Plato and Aristotle.  This narrative is strongly connected to cognitive developmental levels two and three in Robert Kegan's schema, which I've previously described here and here, for example.

(3) The rightwing war on fact-based (i.e. "liberal) journalism as a specific facet of their overall attack on modernity, empiricism, reason and critical thought.  The NY Times, as the nation's leading daily newspaper has long been a prime target in this war, and has long been significantly compromised by their successes.

For a more detailed description of how this perspective affects our understanding of the NYT-McCain story and its repurcussions, join me on the flip....

Will The Real Culture War Please Stand Up???

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:54

It's the grand premise of the Obama campaign that he can bring us together, slay the dragon of partisan divisiveness and end the culture wars which he lays at the feet of the Baby Boom generation.  It's a nice, appealing narrative, in a way, it all turns on the question of what you mean by "culture war."  The commonsense meaning of "culture war" over the past few decades is a war over social mores between hierarchical "traditional values" and the post-1950s emergence of egalitarian values, especially with respect to race and gender, more closely aligned with the traditional values at the core of our Constitution.

But there's a deeper meaning, which is clearly understood by rightwing culture warriors, and virtually unknown to everyone else.  This meaning comes, ironically, from a leading Marxist theorist, the highly independent Italian leader, Antonio Gramsci, who described culture war as a struggle for ideological control of the broad range of institutions in society.  And in this deeper sense, Obama's analysis is completely upside-down--the problem is not that both sides are equally to blame, but that only the right is actually fighting a coordinated culture war as Gramsci defined it.  It's not a case of bringing a knife to a gunfight, it's a case of brining a plastic yogurt spoon to a nuclear war.

Gramsci was grappling with the question of why Marxist predictions had not come to pass, why the rise of working class power had not lead to a communist revolution, or even the dominance of socialist political parties.  The reason, he believed, was that workers aspired to become their class enemy--they wanted to join the bourgeoisie, not destroy it, and the reason for that was the hegemony of bourgeois ideology, expressed through a whole range of political institutions.

Gramsci's argument is based on an analysis that can clearly be transposed onto other forms of ideological struggle, such as the one that grips America today.  Whether or not Gramsci was entirely right in his specific analysis (not being a communist, I obviously think he wasn't), he clearly was onto something, and America's post-1960s New Right has followed his prescription quite faithfully, even if they did not cite him specifically until Rush Limbaugh did so in the 1990s.  By engaging in a Gramscian culture war, the right has positioned itself to define the terms of the "culture war" as commonly understood.  While there may be hopes of diminishing, if not ending the "culture war" in the latter sense it is not clear how this is possible, except temporarily, without countering the rightwing's Gramscian culture war.  And countering that culture war is not possible without first grasping the full nature and extent of it. 

This diary represents a small beginning, a thumbnail sketch overview of what that would entail.  I intend to follow it up with some diaries that look at how the right has moved in on various different cultural institutions-possible examples include think tanks, the media, K-12 and higher education, churches, state governments, the courts and civil society institutions such as the Boy Scouts.  I have one about the intrusion of "homeland security" on academia that's ready to go.  I plan to do one or two others this weekend or next.  Two other forms of follow-up are planned-first, more scrutiny of Barack Obama in light of this analysis and his failure to grasp what's going on, and second, a step back to discuss what the two sides are all about.  Broadly conceived, I will characterize them as hierarchy, authority and coercion on the right, versus equality, autonomy, and voluntary cooperation on the left.  These encompass a wide range of specific forms and culture expressions on both sides that have their differences with one another, but that all express similar fundamentals.

Where's Obama? Questioning v Reinforcing [Foreign Policy] CW #3 (Political Duality of Rep v Dem 6c)

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 19:38

I'm in basic agreement with Chris's view:

for the rank and file of professional, progressive foreign policy types who were opposed to the Iraq war from the start, the Obama campaign is the equivalent of the 2002 Nancy Pelosi leadership, 2003 Howard Dean presidential, and 2006 Ned Lamont Senate campaigns were for much of the activist rank and file. However, while this rebellion is analogous to those earlier rebellions of an anti-war rank and file against a pro-leadership, the cultural gap between wonks and hacks, between insiders and outsiders, and between professionals and the grassroots have prevented it from gaining the same traction as those earlier campaigns.

There is, however, something more that's missing.  Quite simply, Obama is missing a counter-hegemonic position that challenges the "war on terror" narrative.  He is not the leader here.  Edwards was the leader in challenging the narrative frame, and Richardson was the leader in making a decisive commitment to withdraw from Iraq.  This is not a minor matter.  While the "war on terror" is a disastrous policy, one that does much more to help our enemies than ourselves, Democrats cannot run successfully against it without have an alternative vision-which they do not yet have.  They have alternative strategies, but this is not the same thing.

On the flip, I go through a rapid-fire review of some examples in recent history of missed opportunities for challenging foreign policy hegemony at the level of vision, in order to give a better sense of what the missing elements might look like, and thus, what is needed.

Who's Your Daddy??? Questioning vs. Reinforcing CW #2 (The Political Duality of Rep v. Dem Pt 6b)

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 18:33

Conventional wisdom can be thought of as the rationalization of specifc roles and relationsihps [things which define the Level 3 self], while hegemony is the rationalization of the entire level three subject of realm-the totality of all roles and relationships.  The way that one moves from Level 3 to Level 4 is not by one big jump, but by gradually becoming aware of of specific roles and relationships-at first, only in specific situations, then gradually more generally, and finally as part of a larger structure that eventually encompasses all of Level 3-at which time you have evolved to full Level 4 consciousenss.

I'm now going to turn my attention to something that has a bit of the character of both--that is, the myth of the GOP as the "Daddy Party."  I'm going to start with the more concrete, specific aspects of this, which are more in the way of conventional wisdom--that the GOP is the party of "real men," while the Democrats have nothing but "girly-men."

In one sense, this is a very broad notion, more on the order of hegemony.  But when you see it specifically invoked, enacted or represented in various concrete instances, it is much more like conventional wisdom.  Certainly, the idea that Bush--who ducked out on his National Guard service--was more of a man and more of a warrior than Kerry, who had gone to war and won a number of medals, was a very concrete piece of conventional wisdom.

Because the myth of the "Daddy Party" has this dual character, it is particularly useful to take on.  What's more, it's very much in the news lately, with heightened attention to Hillary Clinton's gender, Obama's play to black homophobia, and increased attention to the military policy, Iraq and the "war on terror."  I'm going to touch on some of these issues in future diaries, but in this diary, I want to focus specifically on the notion of "real men," and just how phony the Republicans are.

Questioning vs. Reinforcing Conventional Wisdom (The Political Duality of Rep v. Dem Pt 6a)

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Nov 03, 2007 at 09:00

This weekend, I'm taking a doubly-related tack-talking about conventional wisdom.  First, this is directly related to what I was suggesting should have been the primary purpose of impeachment proceeding, to delegitimate Bush and conservative rule.  Second, I want to discuss how conventional wisdom functions as part of the Level 3 infrastructure that liberals and Democrats allow themselves to be trapped and defined by.  The irony here is particularly deep, since the term "conventional wisdom"  was originally coined by John Kenneth Galbraith, one of the great liberal public intellectuals of the last half of the 20th Century.  He first recognized and articulated the concept, but over time it increasingly became a tool of conservative power.  So we'll start with a brief look at some of Galbraith's ideas, and how they've been messed with, then we'll take a look at what it means today.