A quote

This part here I came across while reading on my own. I'll be sure to continue on the journals later, but I think this was interesting to read.

The most important element is undoubtedly one whose character is determined not by reason but by faith. But faith in whom, or in what? In particular in the social group to which he belongs, in so far as in a diffuse way it thinks as he does. The man of the people thinks that so many like-thinking people can't be wrong, not so radically, as the man he is arguing against would like him to believe; he thinks that, while he himself, admittedly, is not able to uphold and develop his arguments as well as the opponent, in his group there is someone who could do this and could certainly argue better than the particular man he has against him; and he remembers, indeed, hearing expounded, discursively, coherently, in a way that left him convinced, the reasons behind his faith. He has no concrete memory of the reasons and could not repeat them, but he knows that reasons exist, because he has heard them expounded, and was convinced by them. The fact of having once suddenly seen the light and been convinced is the permanent reason for his reasons persisting, even if the arguments in its favour cannot be readily produced.

I think many of us could relate to this in real life with people we meet in real life, particularly those of the "right" shade who can't argue or justify their points well, but have hacks like Beck, Coulter, or Limbaugh here in America and I trust you have your own. Though admittedly everyone has problems with this- relying on the arguments others have made to show the validity of socialism- and it highlights the role of the "intellectual" that grows out of their class and societal conditions.

One of Gramsci's concerns in much of his writings is how ideas are diffused in society, and how it becomes the "common sense" of the masses. More over he was often concerned with the divide that develops between "intellectuals" and the masses, essentially worried that an ideology might become the play thing of an intellectual and unapproachable by people. I think this can be applied to the current situation with Communist movements- there is a divide between the masses and the parties/leadership. One of our pressing matters currently and in the future is re-connecting Marxism to the workers' movement.

This is something that's been bothering me a lot lately,the gulf between party and the man on the street.Where's that quote you posted from?

Oh, I'm sorry, forgot to post that. It is under Gramsci's discussion on "Philosophy". In the Novac's PDF, it comes on pg. 169 on the right (again on the .pdf, not the actual page number).

In my Hoare edition, it's under the "Study of Philosophy" on pg. 339.

I've jumped ahead here because it's where I am in my own readings, but I thought it was an interesting quote because we have relations to this with conservative arguments from otherwise ordinary, working class types.

Gramsci knows the role of "intellectuals", particularly the organic ones that come out of their class and society, but also with the problem when an ideology gets too exclusive to the intellectual. The whole chapter here is him going on about older ideologies and philosophies- particularly those from the Enlightenment and Age of Reason, and from religious orders, and how they ended up getting a problem where the divide between intellectual and the masses grew too large.

Yes I've found it now.Thank you.

[FONT=Verdana]But hasn’t there always existed a pretty massive divide between intellectuals and the masses? I mean, can you think of a time when an ideology championed by intellectuals hasn’t been they’re exclusive domain and the ideas themselves are only understood in their simplest forms by “everyone” else? I dunno, is modern culture or the modern condition of humankind under capitalism responsible for the fact that so many people are misinformed about the way the world really works (let alone on esoteric political ideologies which take years of dedicated study to truly understand)?[/FONT]

I think we have to see how certain ideologies were readily accepted, and how others weren't. Much of it came down to how the relationship between a leadership (intellectuals) were able to relate to the group they were appealing to.

We have to see how the world has changed in the past 200 years- how the economic and social arrangements are accepted now when they weren't when they were first proposed.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but it's a problem for any ideology hoping to displace a dominant one. There is always the danger of this occurring with any political movement, but we have to remember the influence that it can show if it works correctly.

Among wingnuts and liberals, don't we see them following or agreeing to the words of a pundit or author? Of a philosopher or academic? It's diffused down the way and that is precisely what Gramsci is looking at- how these things are diffused into society.

Gramsci is abstractly referring to, as he was in the rest of the book, to the problems of the Communist party. He knew that these doctrinal disputes over theory could cause a problem in many of these parties relationship to the masses.

Where I live, it's gotten really to the point that "socialism" is perceived as an elitist or intellectual snobbery as opposed to something they can relate to. This part of the quote specifically I think highlights what value it could play if the divide is not too large:

He has no concrete memory of the reasons and could not repeat them, but he knows that reasons exist, because he has heard them expounded, and was convinced by them.