sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cultural hegemony, Louis Althusser

Vittorio Morfino

Althusser as Reader of Gramsci

Abstract: The article reconstructs the and developments of Althusserian theory as on complex relation between Althusser and Gramsci. a negative image: from to Reading Considering both published and unpublished , from ‘ and Ideological writings, the article argues that this relation is Apparatuses’ to the texts on the crisis of Marx- profoundly ambivalent: on the one hand, Gramsci ism, Althusser never ceases to define his own is considered the sole precursor in the Marxist position in relation to Gramsci. However, if we tradition who tried to think the superstructure, consider the posthumously published texts and and particularly ; on the hand, he documents held in the IMEC Archive, we receive is the paradigm of a conception of temporality an even stronger impression. From the early and politics from which Althusser wants to take 1960s onward, we find a large number of extracts distance. and notes (drawn from the Notes on Machiavelli, Gramsci’s Selected Writings, Historical Mate- Keywords: Gramsci, Historical time, rialism and the of , Ideology, , Force. and the critical edition of the Quaderni), a pro- jected article for Rinascita, the final chapter on Resumen: Este artículo reconstruye la hegemony in Marx in His Limits, and finally a compleja relación entre Gramsci y Althusser. text with the title What is to Be Done?, which is Considerando tanto trabajos publicados como entirely dedicated to Gramsci. inéditos, este artículo argumenta que esta With respect to this layered confrontation, relación es profundamente ambivalente: por un it is helpful to establish some schematic points: lado, Gramsci es considerado el precursor único First, Althusser’s encounter with Gramsci en la tradición marxista que trató de pensar la in the summer of 1961 also carries an encounter superestructura, y particularmente la política; with Machiavelli, which makes it such that the por otro, es el paradigma de la concepción de two authors are constantly thought in one another, temporalidad y política de las cuales Althusser the one through the other. quiere distanciarse. Second, there is a strong ambivalence in Althusser’s judgment towards Gramsci. On the Palabras clave: Gramsci, Tiempo histórico, one hand, he is considered the sole precursor in Ideología, Hegemonía, Poder. the Marxist tradition who tried to think the super- structure, and particularly politics. On the other hand, Gramsci is the paradigm of a conception Among the authors whom Althusser con- of temporality and politics from which to take fronts while working out his theory, Gramsci is distance. probably the most constantly present. From the Third, in terms of taking distance, two tem- beginning of the 1960s through the 1970s, his ref- porally distinct phases must be highlighted. Start- erences to Gramsci, either recognitions of debt or ing with a critique of the misrecognition of the distances taken, allow us to identify the contours specificity of the status of science in general and

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252

Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Costa Rica

16 VITTORIO MORFINO the science of in particular, typified by very important theme, in G. and in itself. the second half of the 1960s, Althusser passes, That any new progress of through the end of the 1970s, to a critique of the and the supposes new concept of hegemony in which class domination attitudes towards labor, and, through these would be lost. new technical attitudes, a whole upheaval of the existing mode of life. [...] The essen- tial idea of G. is that to create these new 1. The Encounter with Gramsci habits of life, this new way of life ordered according to new content of the division of labor, it is necessary to make violence Althusser’s encounter with Gramsci took to nature– i.e., the old disciplines become place at the beginning of the 1960s. In a letter ‘nature and correspond to the old mode of to Franca Madonia dated 28 November 1961, production–, this violence, this training, are Althusser refers to a letter from the previous inevitable –all of human history is consid- summer that he sent to Bertinoro (Althusser, ered from this point of view as a training 1998b, 122). This earlier letter bears witness to for animality, if it can never be heard of... several pages of extracts and typewritten notes Incredible violence most often. Which sup- preserved in a dossier ‘Gramsci sur Machiavel poses, this violence, a coercion character- (renvoi au texte italien).’ Here Althusser carefully ized, and organized [...] (24) notes the essential features of Gramsci’s reading of Machiavelli, probably in view of the course he will dedicate to the latter thinker in 1962 2. From ‘Contradiction and (Althusser 2006a, 193-254). However, along the Overdetermination’ to way, his attention is also drawn to other themes. ‘The of Capital’ For example, a passage of Gramsci’s on ideol- ogy that he translates (p. 294 Does not conceive Althusser’s first approach to Gramsci is fol- ideology as something artificial and mechanical lowed by two public, antithetical positions, the (like a coat on the skin), conceives of it as ‘skin first in the essay ‘Contradiction and Overdetermi- that is produced organically’ by the entire animal nation,’ published in La Pensée in December 1962 organism’) (ALT2. A31-05.06, 20.); or a page (and then in 1965 in For Marx) and the second, (128) on the educative function of the state in famously, in ‘The Object of Capital’ in 1965. relation to the masses, carried out positively by In ‘Contradiction and Overdetermination,’ the school and repressively by the courts, but Althusser argues that is nei- also, ‘a multitude of other initiatives aim to this ther the object of an inversion [renversement] end, other so-called private activities, which form nor the object of an extraction. Instead, Marxist the basis of the political and philosophy is a matter of thinking ‘the trans- 1 of the dominant classes,’ (14 ) which Althusser formation of its [TN: the Hegelian ] comments on as follows: structures’ (Althusser, 2005, 55). In this frame- work, cannot be thought through the Important idea of Gramsci: that the state category of simple contradiction; it is the product is not reducible to the state apparatus, but includes all kinds of other forms of pressure of an accumulation of partially heterogenous etc. that the state is political + civil contradictions, ‘which do not all have the same society = armored hegemony of coercion (p. origin, the same sense, nor the same level or point 132)/// G. against the identification of state of application, but which nevertheless ‘merge’ and government. /// (p. 16) into a ruptural unity’ (2005, 62, trans. mod.). The concept of overdetermination allows the Russian Finally, he takes note of some of Gramsci’s revolution to be thought not as the exception to reflections in a section on ‘Animality and Indus- the rule of simple contradiction, but precisely as trialism’ on pages 326–329 and comments: the rule of the rule.

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 ALTHUSSER AS READER OF GRAMSCI 17

The basic notion [is] that the Capital-Labour a remarkable example of a theoretical solu- contradiction is never simple, but always tion in outline to the problems of the specified by historically concrete forms and interpenetration of the economic and the circumstances in which it is exercised. It is political. Unfortunately, at least as far as specified by the forms of the superstructure France is concerned, who has taken up [...]; specified by the internal and external and followed through Gramsci’s theoretical historical situation which determines it on effort? (2005, 77, fn. 29) the one hand as a function of the national past [...] and on the other as functions of the Thus in 1962, Althusser considers Gramsci existing world context. (2005, 68-69) the only Marxist author who has opened the path on which he is attempting to advance; in Althusser’s reference to Gramsci here is particular, the concept of hegemony makes it still implicit, expressed in the need to establish possible to rigorously think (Althusser uses the the concept of overdetermined contradiction in strong expression ‘theoretical solution in outline a Marxist conception of history that is not the [esquisse de solution théorique]’) the relation of simple inversion [renversement] of the Hege- the economic and the political without forcing it lian conception, but its radical transformation. into the -phenomenon relation. In 1965, at The concepts of mode of production and social the height of the seminar on Capital, things will class in fact change the concepts of already have greatly changed, probably as a result and state, as well as their relation. Rather than of a deeper knowledge of Italian . a ‘tacit identity (phenomenon-essence-truth- The announcement of this change is located op...) of the economic and the political,’ it is in two series of excerpts which are likely dat- a ‘relation between the determinant instances able to when Althusser was preparing for the in the structure-superstructure complex which seminar. The first series considers some extracts constitutes the essence of any ’ from Gramsci’s Selected Works, which Althusser (2005, 74). titles ‘selected morsels [morceaux choisis] (17) Althusser uses Gramsci to intervene with sq’ (ALT2.A57-01.03).2 It is made up of a few regard to the theory of the specific efficacy of the extracts from pages 17-45, which take as their elements of the superstructure and their essence: object the Gramscian concept of philosophy as a unitary and coherent conception of the world in Like the map of Africa before the great explorations, this theory remains a realm its relation to , , intellectu- sketched in outline, with its great mountain als, the masses, ideology, and politics. chains and rivers, but often unknown in Althusser rarely intervenes within these detail beyond a few well-known regions. extracted passages. In this sense, there are two Who has really attempted to follow up the brief, noteworthy comments which appear to explorations of Marx and Engels? I can only indicate the point of attack of his later criticism. think of Gramsci. (2005, 77) First, after an initial group of extracts (1-2) Althusser comments: ‘interesting: G. identifies And he adds in a footnote: religion, ideology, philosophy, and politics’ (2). Second, commenting on a passage on the phi- Gramsci is of another stature [in relation to losophy that becomes a , an Lukács]. The jottings and developments in ideology of an epoch, he writes alongside: ‘cf. his Prison Notebooks touch on all the basic Hegel!’ (2). problems of Italian and European history: The second series of extracts is entitled economic, social, political and cultural. There are also some completely original ‘Gramsci’s ‘’’ and was likely written and in some cases genial insights into the in preparation for the seminar. Here he translates problem, basic today, of the superstructures. several passages from Historical Also, as always with true discoveries, there and the Philosophy of Benedetto Croce, which are new concepts, for example, hegemony: he describes as a ‘Reference Text,’ including of

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 18 VITTORIO MORFINO course the famous passage on the philosophy of the object of Marx’s theory and its specific dif- praxis as absolute historicism, and also copies a ference from political . It is not a matter series of passages from the Selected Works. He of conceiving Marxism as a dialecticization of summarizes their meaning as follows: the categories of by employ- ing a Hegelian concept of time, or of thinking fundamental theme of the interpretation of ‘economic phenomena [...] in the infinity of a Marxist materialism (‘philosophy of praxis’) homogenous planar space, but rather in a region by Gramsci. Croce’s influence is extreme- determined by a regional structure and itself ly clear: Croce represents, in Gramsci’s inscribed in a site defined by a global struc- eyes, a speculative ‘historicism’ that must ture: therefore as a complex and deep space, be ‘inverted’ [renverser] in order to obtain inscribed in another complex and deep space.’ the ‘historicism’ of the philosophy of praxis. (ALT2.A57-01.05, 1) (Althusser et al., 2015, 337). In order to do this, a complex concept of historical time is neces- Althusser will base his oral presentation sary, because it requires thinking the rhythm in the spring of 1965 on these notes. How- of each level of the structure, each relatively ever, the criticism is not formulated lightly autonomous with respect to the others, while –there are many doubts and hesitations, as also dependent on the social whole, whose effi- expressed in a number of letters to Franca during cacy on its elements can only be thought, each the period of writing ‘The Object of Capital.’ In time, by forging a new philosophical concept. a letter dated 17 June 1965, while he is rewriting In this framework, Gramsci is called to center the passage on Gramsci, he calls it ‘very impor- stage as a paradigm of Marxist historicism. tant’ and ‘necessary’ even if this will make This move is certainly not made without meth- ‘the Italian friends, who have the religion of odological concerns, but it is also extremely Gramsci, shout.’ (Althusser, 1998b, 618). Two decisive: Althusser maintains that the famous weeks later (in a letter dated 2 July) Althusser passage where Gramsci claims ‘the philosophy returns to the question. He wonders if his com- of praxis is absolute “historicism”, the absolute ments on Gramsci are correct, and above all if it secularization and earthliness of thought, an is politically opportune to speak in those terms, absolute of history’ (2015, 277) is and in rereading them, realizes that he hadn’t not a simple polemic against Croce, nor limited seen ‘certain important things’ and yet not only to indicating the practical role of Marxism, the does he not change his basic judgment, he rein- unity of theory and the workers’ movement. forces it (‘reading his Mat. st. e B. C., I discov- There is in Gramsci a genuine ‘theoretical inter- ered things were more serious than I thought...’ pretation affecting the very content of Marx’s (1998b, 623-624)). His judgment on the political thought’: a historicist conception of the rela- Gramsci is quite contrary to this: tion of Marx’s theory to real history, founded on Croce’s theory of religion as a conception It is a politics 100%: the Machiavelli of of the world which subsumes Marxism under modern times, he reads Lenin through its categories. For this reason, Gramsci ‘easily Machiavelli as much as Machiavelli through identifies religion, ideology, philosophy and Lenin, and that is saying something. Marxist theory, without calling attention to the (1998b, 624) fact that what distinguishes Marxism from these ideological ‘conceptions of the world’ is less A few days later, in a letter from 8 July, he the (important) formal that Marxism announces that the work is finished (1998b, 625), puts an end to any supra-terrestrial “beyond”, although the desire to further investigate the than the distinctive form of this absolute imma- question remains.3 nence (its “earthliness”): the form of scientific- We can now turn to the passage in ‘The ity.’ (2015, 281). Object of Capital’ on Gramsci. The context here This is why Gramsci attempts to bring togeth- is the fundamental philosophical question about er under one term Marx’s scientific theory and his

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 ALTHUSSER AS READER OF GRAMSCI 19 philosophy, thinking this unity in the form of a which is made to include forms of production conception of the world, and also why he tends as different economic practice, political to think the relation between Marxist science and practice, ideological practice and scientific real history ‘according to the model of the rela- practice. (2015, 285) tionship between an “organic” [...] ideology and real history’ (2015, 281). Starting here, Althusser Gramsci would find this model in ‘experi- constructs a paradigm, or limit-form, of the his- mental practice, borrowed not so much from the toricist reading, whose fundamental nucleus is the reality of modern science as from a certain ideol- Hegelian historicization of absolute knowledge, a ogy of modern science’ (2015, 285). And here move that flattens the Marxist totality onto Hege- again there is a reduction of one level to another: lian totality: by grasping one and the same time For example, only on condition that it reduc- in the different levels or instances, ‘the effects of es all practice to experimental practice, or to distortion and dislocation’ are excluded, ‘which ‘praxis’ in general, and then assimilates this in the authentic Marxist conception, contradict mother-practice to political practice, can all this ideological reading of a contemporaneity.’ practices be thought as arising from ‘real’ Further, this move reduces or omits ‘the real historical practice; can philosophy, even sci- difference separating levels’ (2015, 282-283). ence, and hence Marxism, too, be thought as The symptomatic point where this reduc- the ‘expression’ of real history. (2015, 287) tion of levels emerges is, on the one hand, the fusion of science and ideology, and on the other, In this way, the distinction between the philosophy and history, a fusion that is produced science of history and Marxist philosophy also through a series of conceptual slides [glissements disappears. Marxist philosophy becomes nothing conceptuels] which have the effect of reducing more than ‘a mere “historical methodology”, i.e., the distance between levels. On the one hand, this [...] the mere self-consciousness of the historicity involves the reduction of science to history, mak- of history, [...] a reflection on the presence of real ing ‘science a superstructure, [...] one of those history in all its manifestations’ (2015, 288). “organic” which form such a close Certainly, Gramsci takes up these formulas “bloc” with the structure that they have the same from Croce, intending to invert them, but he actu- “history” as it does!’ (2015, 283). On the other ally remains prisoner to them: all of the necessary hand, this involves the reduction of philosophy theoretical reductions allow us to see clearly the to politics, since ‘philosophy is the direct product basic structure of every historicism: ‘the con- (assuming all the ‘necessary mediations’) of the temporaneity which makes possible a reading in activity and experience of the masses, of politico- essential section’ (2015, 289). economic praxis’ (2015, 284). The polemics that this reading of Gramsci However, it is not sufficient for Gramsci to stirred up in led Althusser to a new con- minimize the distance within the frontation with Gramsci in some extracts entitled that separates the specific place of theoretical, ‘Gramsci φ et pol.’ (ALT. 057-01.06).4 These philosophical, and scientific (the place of theo- extracts deal blow by blow with the first section retical practice) formations from the place of of the Selected Works, involving copied passages political practice. He requires a conception of and long comments. Althusser in part takes up the theoretical practice that demonstrates and conse- critiques of , insisting on the link crates the identity of philosophy and politics, a between the Gramscian conception of philoso- latent need that explains the ‘conceptual slides, phy and historicist concepts of universal history, whose effect is once again to reduce the distinc- epoch, and society that would end up expunging tion between the levels’: class struggle. However, there is an interesting insight with respect to the question of the relation In this interpretation, theoretical practice between the conception of the world and philoso- tends to lose all specificity and to be reduced phy that reflects the discussions in those years to historical practice in general, a category around the Philosophy Course for .5

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 20 VITTORIO MORFINO

Note: ‘The pathos of Gramsci: thinking/not think- consider that the same systematic and rational ing a distinction between the “conception of the character that Gramsci attributes to it is due world” and “philosophy” cf. p. 46-47.’ (ALT. to coherency. And yet in order to grasp what 057-01.06, 10). And again: ‘no break for him’. Gramsci means by ‘coherence’ it is necessary to But then how to demarcate the difference? For think the relation of philosophy with the sciences, Gramsci it is not a matter of a qualitative differ- which only ‘confers to philosophy the charac- ence, but quantitative, ‘of homogeneity, coher- teristics (coherence, systematicity, and rational- ence, logicity.’ (10). Althusser comments: ity) required by Gramsci: but at this point such characteristics will not have only a formal , striking how G. does not manage to get away but rather acquire a precise content, defined not with his vocabulary. No difference between by “rationality” in general, but by the specific quality but rather quantity. Ok. Quantity of form of dominant “rationality” that exists in a what? Of ‘logicity’ [...] But the nature of this determinant moment of the sciences with which ‘logicity’ is not at all defined: we have the philosophy established a specific relation.’ (1968, feeling that it is the same, and that it does 23-24). To safeguard what is authentic in Grams- not bring anything logically in history (the cian historicism, despite its dubious formulations sciences... silence). [...] The historicism of and theoretical equivocations, for Althusser it is G. in fact leads to a total denial of the events of theoretical history, i.e., the ‘breaks’ which necessary to establish two points: occur there. (10) The history of theoretical concepts (and also scientific and philosophical concepts, And a few lines below confirm this: ‘we in their own sense of the term) is certainly really feel that for G. there is no history of a history. But: logicity...’ (10). This is precisely the key point of the letter on Gramsci’s thought that Althusser published 1) this history must not be conceived as a on 15 March 1968 in Rinascita with the title ‘La pure and simple empirical becoming record- filosofia, la politica e la scienza.’ (1968, 23–24). ed in a chronicle. Rather, it must be con- If philosophy, as he had said just a few days ear- ceived within the theoretical concepts of the lier in the conference on ‘Lenin and Philosophy,’6 Marxist science of history; is characterized by the relation on one side with politics and on the other with science, Gramsci thought the former with force, but ‘has not seen 2) it is a sui generis history which, although with as much vigor, nor isolated, nor thought the part of the history of social formations and articulated within this history [...] is not other dimension, the relation between philosophy reducible in a pure and simple way to the and science’ (Althusser, 1968, 23). History of social formations [...]. (1968, For Althusser, this is Gramsci’s weak point, 23-24) as ‘only in hasty and superficial pages [...] [he] supports a clearly insufficient, if not false, con- ception of the sciences,’ not moving beyond the repetition of Croce’s equivocal formulas. These 3. From ‘Ideology and Ideological formulas assign to the sciences a place in the State Apparatuses’ to topic, but they do not capture what is specific to ‘What is to be Done?’ them, namely ‘the production of objective knowl- edge.’ From this derives the tendency to ‘reduce May 1968 opens a new season of Althusser’s and completely assimilate [...] “philosophy” to thought, characterized by his reprisal of the ques- “conception of the world”.’ (1968, 23) The dis- tion of the base-superstructure relation, most tinction is simply given by a greater coherence clearly demonstrated by the posthumously pub- of the former, an only formal difference, if we lished text On the Reproduction of

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 ALTHUSSER AS READER OF GRAMSCI 21

(2014).7 In this context, Gramsci again becomes a it involves violence and coercion, but at the same resource, as indicated by the famous note ‘Ideol- time consent, and hence “hegemony”’ (1999, 12). ogy and Ideological State Apparatuses,’ in which, This positive reference to Gramsci reaches albeit with some caution, he is given the role of its apex in the March 1976 Granada confer- the sole precursor of forming the concept of the ence, ‘On the Transformation of Philosophy,’ ideological apparatus: (Althusser, 1990, 241-266) and has its terminus ad quem at the Barcelona conference on the To my knowledge, Gramsci is the only one dictatorship of the in July of the same who went any distance in the road I am tak- year, where Althusser suspends judgment on ing. He had the ‘remarkable’ idea that the Gramsci and attacks ‘certain commentators who state could not be reduced to the (Repressive) follow a line of interpretation from Togliatti’ State Apparatus, but included, as he put it, a (Althusser, 1976). Starting at this moment, there certain number of from ‘civil society’: the Church, the schools, the trade is a radical change, which is influenced from a unions, etc. Unfortunately, Gramsci did not historical viewpoint by the rise of Eurocommu- systematize his intuitions, which remained nism and the abandonment of the dictatorship of in the state of acute but fragmentary notes. the proletariat at the 22nd Congress of the PCF, (Althusser, 2014, 242, fn 7) and from a theoretical viewpoint, strictly in rela- tion to political events, from a debate in 1976–77 This note opens up a period for which Grams- among socialist and communist ci is present as a positive reference in Althusser’s in Italy on the theme ‘abandoning Gramsci?,’ thought. The strongest example of this is the and a series of important texts which appeared 1972 course on Machiavelli, which is revised and in those years (from Buci-Glucksmann, 1975 reworked in 1975. Here the Florentine is present- and Poulantzas, 1976 and 1978, and Anderson, ed through a deeply Gramscian interpretation. 1977, 4-78). These leads Althusser to take up Althusser poses his reading as a reflection on the Gramsci in Gerratana’s critical edition of the origins of the state, on what he will later call a Prison Notebooks, published in 1975 by Ein- ‘political primitive accumulation’ (1999, 125). audi. There are two series of translated extracts Reading Machiavelli through Gramsci, Althusser with commentaries preserved in the archive, the seizes on the problem of the constitution of a first of which is mainly on the concept of hege- national state and the class struggle at the heart mony and the concept of civil society (ALT2. of it, ‘pitting the elements of the new, growing A57-01-08) and the second on a series of terms, mode of production against the dominant forms among which the concept of passive revolution of the feudal mode of production’ (1999, 11). is predominant (ALT2.A57-01-10). In the former In other words, the nation is the indispensable instance Althusser thinks of intervening in the form for the ‘implantation’ of the capitalist mode Italian debate and plans an article for Rinascita: of production, but ‘a nation is not constituted in the archive we find several dossiers in which spontaneously. The pre-existing elements are not Althusser collects together the debate between unified into a nation of their own accord’ (1999, Bobbio, Salvadori, Gerratana, and others (ALT2. 12). The instrument of unification is the unique A26-02-01; ALT2.A26-02-02) as well as other national state: ‘But beware: this state performs material (ALT2.A26-01-03) and several versions its military functions of unification, defense and of the article (ALT2.A26-01-01; ALT2.A26-01- conquest only on condition that it simultaneously 02) which he decided not to publish. At the cen- undertakes others: political, juridical, economic, ter of Althusser’s interest is the question of the and ideological’ (1999, 12). This form of unifi- dictatorship of the proletariat and the reason the cation is ensured by absolute monarchy, where PCI did not officially abandon it, thinking of it absolute means ‘unique and centralized, but not due to Gramsci as a form of hegemony (Althuss- arbitrary’, hence, ‘the dual aspect of the power er, 1976). I will not dwell on the reading of of the absolutist state according to Gramsci: Gramsci that Althusser offers in these sketches,

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 22 VITTORIO MORFINO because it will be reworked and systematized in apparatuses. He therefore denies the structure and Marx in his Limits and What is to Be Done? the ‘state-determined conditions of exploitation Both texts are from 1978, with the former and the reproduction of social relations,’ ensuring published in 1994 and the latter still unpub- that the question of the State can and must ‘be lished.8 They are closely related, insofar as the decided for itself, on the basis of the four concepts treatment of Gramsci in the former volume is at his disposal, and without bringing the infra- also found in the latter, where it is inserted into structure into play. Gramsci is reluctant to refer a wider context. Marx in his Limits reprises the to the infrastructure, for the Marxist distinction themes of the Venice conference ‘At Last, the between infrastructure and superstructure seems !’ (in Althusser 1998a, 267- to him to be, fundamentally, a mechanistic-econ- 280). The final section is dedicated to Gramsci. omistic error on Marx’s part’ (2006b, 140-141). This is not by chance, because Althusser consid- In this way, moving to what is essential, ers him to be the fundamental theoretical inspira- ‘the “moment” of Force is ultimately swallowed tion of , as clearly emerges from up by the moment of hegemony’ (2006b, 141), a passage in chapter nine where, in advancing the and this is the case for a precise political reason, thesis that the state is a separate instrument from because what seems to be a theory of the state in class struggle and not traversed by it (here the Gramsci is actually nothing other than ‘a political reference is to Poulantzas), he takes distance from examination of the “nature”, hence of the “com- a widespread Gramscianism in France and Italy: position” or internal arrangement [dispositif] of the states of the day, undertaken with a view I maintain, precisely, that the state, the core to defining a political strategy for the workers’ of the state –which comprises its physical, movement after all the hope that the schema of political, police and administrative forces 1917 would be repeated had faded’ (2006b, 141). of intervention– is, so far as possible, con- In other words, the reasons for the definition of structed in such a way as not to be affected, civil society and its hegemonic apparatus, the or even ‘traversed’, by the class struggle. distinction and later the identification of political (Althusser, 2006b, 80) society with this, and finally the absorption of both into the unique category of hegemony, are Althusser introduces his treatment of Grams- to be found in the theory of war of maneuver and ci with several remarks in chapter nineteen on war of position. ‘The Absolute Limits of Marx on Ideology.’ Schematically, for Althusser hegemony rep- Here Althusser emphasizes that Marx spoke of resents a whole constituted by ‘(1) “civil society” a collective dimension of ideology without truly (which is its domain); (2) the state as Force or thinking it, to which Gramsci would add very coercion; and (3) the effect, also called hege- little, insisting ‘that the function of ideology is mony, that results from the functioning of the to serve a social group as a unifying “cement” state as a whole, comprising, be it recalled, Force [...], and replaces the question of ideology with and Hegemony’ (2006b, 143). Thus, hegemony that of “”’ (2006b, 136). As for the con- occurs three times in the Gramscian schema. In cept of hegemonic apparatus, returning to the a first sense hegemony is that of the hegemonic considerations in ‘Ideology and Ideological State apparatuses which allow the power of the state Apparatuses,’ Althusser now finds the limitation and its to be accepted without vio- of not specifying precisely what the hegemony- lence. It is, with force, one of the two moments of effect is produced through (2006b, 139). And the state. In a second sense hegemony is the hege- with this Althusser comes to the heart of Grams- mony-effect of the state itself, of the good bal- cian thought, the concept of hegemony, which ance of force and hegemony in the state, wherein he deals with in the final section of the text. The force does not disappear but is so integrated into concepts Gramsci uses in his theory of the state hegemony that it does not need to show itself and (with its two moments, force and hegemony) exercise itself: ‘There we have [...] the ethical and civil society constitute the set of hegemonic state [...] whose “organic intellectuals” see to it

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 ALTHUSSER AS READER OF GRAMSCI 23 that the hegemonic apparatuses of “civil soci- ‘obtains the same result of “training” (Gramsci’s ety” operate smoothly’ (2006b, 143). In a third word) as Force, at lower cost, and, what is more, sense of the term, hegemony is the hegemony simultaneously anticipates the results of “culture” of the party of the that causes it itself’ (2006b, 146). The state therefore realizes to lead without violence, both its members and the ideal of a self-forming universal in which ‘the allies, extending its influence on civil and politi- supersession [Aufhebung] of all Force’ is real- cal society. All of this therefore plays out at the ized. Therefore, it is a natural consequence that level of hegemony, and insofar as hegemony also ‘Force disappears from the ultimate “definition” designates class domination, a Leninist read- of the state as the “unity of the state and civil ing of Gramsci is possible, but at the price of ‘a society”, of the state as Hegemony, and, finally, strange silence about the reality of the economic, of Hegemony all by itself (since the state itself political and ideological class struggles. They are has been “superseded”).’ (2006b, 147). Accord- represented in this scheme in the form of a Hege- ing to Althusser, Gramsci’s profoundest idea is mony-effect alone, and at the price of the absolute expressed here, which is reflected with perfect of a Hegemony lacking a material basis, symmetry in his conception of the party: with no explanation of the Coercive Apparatuses which nevertheless play an active part in engen- The End and Task of this ‘modern Prince’ is dering the Hegemony-effect’ (2006b, 144). This the ‘regulated society’ (!) known as commu- misunderstanding has actually produced a rightist nism. But it will not attain it unless it plays, reading, which masks the structure of the con- as a party, its pre-state role, by educating cept of ‘private civil society,’ and therefore also its members and the masses over whom it extends its ‘’, its ‘hegemony’. hides both reproduction and the class struggle, Just like the state, the Party has to educate with its different levels and its stake, the state. men, with a view, once the revolution has The Force of the state is accordingly regarded as been made and ‘the party has become the virtually nil, since it is fully integrated into the state’, to ensuring the triumph of the End Hegemony-effect’ (2006b, 144). Hegemony then of humanity in this regulated society in becomes not only a supreme effect, but also a which Hegemony, its Hegemony, will con- supreme cause, because it is at once self-caused tinue to rule, until it vanishes before the end and an effect of itself, and has the extraordinary result of universal cultivation become self- power that its crisis can make the domination of cultivation: the infinite development of free the dominant class vacillate or founder. individuals in free association. (2006b, 147) If hegemony means a direction that is neither dictatorship, coercion, or domination, suggesting Gramsci’s conception, for Althusser, car- an effect of voluntary consensus, then Althusser ries three precise consequences. First, it makes sees in this work ‘the old Hegelian idea, adopted the problem of the state as a special machine, by Croce and Gentile, that the state is, by its with a special body, the instrument of the per- nature, an educator.’ Althusser concludes: petuation of class domination, disappear: ‘The specific reality of the state clearly does disap- However surprising it may seem, Gramsci pear in a formula in which Hegemony = Force has not got beyond the Hegeliano-Crocean + consensus, or political society + civil society’ conception of culture as the ultimate End of (2006b, 147). Thus, if ‘Hegemony [is] the last Humanity (2006b, 146). word on the state,’ the material nature of the state machine is disguised, creating reformist misun- This explains the sublimation of the state derstandings and meditations on the nature of the into hegemony, and also why Gramsci, while state and the becoming-state of the party. This attributing the element of force to the state, does leads to the second consequence, the reduction not explain its place, matter, and exercise (2006b, of ideology to culture, or the substitution of a 146).9 Force actually appears so limited [poco] concept that requires class struggle with a notion because it is hegemony in the first sense that that leads to ecumenism and elitism. Finally,

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 24 VITTORIO MORFINO the third consequence, ‘“the autonomy of poli- Althusser recognizes the merit to Gramsci tics” or “of the political”’ –in other words, in of emphasizing their importance ‘and having trying to think political strategy for the workers’ (although timidly) suggested that the superstruc- movement, Gramsci ends up thinking ‘politics ture penetrates the infrastructure, but the unity (and the politician, its agent)’ as causa sui, as of “this penetration”, though described, was not autonomous (2006b, 149-150). really thought, and in addition this penetration As I mentioned above, this final chapter of itself was thought from the viewpoint of the Marx in His Limits is actually part of a broader superstructure, without knowing what else this confrontation with Gramsci in the same year superstructure penetrates’ (37). Now, if ‘the (ALT2.A26-05.06/07, titled ‘Que faire?’). In this infrastructure is neglected’ (38) and we are forced text, which reposes the old Leninist question in to think the superstructure starting from itself, its title, Gramsci is evoked in order to explain all that remains is to describe it and compare its the originality of the PCI’s politics: Gramscian elements. Gramscian historicism would be no historicism, in a communist horizon dominated by more than an that produced its most , had a strong anti-dogmatic charge. And interesting results on the question of intellectuals: yet, for Althusser its merits seem to be exhausted. Recalling the criticism he made in the 1960s, he that intellectuals are normally ‘organic’ [...] claims that Gramsci has the tendency of reducing that intellectuals have the function of orga- to philosophy, philosophy nizing, of being the self-consciousness of a culture that it disseminates in the masses, to politics, and politics to history. From this, that the types of intellectuals vary with the two relevant consequences follow. First, historical forms of society. (39) materialism tends to be erased in Gramsci, reduced to Marxist philosophy or philosophy of practice: However, this conception is founded on ‘another idea, deeply rooted in him, on the type This does not mean that Gramsci evacuates of normal historical unity that must be present in all of historical materialism, but for example [...] he does not have a very precise idea his eyes for any veritable historical “epoch”.’ In of what a theory of infrastructure can be, other words, Althusser holds that ‘for Gramsci, which is practically absent, except for a few history does not really come into being until it allusions, in these writings. (36) reaches the state of a ‘beautiful totality’ [...] when a real ‘historical bloc’ is constituted that is capa- If the structure disappears, what remains is ble of uniting the ensemble of men in the unity the superstructure. It is not by chance then that of practice and , in short, of a culture’ (39). Gramsci was the first Marxist theorist to take an The concept of organic depends interest in the phenomena of the superstructure, on this general conception. There is an organic the state, and ideologies. intellectual when culture is not the property only However, the second relevant consequence of the learned, but rather when it penetrates the is that if the structure disappears, then its links masses. If this does not happen, ‘we do not have with the superstructure, the fact that it plays a a real “historical period”, a true “historical bloc” decisive role in the reproduction of the relations capable of securing its hegemony, of dominat- of production, are not ‘really taken into account ing and convincing, by persuasion and the gen- and thought in all their reality.’ (36) This ends up eral popular spread of its own ideas’ (40). In this leading to ‘a phantom-like existence’: sense the concept of the organic intellectual is linked to the educative role of the state. In other All that can be done for the superstructure words, educators are needed who teach the people is to describe it, and analyze its functioning the ideas that bind the unity of the historic bloc. at the same level of its manifestation, as if it However, this is not a matter of the simple trans- were not controlled by the hidden links that mission of ideals, but rather a ‘set of practices, connect it to the infrastructure. (36) from the practices of production to moral and

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 ALTHUSSER AS READER OF GRAMSCI 25 political practices,’ that is, ‘a veritable concrete that the state was thought starting from ideology. universal ethic’ (41). It is a new, “historicist” reduction’ (43). Althusser notes that the example from which Therefore, absolute historicism turns out to Gramsci drew his reflections on organic intel- actually be unthinkable, and ends up showing lectuals is the church and its focus on avoiding the philosophical thought that founds it on the the distance between the learned and the pious, church and state: ‘a normative and hence ideal- with its creation of the monastic order. ‘This is an ist thought’ (44), normative because it assumes amazing example,’ Althusser points out, ‘because models (church, France) and counter-models ultimately the church is not a “historic bloc”, but (Italy), and thus assumes that ‘there is in history an ideological apparatus which is always more or the normal and the pathological’ (45). less of the state’ (41). Gramsci’s other example According to Althusser, a further demonstra- is the comparison between French and Italian tion of this point is Gramsci’s concept of passive history: revolution, which is evoked for example in the context of ‘a state that functions well, but is not [...] Gramsci prolonged his reflections on the [result] of a French revolution, for example the Church with a comparison between the the Italian state’ (45). This is a passive revolution history of France and Italy, opposing France for Gramsci because it did not come from the bot- which had, in the revolution, succeeded tom but was made by the monarchy in allegiance in constituting a ‘historic bloc’ by endow- with the , excluding the people: ‘the ing itself with a true educating state and course of history [...] has not been what it would forming a comprehensive body of organic intellectuals for all of the tasks of hege- have been’ (45). Again there is a norm which mony, against Italy, which had not known measures historical events. how to accomplish its bourgeois revolution, Moreover, Althusser emphasizes the and thus founding a true historic bloc, and immense extension of the concept in Gramsci: which as a result, did not have a true body risorgimento, fascism, Nazism, as well as the of organic intellectuals. (41) USSR. Certainly, this concept grasps important aspects, such as the absence of popular initiative, From the unity of these themes, Althusser the separation between popular masses and the draws a series of conclusions about Gramsci’s state, the penetration of the state ‘for organizing thought. First, not only does Gramsci neglect men into the forced and artificial unity of unions structure for the sake of superstructure, ‘but he and the state party.’ However, the opposition replaces the Marxist concept of the mode of between the normal and pathological requires a production with the concept of “historical bloc”’ normal model: ‘And as is always necessary in the (42). Second, by extracting his concept of organic passive, abnormal revolution, Gramsci is not far intellectual from the history of the church, he from opposing to all these states which are non- ‘borrowed its model of perfect and universal ethical, non-universal in their unity, another sort ethics’ (42-43) from an element that belongs to of revolution, which operates at the same time the superstructure. Finally, third, although he overseas: namely in Roosevelt’s America with ‘described the politics of the Church, he did not the New Deal’ (46). sketch at one moment a theory of the Church,’ In order to understand the implications of which is further proof that he did not possess a this concept, Althusser proposes two preliminary ‘theory of ideology’ (43). This is not so, however, observations: 1) Gramsci never uses the term because he was not interested in ideologies, but counter-revolution, and 2) Gramsci does not seem rather because his historicism prevented him from sensitive to the phenomena of regression, delay, posing the question of the links between ideolo- or stagnation. This signals that Gramsci thinks gies and structure. In Gramsci, the Church is not history through the category of revolution, ‘either an example, ‘but the essence itself, realized, of the in the form of active revolution, or in the form of beautiful ethical totality that he projected on the passive revolution, which takes place in a bad, state due to the “historical bloc”. [...] The result is unethical state, which does not produce a true

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 26 VITTORIO MORFINO cultural unity among its citizens’ (47). This con- historicism as a paradoxical form which ultimate- cept certainly reveals a normativism and final- ly mirrors economistic justification of Stalinism, ism in Gramsci’s thought insofar as it indicates and in 1977-78 he attacks the concept of hege- that there are tasks that can be accomplished by mony as the inspiration of Eurocommunism. either the dominant class or popular movement However, the proximity and criticisms (49). But even more strongly, it signals that for a path, that difficult road that Althusser tries Gramsci the essence of history is activity: ‘either to follow, not without hesitation and rectifica- the presence of activity or the absence of activity’ tion, by thinking together determination in the (47). Everything is linked: praxis is the interiority last instance (whose ‘lonely hour never comes’) of all practices, namely activity, whose essence is and the autonomy of levels (relative, surely, but politics. Again at the heart of Gramsci’s thought, how much?). If as Althusser says, the essence Althusser finds politics as causa sui. of philosophical labor consists in demarcation, in the detour through other positions in order to define and hold one’s own, then I think that a Conclusion good key to reading the Althusserian position is constituted by the incessant labor that he carried We have referred to Althusser’s ambivalence out on Gramsci, a labor which was all the more with respect to Gramsci’s thought. At the end necessary insofar as he felt there was something of the path we have charted, the terms of this in Gramsci’s concepts which played out some- ambivalence should be specified. The judgment thing essential in his own philosophy. on theoretical merits that Althusser attributes to Gramsci in For Marx and ‘Ideology and Ideo- logical State Apparatuses’ can perhaps be read in Notes light of a passage from 1977: 1. All emphasis in quotations from Althusser is Now, when we have read and re-read, both Althusser’s own. to the letter and with all of the theoretical 2. Translator’s note: the reference here is to Althuss- and historical perspective they are owed, er’s copy of Gramsci’s Œuvres choisies in French, the notes in Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks which are held in the IMEC archive. Throughout the essay I have translated the title of the work, on the state, we cannot but be struck by a noting the citation to the material held in IMEC. strange impression, which Freud has called 3. See the letter of 19 July, in Althusser, 1998b, 628. the uncanny (Unheimlichkeit): the feeling of 4. This text is part of a large set of texts that being at home, but coupled with an uneasi- Althusser and his collaborators exchanged ness of not feeling quite at home. (ALT2. between October 1966 and February 1968. See A57-01.09, 4) the presentation by F. Matheron in Althusser, ‘Notes sur la philosophie,’ in Althusser 1995, Fundamentally, in an extremely synthetic 299-300. way, what remains indigestible for Althusser 5. See in particular Althusser, ‘Du coté de la phi- is a model of temporality and historicity that losophie,’ in Althusser 1995, 255-297. prevents thinking the difference and specificity 6. The conference was held on 24 February 1968. among levels. Now published in Althusser 1998a, 103-144. As for the criticisms, we cannot fail to 7. For a reconstruction of the historical-political emphasize how strongly these were overdeter- context and collective project which gave birth to this text, see Balibar’s preface in Althusser, 2014, mined by the theoretic-political conjuncture in vii-xviii. both the sixties and seventies. In this sense it is 8. When this article was originally written. clear that in Gramsci’s text –sometimes by doing 9. In What is to Be Done?, Althusser will claim violence and reducing the complexity– Althusser the superiority of Machiavelli over Gramsci on looks for a limit-form of the positions that are this point: ‘We see how much Gramsci, who contemporaneous with him. In 1965 he attacks exalted Machiavelli, is worse than his master.

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252 ALTHUSSER AS READER OF GRAMSCI 27

For Gramsci never supported, as Machiavelli . (1978). L’Etat, le pouvoir, le socialisme. did, the primacy of the moment of force (the : PUF. army) over the hegemony of the state. While highly present in Machiavelli, force appears Manuscripts quoted from IMEC Archive, Fond in Gramsci only to prepare its pure and simple Althusser, Caen, France. disappearance from the concept of state as hege- ALT2.A26-02-01; mony’ (ALT2.A26-05.07, 73). ALT2.A26-02-02. ALT2.A26-01-03 ALT2.A26-01-01; References ALT2.A26-01-02 ALT2.A26-05.06 Althusser, L. (1968). La philosophia, la politica e la ALT2.A26-05.07 scienza. Rinascita. 15 March, 23-24. ALT2. A 31-05.06, . (1976). Conférence sur la dictature du ALT2.A57-01.03. prolétariat de Barcelone. Période. 6 July Available ALT2. A57-01.06 online: http://revueperiode.net/un-texte-inedit- ALT2.A57-01-08. de-louis-althusser-conference-sur-la-dictature- ALT2.A57-01.09 du-proletariat-a-barcelone/ ALT2.A57-01-10. . (1990). Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists (Trad. Ben Brewster Translated by Dave Mesing et al.). London: Verso. . (1995). Ecrits philosophiques et politiques. Vittorio Morfino (Vittorio.morfino@ Paris: Stock/Imec. unimib.it) is associate professor of History of . (1998a). La solitude de Machiavel. Paris: PUF. . (1998b). Lettres à Franca (1961-1973). Philosophy at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Paris: Stock/Imec. director of the master in of the . (1999). Machiavelli and Us (Trans. Gregory Society, and Directeur de Programme at the Col- Elliott). London: Verso. lège international de philosohie. He has been vis- . (2005). For Marx (Trad. Ben Brewster). iting professor at the Universidade de São Paulo, London: Verso. the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, the . (2006a). Politique et histoire de Machiavel Université Bordeaux-Montaigne and the Univer- à Marx. Cours à l’Ecole normale supérieure sidad Nacional de Cordoba. He is the author of Il 1955-1972. Paris: Seuil. tempo e l’occasione. L’incontro Spinoza Machia- . (2006b). Philosophy of the Encounter: Later velli (Milano, 2002, Paris, 2012), Incursioni spi- Writings 1978-1987 (Trans. G. M. Goshgarian). London: Verso. noziste (Milano, 2002), Il tempo della moltitudine . (2014). On the Reproduction of Capitalism: (Roma, 2005, Paris, 2010, , 2013, Santia- Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses go, 2015), Plural Temporality. Transindividuality (Trans. G. M. Goshgarian). London: Verso. and the Aleatory between Spinoza and Althusser . Balibar E., Establet R., Ranciere J. and (Leiden, 2014) and Genealogia di un pregiudizio. Macherey P. (2015). Reading Capital: The L’immagine di Spinoza in Germania da Leibniz Complete Edition (Trans. Ben Brewster and a Marx (Hildesheim 2016) He is a member of David Fernbach). London: Verso. the editorial board of “Quaderni materialisti” and Anderson, P. (1977). The Antinomies of Antonio “Décalages. An Althusserian Journal”. Gramsci. Review. March, 4-78. Buci-Glucksmann, C. (1975). Gramsci et l’État. Pour une théorie matérialiste de la philosophie. Paris: Fayard. Received: 27 October 2019 Poulantzas, N. (1976). La crise de l’Etat. Paris: PUF. Approved: 15 November 2019

Rev. Filosofía Univ. Costa Rica, LVIII (152), 15-27, Setiembre-Diciembre 2019 / ISSN: 0034-8252