peter custers_gramscian re-analysis of political history of bangladesh

8/9/2019 Peter Custers_Gramscian Re-Analysis of Political History of Bangladesh

1/11

INTRODUCING GRAMSCIAN CONCEPTS.

TOWARDS A RE-ANALYSIS

OF BANGLADESH'S POLITICAL HISTORY

1. After the Demise of Asian Revolutions

In recent decades, interest in the theoretical ideas of the Italian revolutionary philosopher

Antonio Gramsci has steadily grown in India and in Bangladesh. Along with the demise of the

great 20th century proletarian revolutions in the Asian continent, a critical search has started. This

search for renovation - almost inevitaly it seems - leads us to Antonio Gramsci, who was

incarcerated y Italy!s fascist regime after having led his country!s "ommunist #arty for a rief

period in the $%20s. Gramsci posed, and tried to overcome as no other theoretician, two central

wea&nesses in the 'ar(ism of his days) the lac& of a thorough understanding regarding the role of

intellectuals in society, and the lac& of a comprehensive theory covering society!s superstructural

relations. Thus, Gramsci sought to construct a theory of politics as an autonomous sphere in

society, and to this end he devised a numer of original concepts. In the elow essay I will

summari*e the meaning of the Gramscian terms civil society, ideological hegemony, passive

revolution and the historical bloc, and I will also riefly indicate what in my view is the

significance of Gramsci!s conceptualisation of the role of intellectuals.

A truthful review of the meaning of Gramscian ideas today has ecome imperative for

more than one reason. +n the one hand it is my conviction that one of the reasons for the demise

of Asian revolutions is to e sought in the fact that these revolutions, y and large, failed to

develop a dialectical understanding regarding the role of society!s professional intellectuals.#olicyma&ers in the "amodian revolution, for instance, comined the peasantry! deep distrust of

educated people with an orthodo( 'ar(ist view of the superiority of the manual over mental

laour. This attitude resulted in murderous practices vis-a-vis society!s professional intellectuals.

Again, it appears to me that the lac& of a sharp distinction etween recognized and non-

recognized intellectuals and the lac& of a refined analysis regarding the various distinct layers and

groups of intellectuals in society, are factors laying at the roots of the deformation of the "hinese

"ultural evolution. ence, a study of Gramsci!s theoretical approach which identifies politics as

the o of intellectuals, appears to e crucial for any evaluation of what went wrong in "hina.

/uch a study, most li&ely, will also result in new insights into the process of political evolution of

ast Bengal1Bangladesh.

nfortunately, the adoption of a Gramscian theoretical approach has een complicated y

the wor& of the socalled Subaltern School . Interest in Gramscian ideas, in the wa&e of the demise

of Asian revolutions in the $%30s, was initially promoted y the "alcutta-ased Subaltern School.

This school of thought derived its very name from a term Gramsci employed in his writings to

pinpoint the fact that the autonomous e(perience of society!s oppressed is often s&ipped in

academic writings on history. 4et while the Subaltern School for a while adopted certain

Gramscian concepts , memers of the School have evolved towards a profoundly anti-'ar(ian


2/11

position. #artha "hatteree, for instance, whose analytical wor& on the history of India1Bengal has

drawn much attention, has een criticised heavily for his interpretation of the history of Indian

nationalism. In "hatteree!s interpretation, the notion of 5religious6 community reportedly replaces

that of class. Though "hatteree initially had advocated the application of typically Gramscian

concepts to Indian history, - his more recent evolution in thought threatens to discredit any efforts

to apply Gramscian concepts to political life in the sucontinent 5$6.

ence, the urgent need for a truthful and integral presentation of Gramsci!s theoretical

ideas. Below, I will provide a summary, and no more than a rief summary, of the &ey concepts

which Gramsci devised 5or redefined, as in the case of the concept of civil society6 526. owever,

I would li&e to stress from the start that my advocacy of Gramscian concepts will not e an

uncritical one. 7or instance, Gramsci!s categorisation of intellectuals, no matter how profound if

compared with the categorisations of intellectuals that have een offered y 8.I.9enin and 'ao

Tsetung, remains rudimentary) in order to formulate a credile 'ar(ist policy on intellectuals we

need to introduce further categorisations. Also, Gramsci nowhere discussed how the social

division of laour etween tas&s that are predominantly mental and those that are mainly manual

in nature, intersects with the gender division of laour. ence, from a feminist perspective too,Gramsci!s theoretical wor& was incomplete. :evertheless, as I will see& to demonstrate in this

two-part essay, the set of concepts proposed y Gramsci offers us a very powerful tool to

understand the political evolution of ast Bengal1Bangladesh in the 20th century. It helps us in

one go evaluate the past, and advance an innovative 'ar(ist politics for the future.

. Distin!t "ie# Re$ar%in$ the & Superstructure&

The last decade of the 20th "entury has heralded a new phase in the history of

'ar(ism, - a period in which the ideology of !mar(ism-leninism! that guided the first period in the

uilding of socialist societies 5$%$;-$%3%6 will see a powerful transformation. The 'ar(ism of

future generations, I e(pect, will e


3/11

ut he also carried 'ar(!s wor& forward, y putting forward a distinct view regarding the

superstructure of class societies. ere he emphasi*ed the point that there e(ists an intermediate

sphere etween the state on the one hand, - and the economic ase of society on the other. In

Gramsci!s view, the analysis of this intermediate sphere is essential, if we are to understand fully

how class domination is maintained.

:ow, in pursuing his analysis of the intermediate sphere, Gramsci employed two concepts

which had een used y 'ar(ist and non-'ar(ist teachers efore him, ut without the precise

meaning which he attached to them. These two concepts are those of !civil society! and of

!ideological hegemony!. Both concepts can e traced in classical 'ar(ist literature, ut it is

nevertheless true that Gramsci employed them in a novel manner, - precisely in order to highlight

the e(istence and functioning of an intermediate sphere in class society. 'oreover, this

intermediate level of society is not a vague or mystical entity, ut is a sphere which is occupied y

concrete human eings, i.e. y society!s professional intellectuals. =hile Gramsci was aware of

the fact that all intellectuals have a class position, that in one way or another they do form part

and parcel of the economic ase of society, he nevertheless insisted that intellectuals have a

superstructural tas&) namely the uilding of consent, of pulic opinion among the diverse socialclasses and layers, in favour of society!s dominant class. ence, Gramsci taught us that

5professional6 intellectuals perform an autonomous social function, located etween state

repression - and the direct appropriation of laour!s fruits y capitalist enterprises.

'. Grams!i&s Use of the Term &Civil So!iet(&

9et!s now try to delineate the meaning of each of Gramsci!s concepts separately. The term

civil society can e traced to the great $%th "entury German philosophers. It was used oth y

'ar( and y egel, from whom 'ar( orrowed 5a part of6 his method of analysis. egel had

used the term civil society to refer to all pre-state relations, i.e. to all relations eyond the

immediate sphere of the state. Thus, for egel, the term civil society included all economicrelations. 7urther, 'ar( too had employed the term civil society in his writings, ut contrary to

egel had restricted it to refer only to the economic base of society. It can e very confusing to

compare the definitions given y various philosophers for the same concept. :evertheless, for a

proper understanding of Gramsci!s system of thought it is necessary to &now that the definition of

the term civil society has historically evolved, and that Gramsci transformed the meaning of the

term to suit his own theoretical ends 5?6.

To repeat for the sa&e of clarity, what has een riefly stated in the section aove)

Antonio Gramsci, contrary to egel and 'ar(, used the term civil society e(clusively to descrie

and conceptualise the superstructure, and in particular those institutions of the superstructure

which do not 5or not officially6 form a part of the repressive apparatus of the capitalist state. They

include church institutions@ the educational estalishments, ranging from primary schools to the

academia@ the media such as newspapers, ournals and the radio@ trade unions and political

parties@ and all other intermediate institutions that play a distinct role in the intellectual and moral

life of society. In short, the term civil society covers all the institutions located in the

intermediate sphere of class society. Gramsci realised perhaps more sharply than other

theoreticians of the wor&ers! movement in his time, that the !weight!, the influence, of these


4/11

institutions e(pands gradually as capitalist society evolves.

7urther, there were concrete historic reasons impelling Gramsci to conceptualise capitalist

society in the given manner. Gramsci elieved that the failure to achieve a revolutionary

transformation in countries of =estern urope after =orld =ar I needed a specific e(planation.

After all, the e(pectation of imminent revolution had een


5/11

police, the army6 are entrusted with the tas& of applying force and coercion, - the institutions of

civil society and the functionaries employed here underta&e the tas& of building consent .

Ideological hegemony, then, refers to the cultural and moral leadership e(erted y the ruling class

over society!s citi*ens via the institutions of civil society, in order to ensure acceptance of the

ruling class! policies.

9i&e the term civil society, the term 5ideological6 hegemony was not invented y Gramsci

himself, ut was derived y him from the writings of his 'ar(ist precursors, more particularly

from the writings of 9enin. As well &nown, 9enin!s historic contriution towards the 'ar(ism of

his days was that he 5re6asserted the primacy of political over economic struggles, and that he

devised many ideas to advance the political struggles of the ussian proletariat. #revious to

Gramsci, 9enin waged intense philosophical and political attles against the danger of

!economism!. :ow, the concept of hegemony


6/11

on intellectuals to my &nowledge are 5comparatively6 the most mature views on the issue of

intellectuals in the history of 'ar(ism 5D6.

7irst, Gramsci refused to consider intellectual activity as an e(clusive activity, underta&en

only y a very privileged layer in class society. /ee&ing to democratise the meaning of the term

5which originally referred only to the very most prominent opinion-uilders in society, such asfamous philosophers and novelists6, he insisted that human eings commonly engage in

intellectual activity, since it is common for peasants and wor&ers to thin& aout the roader

world, i.e. the world eyond the immediate sphere of their own production. Thus, Gramsci!s

thesis states that 'all human beings are intellectuals' . #arallel to this, Gramsci also countered the

mechanistic notion which counterposes !physical! and !mental laour! as two disconnected forms

of laour. In Gramsci!s view, purely !physical laour! does not e(ist, for all productive laour

involves the use of the human rainE ence, Gramsci tried to re-instate a dialectical

understanding regarding the character of human laour, and his conceptualisation is essential to

an understanding of 20th century capitalist management methods, i.e. 7ordism and Toyotism 5F6.

eturning now to our discussion on civil society, - it is nevertheless true that there is asection of the population in class society, which ma&es a living on specialised &nowledge, i.e.,

society!s professional intellectuals. Admitting this, Gramsci proceeds to identify a numer of

categories of intellectuals, which are uni


7/11

departure, an innovation, in the history of 'ar(ism, for these categorisations were not put

forward y any other 'ar(ist philosopher. 'oreover, Gramsci as no other 'ar(ist theoretician

argued that political wor& is the tas& of intellectuals) whether they e recogni*ed or non-

recogni*ed, it is society!s intellectuals who engage in the wor& of opinion-building on ehalf of

the various social classes aspiring to achieve or preserve hegemony. ence, Gramsci also defined

the wor& of uilding a political party as intellectual wor&, and argued that all those who participate in it are either already intellectuals, or, in the process of party-uilding, are ound to

e transformed into intellectualsE This conclusion follows logically from his conceptualisation of

civil society, and from his definitions of intellectuals and intellectual activity. 4et it surely

constitutes a departure from the views that have held sway in 20th century peasant-ased

revolutions in AsiaE

-. The Terms 'Passive Rev!uti"' an% the 'Histrica! B!c'

Cust li&e the terms civil society and ideological hegemony, the concept of passive

revolution was not introduced y Gramsci himself@ it was a orrowed term. As he himself

admitted in his writing on the history of the Italian isorgimento, i.e. on the process of theformation of the Italian unitary state, Gramsci too& over the term from the historian "uoco, and

then re-interpreted it 536. e used it to designate a process wherey a new political formation

comes to power, replacing an older one. "ontrary to what happens in a real or active revolution,

however, - in a passive revolution no fundamental restructuring of social relations ta&es place.

ence, the term passive revolution refers to a political process that is reformist in nature. /uch a

process according to Gramsci can either e steered y a lieral party, or y a fascist political

force. ence, Gramsci applies the term inter alia to e(plain the events that led to the victory of

fascism in urope, in the thirties of the last century.

:ow, while Gramsci nowhere discussed the applicaility of the concept of passive

revolution to events elsewhere in the world, the term can well e used to characterise the processof political transformation that too& place in ast Bengal in the $%0s, i.e. the process wherey

the Bengal 'uslim 9eague formed a political alliance and campaigned for construction of the

state of #a&istan. In the given process, an indigenous ruling class replaced the former British

colonial administrators, and it succeeded in achieving its aim via a transformative political

program, targeting the !decapitation! of the feudal economic order, i.e. dispossession of the

asentee landlords, the zamindars. 4et the 'uslim 9eague, as we all &now, did not aim at a

fundamental restructuring of agrarian relations, and its 'uslim-communalist orientation precisely

served to redirect peasant energies away from the path of active revolution as propagated y the

9eft. Indeed, what the 'uslim 9eague accomplished can est e characteri*ed as a passive

revolution in Gramsci!s theoretical sense.

4et it would hardly help us re-analyse the political history of Bengal if we were to adopt

Gramsci!s term of passive revolution in isolation. =hat is re


8/11

intellectuals, who effectively convinced the peasant masses of ast Bengal to opt for its proect of

a 'uslim-separatist state. Adoption of the concept of passive revolution, in other words, should

lead us to 5re-6analyse the specific role of traditional intellectuals, of maulanas and mullahs, who

enaled the 'uslim 9eague to gain ideological hegemony 5%6. 7or only a comined use of

Gramscian terms serves to lay are aspects of ast Bengal!s political history which are

insufficiently rought out in a classical 'ar(ist interpretation of history.

This means, in the conte(t of the analysis of ast Bengal!s history, that we comine the

concept of passive revolution, with Gramsci!s original conceptualisation of the united front. This

concept, in 'ar(ist theory, refers to the uilding of a road alliance, including all those classes

whose laour is e(ploited, and a part of society!s wealthier classes, such as rich peasants and the

national ourgeoisie 5$06. In the $%0s, oth the "ommunist #arty and the 'uslim 9eague each

sought to uild a united front to gain political hegemony) hegemony for the wor&ing class in the

case of the "ommunist #arty, - for the petty landlords, "otedars, in the case of the 'uslim

9eague. In this competition for hegemony it is the 'uslim 9eague which gained the upper hand,

and it is Gramsci!s concept of the historical bloc that helps us est understand why. 7or in

Gramsci!s conceptualisation of the united front, the role of intellectuals is decisive, and in thisrespect the efforts at united front uilding of the two political forces contrasted sharply. 7or

whereas the "ommunist #arty could count on the cooperation of only a few traditional

intellectuals, the 'uslim 9eague counted a very large numer of 'uslim religious preachers

among its opinion-uilders.

In conclusion) my plea is in favour of adoption of Gramscian concepts of analysis, ut not

in a piecemeal fashion. Too often, 'ar(ist interpreters of Gramsci!s theory have lifted out single

concepts or theoretical parts from his Prison Notebooks, without ta&ing due account of the

structure of his thought, without ta&ing account of the interconnectedness of these conceptual

ideas. As I have ust indicated riefly, and will see& to further illustrate in the second part of this

essay, - a Gramscian interpretation of ast Bengal!s history can e e(tremely fruitful, since ithelps reveal aspects in the country!s political evolution which orthodo( 'ar(ists 5including

myself6 for long have overloo&ed. 4et this e(ercise in Gramscian re-interpretation, to repeat, can

only e effective, can only lead to a new conceptualisation of the politics of social transformation,

if our approach is integral . =e thus need to grasp and apply the full set of Gramsci!s concepts ,

which as I have e(plained aove centrally comprises) the concepts of civil society and of

ideological hegemony# the concepts of rural and organic intellectuals# and those of passive

revolution and the uilding of a historical bloc.

. /eminism an% Grams!ian Thou$ht

9astly, a rief note on some limitations in Gramsci!s thought. I have already stated that

Gramsci!s categorisation of intellectuals is rudimentary, ut this is not a maor drawnac& in his

theory. A more serious limitation, in my view, is the fact that Gramsci nowhere discussed how

the structure and functioning of civil society helps to perpetuate patriarchy. Gramsci lived in an

era in which feminist theory-uilding, the theory regarding the lieration of women, was still

rather wea&, and, perhaps understandaly, Gramsci overloo&ed feminist issues in uilding his

own theory of the superstructure. 4et feminism is relevant to Gramsci!s theory of civil society.


9/11

7or in all class societies, the rulers employ not ust the legal, udicial and repressive organs of the

state to 5re-6 enforce patriarchal relations , - ut the institutions elonging to the intermediate

sphere of society as well. Invarialy, these institutions are used to propagate and strengthen male

dominance over women.

A patriarchal policy is easily implemented, since the institutions of civil society areoverwhelmingly !populated! y men. The se(ual division of laour that prevails in most societies,

imposes, first, a doule urden on 5many6 wor&ing class women. +n the one hand, they are

responsile for all domestic tas&s, i.e. coo&ing, cleaning, childcare, etc. +n the other hand,

women of the laouring classes often are allotted, also, secondary tas&s in agriculture and

industry 5$$6. But the se(ual division of laour also intersects with a division etween forms of

laour that are predominantly manual, - and those that are predominantly mental in character, and

relegates women to the first mentioned category. ence, the se(ual division of laour stretches

from the domestic sphere, via the pulic economic sphere, and up to the intermediate sphere of

civil society and the apparatus of the capitalist state. Both in the base and in the superstructure,

women!s position is suordinate to that of men.

7urther, that women!s laouring position is always secondary, is particularly sharply

reflected in the intermediate sphere of society, where most functions are monopolised y men. +n

the whole, women tend to e e(cluded, or nearly e(cluded, from most o positions defined as

!intellectual professions!, and the tas& of uilding a historical bloc that ta&es full account of the

interests of all sections of the oppressed is complicated much y the fact that society!s opinion

uilders are overwhelmingly male. /uch a lierationist proect can only succeed, if those who

uild mass organisations of the oppressed ma&e special efforts to promote women laourers to

the position of organic intellectuals@ it can only succeed if organisations of rural and other non-

recognised intellectuals recruit female professionals, such as female school teachers, on a priority

ase. If not, patriachal views will easily regain the upper hand, even as the struggle for human

lieration appears to gain ground.

In short, a $ar%ist-feminist theory regarding the intermediate sphere of class society,

regarding civil society and the struggle for ideological hegemony, can ta&e Gramsci!s

conceptualisation as its starting point, ut cannot afford to accept his views uncritically. A

'ar(ist-feminist theory needs to, first, amplify Gramsci!s categorisation of intellectuals, and ta&e

account of new theories of pulic-opinion uilding which have een constructed in the / and

elsewhere in the decades since Gramsci!s incarceration and death. But it also needs to rethin& and

refine Gramsci!s ideas in the light of feminist theory-uilding, which theory-uilding has

advanced rapidly in the last


10/11

Re$ere"ces%

5$6 7or a critical assessment of the evolution in thought of the Subaltern School , and of #artha

"hatteree!s ideas in particular, see imani Banneri, !#roects of egemony. Towards a "riti


11/11

nited >ingdom, $%306@

536 for Gramsci!s use of the term passive revolution in the conte(t of the $%th century struggle for

the unification of Italy, see avid 7orgacs 5$%336, op.cit., p.2D0-2D$@ as 7orgacs stresses in his

e(planatory notes on Gramscian terminology, - contrary to the lierals of the Italian isorgimento, for

Gramsci the term passive revolution was merely an analytical tool, a !criterion of interpretation!, and not a

programme - see 7orgacs, op.cit., p.23@

5%6 some important sources on the role of traditional intellectuals in the political evolution of

5ast6 Bengal are) A.T.'.Ati&ur ahman, $aulana $ohammed kram 1han in the Politics of 7engal 5in

Bangla) Bangla Academy, ha&a, Bangladesh, $%%D6@ afiuddin Ahmed, he 7engal $uslims +9:+-

+;.

peter custers_gramscian re-analysis of political history of bangladesh

Documents