Gramsci's Concept of Common Sense: Towards a Theory of Subaltern Consciousness in Hegemony Processes Author(s): Arun K.

Patnaik Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 5 (Jan. 30, 1988), pp. PE2-PE5+PE7-PE10 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4378042 . Accessed: 28/05/2013 14:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Gramsci's Concept of Common Sense Towards a Theory of Subaltern Consciousness in Hegemony Processes
Arun K Patnaik Thispaper is largelya reconstruction of Gramsci'sattempts towardsan understandingof subaltern consciousness in hegemony processes. In Section I, views on commronsense (or 'ordinary'folk's sense-perceptions) as viewed in bourgeois traditions are briefly presented. Section II is about Gramsci's treatment of certain cases of the infiltration of these bourgeois accounts into the Marxist camp by way of his critique of Croce's and Bukharin's schemes, In Section III, Gramsci's own scheme on 'comnmon sense' and its elements are proposed. Finally, in Sections IV and VKrelationships between the hegemony process and the 'common sense' of subalterns, on the one hand, and relations between certain counter-hegemony systems and subaltern consciousness, on the other, are delineated.
praxis which is non-rebellion. On the other hand, studies on 'nonrebellion'or more,adequately speaking,the hegemonyprocess, have a tendencyto treat subalternparaxisas one co-opted or coerced fully by the "rulingideas". Hence such studiesaresatisfiedwith a critiqueof 'domi-.Gramscion 'Passage fromKnowing nant ideologies' or structures of political to Understanding andto Feeling and economy.Subalternpraxisin the hegemony Vice Versa' processis treatedas a mere"sedimentation" is the THI-Spaper about popular element, of the dominantideologies[Counihan,1986: its 'feelings', its 'percepts', its 'common 7; Bates, 1975: 352] sense',especially as these are formedwithin What happens to Marxism as a hegemonyprocesses.It is concernedwith the philosophy when these two broad tendenevolution of a frameworkas proposed by cies continue to predominatethe currentGramsciin his discussions of the structure discourses? Morespecifically, a centralquesof common sense in the popular elements. tion of the paper is: what is the character It also offers certain'cases'to examinesome of the praxisof subalterngroups when they ideas of the Grams&anscheme on the sub- are subject to the domination/directionof Gramsci's the ruling bloc?'This paper is about some ject under consideration.I scheme, as seen belbw, seems to have a cer- such questions and their answers. tain distinctivenessin the Marxisttradition The paper runs as follows. In Section I, whichis why it needsspecialattentionin any discussion of the cognitive maps of the the views on common sense (or, 'ordinary' silent folk's sense-perceptions) as viewed in popularelement.The paperis however on the insightsinto the concept of 'common bourgeois traditions are briefly presented. sense' offered by sociologists and anthro- Section II is about Gramsci'streatmentof pologists of the modernisation theory certain cases of the infiltration of these genre,2 and also hoy Gramsci's Marxist bourgeois accounts into the Marxist camp differ fromthis genre by way of his critique of Croce's and schemecould radically of modernisationtheorists. It is irna sense Bukharin's schemes. In Section III, largely a reconstruction of Gramsci's at- Gramsci'sown scheme on 'common sense' tempts towards an understanding of and its elements are proposed. Finally, in betweenthe subaltern- consciousness in hegemony SectionsIV and V, relationships hegemonyprocess and the 'common sense' processes. of subalterns, on the one hand, and relations Thereseemto be two othercrucialtenden- betweencertaincounter-hegemony systems cies in Marxistscholarshipon workingclass and subalternconsciousness,,on the other, consciousnesswhich form the contextof the are 'delineated. paper.On the one hand, there is a tendency of unilateral pursuit of what is known as "praxis called rebellion'"Such studies do probably provide a source of strength for What worries Gramsci all through his contemporaryMarxism in its strugglewith writingsis that certainphilosophical tradivarious trends of "dominant ideologies". tions, originally elaborated by their adHowever,in this zealous pursuit of what in vocatesto defendthe bourgeoissocial order, a broad sense may be called the counter- haveduringhis time sufficiently penetrated hegemony process, the point that seems to into Marxismand createdtremendousprobe subtly neglected is a vast terrain and blemsfor its furtherprogress. Letus eamine possibly the dominant currentof subalterT, two suchbourgeoistraditionsbeforewe proThe popularelement'feels' but does not the intellectual alwaysknowor understand; element'knows'but does not alwaysunderstandandin particular does not always feel. twoextremes The, aretherefore and pedantry philistinismon the one hand and blind passionand sectarianism on the other. PEr2 ceed to see how Gramsciformulatescertain cases of theirinfiltrationinto Marxism.For the presentpurpose,we may limit ourselves to a brief discussion of Enlightenmentand pre-Enlightenment philosophies. Enlightenment rationality, as is well known, condemned the views of ordinary people as superstitious,naive, meaningless, irrational, and so on. The task of philosophy was to supersede theirbelief systems,for 'ordinary' beliefs did not even contain a fragment,of Truth.On the other hand, much of pre-Englightenment philosophy in Europe believedthat the primarytask of philosophy was to explorethe worldof 'intuitions', 'feel ings', 'sense-perceptions' and scoffed at the possibilityof 'reasoning' or 'understanding' the human world. For human beings were nothing more than a 'bundle of feelings' (Hume'spet phrase).Not that ordinaryfolk or 'understanwereincapableof 'reasoning' ding',but such processesof 'reasoning'etc wereunnecessaryfor a human philosophy, or in a more-radicalsense, 'oppressive'for the common people. The Enlightenmenttradition did not accord any recognitionto the feelingsof common people; thereby, it was capable of establishing for philosophy a physical distance from the 'crowd' and their A 'peasant'is still treatedin-terms 'percepts'. of this construct as an 'uneducatedperson of low social status'livingin the countryside [LongmanDictionary, 1984]. The physical distancefrom 'low social status'peoplethat this philosophyis capableof establishingis veryclearin case of historiansfollowingthis traditionwho write volumes on a 'national movement' in India or elsewhere without evenmentioningthe contributionsof a factory workeror a poor peasant. The continuation* of the preEnlightenment tradition is more subtle. Philosophyis here some kind of systematic rendering of the chaotic world of senseperceptions.This philosophy locates senseperceptionsin everydayexistence, and has beencontentto take,just as theyare,the feelings, intuitions or ideas of everydayexist-a Thus, a cormmon man's structuresof

Economic and Political Weekly January So, 1988

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

feeling are not only meaningful, but these that philosophymust arethe only structures rely on for 'ultimate truth'. All talk of 'reasoning'or 'understanding'ih order to establishthe meaning of the human world is meaningless, for such talk is only based choice of explanatoryschemes. on arbitrary In the preface to the English edition of CapitalI, Engels identifies such a tendency in classical political economy [Engels, 1886:14]. conhasbeengenerally Political Economy tent to take,just as theywere,the termsof life,andto operate andindustrial commercial with them,entirelyfailingto see that by so doing, it confineditself withinthe narrow circleof ideas expressed by those terms.. . classical political economy never went
beyond the received notions of profits f'nd

this mine),neverexamined rents(emphasis in its integrity as unpaidpartof the product a whole.... Engels is here referring to certain theoreticalobsessions with notions 'receivof observed' fromthe immediatecharacter ed economic processes. This is an empiricist/positivist tendency in economic theory.In politicaltheorytoo, one frequently comes acrosssimilartendenciesin studies whichmay be termedas 'populist'literature. The quality of politics of certain 'popular' leadersis evaluatedon the basis of the expectationsof the 'majority'whichthe leader commandswithin a national boundary.In a seminarin New Delhi in 1984, a speaker while dismissing the critics of Indira oandhi's regime argued that she was the only national leader in whom the majority of Indians had 'full faith'. What seems to be the crucial aspect in this populist literature is that certainpolitical regimesare defendedfor being fully consistentwith the percepts of the masses. A critique of the by the popularleaders ideologiespropagated is usually dismissed as being inconsistent with "the will of all". The' critics of 'populism'on the other,haveusuallytreated suchpopularbeliefs as popular'misconceptions'.For, as critics argue,the masses may' follow a leader either because of a lack of awarenessor because they are 'misled' Thus, there are two crucialphilosophical traditions. Philosophers in one tradition sense of Common wonderhow the structure can at all be meaningful as a contributing factorto the growthof knowledge,or what it calls 'reasoning/'understanding. The other tradition feels that the identification of the structureof common sense or what it calls 'sense-perceptions'/'intuition'/ 'feeling',is adequatefor philosophy.This is a situation which Neitzsche describes as follows:"Thereare ages, when the rational and the intuitiveman stand side by side, the one full of fear of the intuition, the other full of scorn for the abstraction;the latter just as irrationalas the former is inartistic. Both desire to rule over life; the one by knowing how to meet the most important needs with foresight, prudence,regularity; heroby ignorthe other as an 'over-joyeus'

tegralpart of their knowledgeprocesses.In such a situation, the relationship between Marxismand its agenciesis, in an organisafI tional sense, a one-sidedmonologue, structurally similar to the relationship between Both the philosophical traditions, as the Churchand the believer, the templepriest Gramsciwould argue, have infiltratedinto and the peasant, the teacher and the disciMarxism and bolcked its progress as an ple and so on. Thereis, on the one autonomousphilosophy. In this monologue, the working class, hand, a tendency in Marxism which, in its instead of developing further its own the of takes cognisance attemptsat critique, thought in and through the organisation's so-called 'copyright' philosophies and ig- 'mediation'becomesincreasingly dependent nores nonchalantly 'the philosophy of the on the 'direction'of the organisation'sproraa is This typical non-philosophers'. fessional intellectuals. The organisation, tionalist underminingof the perceptionsof following the logic of 'educating' the the "non-philosophers". There are, for subalterngroups, is not able to break with example, innumerable Communist Party the traditional and teacher-pupil relationship Journals and non-party leftist periodicals consequently is not ableto facilitatean intelwhichhaveso muchto talk about the domi- lectual formation within the agency itself. radicals, Notwithstanding the physical hardships, nant ideologiesor the 'avant-garde' and almostnothingin themabouta worker's ideologicalpressures, moralhonesty and inOn the otherhand, thereis also dividual discipline which the perceptions. 'professional a tendencyin certain radical groups to act intellectuals' do undergo, of the organisation militants.This intuitiveman of in their logic of making Marxism popular as 'intuitive' the revolutionarygenre does not seem to they only reproducethe traditionalteacherbother about "the heavy thundercloudthat pupilrelationship betweenthe 'organisation' might burstupon him to wrap him up in its and "the masses".The 'de-classed'intelleccloak", for, we are told, he is committedto tuals in the.organisation become the permaa 'cause'.And, for him only the cause mat- nent explicators of Marxismfor the workers. a There is, thus, ters, not its consequences. Thus, the 'original' cognitive maps of the tendencyin him to live with what may be subalterngroups are in realitymade suborcalled the 'intuition' of subaltern groups. dinate to the organisation'sdiscourse.The Gramsci'scritique of Bukharin'sMarxism organisation's Marxism seems more and as well as Croce's treatment of 'common moredifficult impregnable and pedanticfor sense'of the popularelementidentifiesthese the workersto graspand internalise.Marxtwo broad tendencies, respectively: ism paradoxicallyreinforcesa wide-spread As Gramsciargues,Bukharin's'Manual', prejudice that philosophicalexercises are inintendedto populariseMarxismamong the comprehensible for laymen.A Marxismthat of the party,providesa study is meantto educatethe subalterngroupsbut 'rank-and-file' and a critiqueof the which does not evolve out of the workers of social contradictions bourgeois ideologies but does not have perceptions,original or appropriated,cananythingto say about the ideas or activities not but remain an external force imposed of workers themselves. In its concrete on the working class as whole. political forms, it undertakes only those The otherphilosophical tendencyGramsci political tasks which help to 'educate'the working class in the philosophies of the subjectsto a rigorousscrutinyis represented It offers only a critiqueof by BenedettoCroce'sview of the "popular "philosophers". the more holistic dimensions in political element".Croce (1886-1952), by his associaeconomy,philosophy or the differentkinds tion with the French Syndicalist,-Georges of socialism. To transpose this kind of Sorel, sustaineda radicalimage for himself 'Manual'to the Indiancase, we mightthink and had during the pre-fascistperiod coninfluenceon the youngintellectuals of a textbook meant to educate the work- siderable ing class in a political-economiccritiqueof of the Italian Left. This is one qf the main the Indira regime or the 'Rajiv era' or the reasons why Gramsci devotes himself at planning models. It would be essentially length to a rigorous critique-ofwhat could concernedwith a holistic political economy be.called Crocean leftism. Cr6ce, influenced by the hermeneutic traditionin Italy,conof India. The centralassumptionhere seems to be sidered'common sense'as a set of viewsexof subaltern groupssub- pressedby the 'ordinary'folk and treatedit that the perceptions ject to domination by the ruling classes are as the source as well as the content of each the products of a process moulded com- and everyphilosophicalsystem. One would pletely by the "ruling ideas". That the find, Croce felt, each and every philosoof non-philosophers'as we see phical idea in the world of common sense. "philosophy below, is relatively origihal to the "non- It would mean, for example, that Hegel's philosophers" themselves is ignored by a searchfor the Absolute Idea was in a sense. Marxist critique. It is thus completely akin to certain philosophical urges within oblivious of the world which the workers ordinary people.WhatWeberexplainsas the could be tracedback leadership alreadyknow and live with. Consequently, 'charismatic' in this form turnsout for to its rootsin the commonsense of common Marxismprojected the workers,like any other philosophy, ex- people. So on and so forth. In Gramsci's notanin- [1971:422] own words: existence, ternal to theireveryday PE-3

ing those needs and taking that life only as andbeauty.' realwhichsimulatesappearance

Economic and Political Weekly January 30, 1988

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thatall menare In Croce,the proposition has an excessiveinfluenceon philosophers aboutcommonsense.It seems hisjudgment that Croce often likes to feel that certain philosophicalpropositionsare shared by common sense. But what can this mean concretely? Gramscifinds the Crocean formulations in its concrete forms highly unsatisfactory.
As he [1971: 422] argues
"...

one can find

there (in common sense) anything that one likes'"And preciselybecauseit can be made to contain 'anything',common sense is a chaotic aggregate of perceptions in a worker's everyday life.. Its fascinating character is the contradictory qualityin itself which, as we will see below, unlike the philosophical systems, is not very coherent and systematic. This is the essential differencesbetween the cognitive maps of the 'ordinary' workers and the philosophical systems elaborated by 'extraordinary'individualsor a 'school'of thought-a distinction Croce fails to establish. The history of philosophy,as Gramsciargues,Is in certain sensesa 'resolution'of contradictionsin the world of common sense, not just a mirror 'reflection'of it. Croce, on the other hand, tends to treatit as a simple reflectionof the commonsensical world and thereby, he undermines the questions of historical growthof philosophical systems which are, in fact, nothing but the 'highpoints'of progressmade by the historyof common sense [Gramsci, 1971:330-331]. Thus, there is, as Gtamsci admits a form of affinity between a philosophical system and a structure of common sense-the kinds of affinitiesCroceexaggerates withoutbeing able to establish their distinctions. In the Gramscian scheme,the form of affinitybetween bourgeois philosophie, and the
subaltern percepts is always external. They

groupssituated thoughtprocessof subaltern within hegemony processes? What is its nature?Is it possible, as some people ask, to think of a domain of thlught 'original' to certain groups who are by definition subaltern?Are these questions relevantfor a political theory? An attempt has been made below to answer these questions by presentingthe Gramscianscheme and also certain illustrations from Indian cases in order to elaborate the scheme.

III
Only on the basis of a Marxistnotion of totality is Gramsci trying to examine the natureof working-class'common sense in the hegemony process. As he defines the 'commonsense' of the subalterngroups in space and time, the structureof common in characsense appearsto be contradictory ter: protests yesterday and subordination today, social satires of upper-class norms even when subject to their control, millenarianhopes entwinedwith fatalisticsubmission, undertaking a coup in a factory while expecting the state agents to 'assist', faith in the national/provincial elite in delivering 'benefits' accompanied by a simultaneousprocessof resentmentagainst the behaviourof local stateofficials, and so on. These area few cases of 'contradictions' in working-class consciousness-a 'conthat is centralto theirown 'being' tradiction' as subaltern, i e, subject to a broader hegemony process. Gramsci [1971: 333] describesthe nature of 'contradiction'of a worker's consciousness as follows: "His theoretical consciousness can indeed be in oppositionto his activity.One historically mightalmost say that he has two theoretical consciousnesses(or one contradictoryconsciousness) one which is implicit in his activityand which in realityunites him with in the practicaltransall his fellow-workers formationof the realworld;and one, superficially explicit or verbal, which he has inherited from the past and uncritically absorbed!' In the English usage, as seen in the above passage, the term is 'contradictory consciousness'However,for our analyticalpurposes, we would prefer,as Gramscihimself rigorously argues, 'common senseY'contradictory common sense' as a cultural distinctfromthe forms categoryanalytically of^ 'consciousness' associated with the philosophicalsystems.The term 'contradictory consciousness'is not likely to servethe common purpose.Weprefer'contradcitory sense' as an analytical concept to help us identify certain forms of consciousness of subalterngroups. The concept of contradictorycommon sense does not merelyreferto the natureof the percepts of subaltern 'groups. It also covers a set of 'feelings' often associated with the life-processes of 'individual' members of the working classes and (1979)construct peasants.James Freeman's of the lower-casteMuli's perceptionsdoes

indicatecontradictory dimensionsin Muli's thought structure.Muli, a Bauri (caste) by birth in a village near Bhubaneswar, earns his livelihood as a poor peasant, as a constructionworkerand also as a pimp by supplyingwealthyupper-caste men with his own caste women. Muli's account of the norms of upper-castemen and women variesfrom rationalisation to ridicule. In Freeman's [1979:384] words: Mulidisplayed a widerangeof behaviours in different situations, withdifferent andwith the same high-castepeople; he frequently playedup to generous landowning masters, construction employers or upper-caste customersfor his prostitutes,pretending loyalty but privately ridiculing their behaviours and ideals.Muli'sacquiescence to his superiorsdid not mean that he acceptedhis lot. Gramsci'sconcept of contradictorycommon sense is thus about a specific structure of working-classconsciousness located in space and time. Since its structure, as
Gramsci [1971: 419] argues, is "not ... iden-

tical in time and space", it meanstwo things: first, when the episodes/momentsof subalternactivity,unaidedby a systematic theory, are treatedover time and across space, the forms of consciousness remainat variance with one another; and secondly, the everyday formsof consciousnessof an individual or a subalterngroup may be dichotomous in character. While a worker may have the urge to struggle for a better future, he may not be sure of others joining him in the struggle, and consequently,he may accept the status quo as fate.Sometimes,the workers maylike himselfor his childrento be superiorto him, a petty-bourgeoisperhaps. On other occasions, as Cohen [1979:25] argues, he might well agreewith what Eugene Debbs said, "I don't want to rise above the workingclass, I want to rise with them".There may, thus, be a contradictionbetween the trans-class aspirationson the one hand .and the egalitarian aspirations on the other, both simultaneouslyembeddedin working-class common sense. Such cases may be episodic. The point, is that each episode contributesto however, a totalityand also, a relative totality-in-itself. The urgesto strugglefor a betterfuture,the uncertaintiesin its coordination and, the consequent tendencyto acceptFatemay well constitute distinct dimensions united in an The urgesto strugepisode/a micro-totality. gle for a better future can indeed be seen historicallyin opposition to the tendencyto accept, howeverreluctantly,one's own objective position. Even in cases where the workerhas accepted the 'destiny' assigned to him by the bourgeoisideologies, fatalism being an activewill of the workers,one may in all probability traceherethe sedimentsof a past rebellionor the elementaryaspectsof a probable insurgency.This is in essence what is meant by contradictions in the common sense of subalterngroups, especially

impose themselveson the 'originalthought' of the subalterngroups and create/recreate the limits to the p.ogress of subaltern's 419-20]. [Gramsci,1971: knowledge-process This they do either by patronisingcommon sense as meaningful on its own or by condemning it as superstitious non-sense. In of workingboth cases, furtherdevelopment class consciousnessWimpossible.And, this is central to a hegemony process. The tendency to ignore the subaltern percepts as in Bukharin, or to patronise them as in Croce, are not merely historical misconstructions of subaltern percepts in hegemonyprocesses,but also misconstruing the externalityin the relationshipbetween the "feelings"of the popular element, and reasoning/understandingof the philosophical systemselaboratedby the traditional of the bourgeoissociety.A mere intellectuals critique of the dominant ideologies and structuresis not likely to break with the externalrelationswhich these ideologies have in relation to working class 'percepts. It is also necessaryto recognisethe 'originality' in the subalterngroups even when they are subject to the direction/dominationof the ruling bloc: What is -'original'about the PE4

Economic and Political Weekly January ?0, 1988

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

when they are subject to the domination/direction of the ruling bloc.

CdMMON SENSE AS A CONCEFPOF 'IMMEDIACY'

Wehaveso far tried to examinethe internal characterof the structureof common sense. Now it is necessaryto relate it to a totality of space and time. As Gramsci [1971:348] argues, the commonsensicalviews aredirectlyreceivedfrom the structure. It is meaningful in its immediate surroundingsof space and time, even though it may have certain false conceptions of a totality. It has in a sense certaindirectaffiliationswith the objectof 'immediacy'.The distant objects in a totality, view,seemto be the froma commonsensical externalones. The internalcharacterof the externalobjects are not intuitivelygrasped; at least, not in the same way as the immediateobjectsaregrasped.Givenbeloware two illustrations (a) a case of tribals and movement; peasantsin the Gandhamardan (b) a case of peasantsmeantas targetgroups programme. in a poverty-amelioration the people3: Gandhamardan (a) Thecase of moveIn a study of the Gandhamardan ment, it is found that tribals and peasants, of theirecology by the destruction aggrieved causedby miningactivities,havebeen strugyearsagainst gling for about two-and-a-half a CentralGovernmentmining projectconductedby BALCOin Paikmala(Sambalpur District).While they hold the local Congress MP and MLAs responsiblefor the 'fate'inflicted upon them by the BALCO "asur" (demon),they wait for RajivGandhito perform the "saviour's" role. For a Central Government projectengagedin the destrucHills, the Rajiv tion of the Gandhamardan Sarkaris not held responsiblefor theirFate. The Prime Minister is rathertreatedas an external agent ratherthan someoneinternally connectedwith the whole processof tnining activities in a central governmentproject. On the contrary he is believed by Paikmala's poor peasantsand tribalsas their (God) who only could savethem "Bhagwan" from an impending ecological disaster inflictedupon them by a nexus of local Balco officials, the BDO and the local Sarpanch, MLAs and the Congress MP. (b) The case of rural development target
groups4:

This is a case of ten Pana families (a scheduled caste group) in Digapahandi Block (GanjamDistrict) who wereselected as beneficiariesof a poverty amelioration of viz, EconomicRehabilitation programme, RuralPoor (ERRP). The programmewas launchedduring the sixth plan period and was sponsored by the Orissa government In thisvillage,out of twentypoteptialtargets from among marginal and agricultural labourers,ten families were selected. Each of them was given ten goats. The total project cost of a goatery scheme stood at Rs 2,200 which comprised of the subsidy
Economic and Political Weekly

amount of Rs 1,650 and the loan amount of Rs 550 (i e, 25 per cent of the project cost). The cost of ten goats allotted to each family stood at Rs 1,500and the rest of the projectmoney was meant for the follow-up in buyingfodder,medicinesetc for processes the goats. is The purpose of the ERRP programme to help the 'landless poor', 'agricultural i e, those labour'and the 'marginalfarmer'. peasantgroupsofficiallycalled the "poorest of the poor"' having a maximum of 2 1/2 acresof landand Rs 1,200as anrualincome. These groups are allotted some productive dairy,poultry, likegoatery,piggery, resources cashew plantation etc, with an expectation of generating some incomes(worthRs 3,000 to Rs 4,000 annually) leading to their rehabilitationabove the poverty line. Whenthe beneficiarieswerefirst selected in 1981,there was no drum-beatingin the villageto makepeople awareof the scheme. Rather,the scheme was allotted to certain groupsalreadyknownto the Block officials who allegedly consulted a village elder in decidingthe targetgroups.Anyway,among the ten beneficiaries who wereselected,there was a retired peon who was educated in primaryschool and was previouslyworking in the Tehsil office. Excepthim, all the others wereilliterate.Since he was also an elderly person, he took it as an obligation to his family members to approach the Village Level Worker(VLW)and other Block officialsand to plead for some benefitsfor his Excepthis familywhich owned 11/2 relatives. acresland, the othertargetfamilieshad virtually no land. Most of them dependedon in agriculture or in the seasonalemployment nearby forests. schemecame as Forthem the government a major gift in 'due' recognition of their poverty.In their anxietyto be selectedfirst, they paid some 'commissions'to the VLW; theyknewprettywellthat if they did not pay, others would be selected in their place. one of themargued,theywouldhave True, a JerseyCow or a buffalo scheme. preferred But that did not mean that they should give up an offer of ten goats. As he said, quoting an Oriya proverb:"A blind uncle is better than no uncle" [an English equivalent: "somethingis better than nothing"I Thus, when they wereallottedthe goateryscheme, it thoughnot as enthusiasticaltheyaccepted ly as they would have if they had been offered a dairy scheme. After the selection was over, the ten wereinformedby the technical beneficiaries officersto proceedto a butcher's shop at the nearbytown, Aska, 20 kms awayfrom their village, to buy 100 'quality' goats. The 'illiterate' peasants were thoroughly dissatisfied with most of the goats because of their 'bad' quality; these goats, they felt, to local werephysicallyweakand vulnerable diseases.When they complainedabout this, the veterinary doctor allegedly retorted angrily: "Do you know more than I do?" The peasants withdrew from any further ayguent when the doctorassuredthemthat

he would help in taking care of the goats. The beneficiaries, along with a hundred goats, were sent back in a truck to their village, and the officials of the purchasing committeereturnedafter payingthe 'necessary' amounts to the merchant. months later,when the g6ats began TWo to be affected by diseases,the targetgroups with their diseased animals turned up for surgeon(VAS)and help from the veterinary weregiven prescriptions.When some goats were killed by the disease, they 'managed' to get death certificatesfrom the VASwho, along with other membersof the purchasing committee werebelievedby the beneficiaries to have connived in the selection of 'poor quality'goats. A yearand a half after their allotmentthey wereleft with about'six goats each, and none of the families had above the povertyline. been 'rehabilitated' At that time, the most nagging question which faced them was how to pay the bank loans of about Rs 550 each. All of them had twice gone to the Block to 'clarify'the bank position. One of them asked: "Should we now sell the rest of the goats to repay the bank loan and lead life as we did before,or should we keep the goats and struggle to earn whateverwe can by selling its milk in order to maintain a semblance of escape from our earlier situation?" Letus recountthis processonce againand add a few more facts. The local elites knew to the stategovernprettywellthat according mentguidelines,not morethan 10beneficiaries could be selected from each village. In this particularvillage,thereweremorethan 10 families of poor peasants who could claim to be potential beneficiaries. This means that the governmentscheme could not coverpotentialtargets.On the one hand, this introducedamong the claimantsan intense competition to snatchthe Sarkarigift first and thus made them vulnerableto the of the Block of'demands'/'expectations' ficials. On the other hand, it was also responsiblefor the officials' manipulation of the targetgroups.The official could well expect the peasants to offer him 'commissions' to have their names included in the selectionproforma.Peasantsalso knewquite well that they might lose an opportunityto get ten goats worth Rs 1,500 to othefs who might pay the necessarycommissions. The manipulation of -the selection process by Block officials was not at all beyond their to maketheir grasp,and they wereprepared own strategic decisions accordingly. The peasants felt cheated when their 'knowledge'in judging the quality of the goats was ignored by the officials. Their ability in deciding which were the 'good' quality goats was challengedby the literate technicalofficials of the purchasing committee. The peasants were left with no optioql but to take whatevergoats wereavailableat Whenthe that momentwith the local trader. livestock turned out to be of poor quality, and the schemedid not turnout to be as successful as was expectedat the beginning,the peasants started indulging in some sort of
PE-5

January 30, 1988

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

counterfeitthinking. One of them argued: "hadwe been allotted those 'good-looking' goats... had our 'knowledge' been accepted by the 'babus' (in the purchasingcommittee)... had we been allowed to buy the livestockfrom a differentmerchant.. . our Fateprobablywould havebeen different... who knows.. ." This was a form of fatalistic thinkingwhich, in this case, represented an active will of the peasants. For this was an indication of their resentment of the officials'behaviour.'Fatalism' is not necessarily only passive;the activeelement is clearly discerniblein this case. Yet the scheme is also seen as a 'gift' of a 'good' Sarkar, a package offered and receivedas patronage,a gift for the amelioration of their poverty. Even after an experience of two and a half years with the goatery scheme, one of the beneficiaries retrospectivwly argued:"The Sarkarunderstood our problems;offeredus this scheme. But the 'babus' came in the middle and causedproblemsfor us. At least, something wasbetterthan nothing". Thus, a beneficiary tends to think of 'good' programmes as 'gifts' from a 'good' government, spoiled only by a nexus of 'intermediary'groups whichAlways come betweenhimself and the 'good' government.He tends to appreciate the good intentionsof a government situated at a distance.He tends to identify the local officials of the Block, the Bank and the veterinarycentre located in his immediate proximity as primarily responsible for frustratingthe Sarkar'spolicy. The government package of goats, Jersey cows, fish, coconut plants etc, are seen as gifts to help them in relievingtheirpoverty.But the local merchants and bureaucrats,they feel, are 'jealous' of the government's attention towardsthem and do not let the gifts pass to them easily.It needsto be noted that such beliefs are reinforcedby the Sarkaripeople themselves for instance)whenad(ministers, dressing loan 'melas/village 'melas' and also, though for a different audience, by PlanningCommissioneconomistsspeaking at seminars. In fact, it is not as though political leaders and economists do not know what they are sayingwhen they single out this nexus of 'intermediary'groups as primarily responsible in frustrating the 'good' attempts made by planners in formulating the poverty-amelioration schemes.6 It is necessary for planners to projecta neutraland benevolentimage and to lay the blame for the failure of their policies on the 'implementing'agencies. Forthe peasants,the 'fraud,cheatingand grabbingby local officials are not difficult to grasp.That the governmentschemeitself has only a limited focus which providesthe potential ground for the local officials to manipulateis, however,an understanding not easily obtainable by the target groups themselves.The Sarkar'soverall failuresin resource mobilisation to implement the schemes in time, in mass mobilisation to checkthe so-called"corruption" of local officials,arenot withinthe reachof their'coinPiannmirantiPoitcalWeek1v

mon sense. A continuousyearlybacklogof 50 per cent to 60 per cent in fund allotment by the state governmentis too heavya constrainteven for 'good' local officials to implement the Block Action Plan effectively. On the other hand, why is it the case that despiteso much talk in villageralliesagainst 'bad' officials and merchants, the programme is still implemented, if not implementedthe same way?Why is it that the programmecontinues to rely on the 'bad' officials (BDO, Bank Branch Manager, veterinary doctor etc) as the 'principal agents'in implementing ruraldevelopment? Why is it that poor peasants, whose 'amelioration' the programme seeks, are treated as nothing more than passive 'receivers'of the programme? What do all these questions mean politically? Neither these questions nor their answersare easily accessible to the 'common sense' of the targetgroups.Nor arethesequestionsasked or answered by planning commission economists or by the ministers/MLAs addressing public rallies in the villages. For the moment, let us consider how the above case of rural development target groupsbringsout the two crucialdimensions of the structureof common sense:common senseas a contradictory and thought-process yet a meaningfulthought-process of the immediate reality. As we noted above, the government schemeseems to be a 'good' gift to the poor peasants,and only the local officials arethe 'bad' lot. This may be because of a direct relationshipbetweenthe target groups and the local stateofficials on the one hand and a mediatedrelationship betweenthe government scheme and the target groups on the other. The paternalistic programme,of a Sarkarlocated at a distance seems to carry with it a 'good' intent. The local officials are seen as the main oppressors and the in the statehierarchy higher-ups as "ameliorators"presumablybecause the immediate society has nothing.to offer the peasantexcept their 'bondage. This is precisely the contradictory quality in common sense perceptionsof the state apparatus.Unable to establishthe internalconnections within the state, it contraposes one unit vis-a-vis another.It expects 'liberation'from the distant unit, while it treatsthe immedaiteunit as its main oppressor. The commonsensical views are thus incapableof establishingon its own 'the laws of interconnections'among the objects in theirtotality.And this is why commonsense in the final analysis is fragmentary. As the abovecasesshow,however, it is a meaningful perceptionof the immediatesituation in a totality of space and time. It is capable of perceiving the immediate actors who are for its 'Fate.Whilethe questions responsible of 'immediacy'are central in the structure of common-sense, the distantobjects,unlike the immediateones, do not usuallyformthe' internaland directlyreceivedelementsin its structure.7The inter-connectionsbetween the immediate and distant objects are not

to the sense-perceptions self-revealing of the subalterngroups-a point which needs to be studied separately.
COMMON SENSE AS A CATEGORY OF "ORIGINAL THOUGHT";

One of the most crucial dimensions of subalterncommon sense is its originality.It is a creative of the subaltern thought-process groups.Some rationalisations of theirsubordination might have been constructed by themselves. Some dissent, discontent and counterpoints might have been offered by the subalternsthemselves.Such a thoughtprocesscould well be directlyreceived by the subalterngroups from the structure/traditions proper,and not necessarily from the traditionalintellectuals. The point to be recognised,for example, is that the religious beliefs often attributed by the subalternsthemselves to their subordination/strugglemay not be fully consistent with the religious values prescribed to them by the dominant bloc. Each subalterngroup may have its own specific religious discourse, different from the religiousvaluesprescribed to themby the inthe rulingclasses.In Gramsci's tellectuals'of [1971:420] words: Everyreligion,evenCatholicism (indeed Catholicism morethanany,precisely because of its effortsto retain'a surface'unityand avoidsplintering intonationalchurches and social stratifications), is in reality a of distinctandoften contradicmultiplicity thereis,one Catholicism tory religions: for the peasants,one for the petty-bourgeoisie and townworkers, one for women,andone forintellectuals whichis itselfvariegated and disconnected. One notices certain trends of 'originality' in case of the tribal activists of the 'Gandhamardan Andolan'. While the Gandhamardan Surakhya Samiti,consisting of the Lohia socialist youths and Janata Party members, is thoroughly against the Congress(I) leadership, some of the local tribals actively associated with the movement expect Rajiv Gandhi to play a "Saviour's" role. In fact, one of the organiserswas surprisedwhen he was told about this image of Rajiv Gandhi popular in certainpockets of the movement.Tribals have offered their own meanings to the struggle. This is the 'origirWlity' directly received from their own traditions, not prescribedto them by the organisers. One also noticesthe same'process at work with the peasants'experiences with the local state officials engaged in the implementation of the poverty ameliorationprogrammes. That the local officials are a 'bad' lot is within their grasp because the peasants their'fraud,cheatingand directlyexperience grabbing'. When the provincialleaderstalk in the village rallies about this 'fraud'they probably reinforce/systematise the peasants' "feelings" which arealreadypresentin their thought process. is 1iowever crucialin the Gramiscian WVhat PE-7

Januarv 30. 1988

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

relationship"" establishedbetweenthe contradictorycommon sense of the subaltern groupsand the rulingideas largelyinitiated by the ruling bloc? We offer a very sketchyanswer to these questionsby placing an interpretation of a passage in Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire which may form a starting-pointof an inquiryinto the abovequestions. Marxis trying to answer what seems to us one of the crucialquestionsof his time: how was Louis Bonaparte able withinthreeyearsof his rule to establishan effective"pedagogic relationship" with the most numeroussections of French society, the peasant groups? The answer is offered by Marx himself: This point should be clearly understood: theBonaparte theconserdynasty represents vative, nottherevolutionary peasant: thepeasantwhowantsto consolidate the condition of his socialexistence, not the peasantwho strikesout beyondit. It does not represept the countrypeoplewho wantto ovrthrow an oldorder by theirownenergies, in alliance with the towns, but the preciseoppositt thosewhoaregloomilyenclosedwithinthis" old orderand want to see themselves and Both approaches, the formeremphasising theirsmallholdings saved andgiven preferenthe workingclassappropriation of bourgeois tial treatment by theghostof the Empire. It IV values (consciousness)and the latterstressrepresents the peasant's not his superstition, We have so far discussed Gramsci'scriti- ing the subaltern inversion of bourgeois posihis prejudice, enlightenment; not his judgque of certain treatmentsof subalterncon- tions (structure) as the respective ment;his past, not his future;his modern keysto the sciousness. We have also offered an inter- stabilityof the system,maybe treated Vendee,not his modernCevennes(Marx, as two pretationof the Gramscianscheme on the sides of the False ConsciousnessSchool in 1973:240). subject. There are two more issues which Marxism. Both approaches tend to treat On the one hand, the seriesof perceptions need to be raisedin this paper. Firstly,how working-classconsciousness in hegemony of the Frenchpeasantryunder Bonapartist are the cognitive maps of the subaltern processesas some kind of concealmentof hegemonymay be characterised as a series groups brought into the fold of hegemony the "structuralantagonisms"in bourgeois within the peasant's contradictory conprocesses, and why so? And what is its society.Corresponding to their approaches, sciousness:his prejudicevis-a-vishis judghistory in a concrete social formation? both seem to be respectivelysatisfied with ment;his superstition vis-a-vishis enlightenSecondly,what sorts of attempts havebeen the critique of the 'dominant ideologies' ment;his nostalgia for the past vis-a-vishis madein a specificsocietyto resolvethe 'con- (RulingIdeaS)and 'structural antagonisms' hopes for a better future; his ability in subaltern (Dominant Structure).They, consequently, creating a modern royalist revolt as an tradictorycommon sense' of th%e groups? And how can Marxism as an ignore or more often dismiss a proposal to Vendee vis-a-vis his ability to create a moveautonomousphilosophyprovidefor society recognisethe cognitiveprocessesoriginalto ment for "freedom of conscience" as in a theoryto 'overcome' the contradictionsin the 'being' of the subalterngroups. Cevennes(1702-05).On the other hand, the the perceptsof the subaltern groups? The As we have arguedin the last section, at Bonapartist ideology initiatedby "theghost first question pertains to the relationship least, some cognitive processes of the of the Empire"represented only one 'level' between the subaltern groups and the subalterngroups in the hegemony process of the series.It established duringthreeyears hegemony process; the second question is are in a crucial sense created by the of "hardrule' a pedagogicrelationship with about the relationship of the subaltern subalterns themselves. Both approaches one segmentof consciousness, not the other groups to the counter-hegemonyprocess. withinthe False ConsciousnessSchool have in the series.At the same time, its inability Given below is a brief review of Marxist completely ignored this process. Gramsci's to representto the "precise opposite" of theories on these two processes. concept of contradictorycommon sense,as what it represented indicatedcertaincrucial Marxiststudies on the hegemonyprocess seen above, recognises "the original limits to its own way of establishing its have a tendency to treat subaltern con- thought"of the subaltern groups,evenwhen ideological hegemony over the French sciousness either as an outcome of an 'ap- they are subordinated to a ruling bloc. peasantry. True, it did not representthe propriation'of bourgeoisvalues, or its 'in- Hence, this conceptual innovation in the French peasants' enlightenment,its judgversion'.The logic of appropriationin this Gramscianscheme for a study of subaltern ment about a better futureand its abilityto case presupposesa very definite process of consciousnessin the hegemonyprocessmay fight for freedom from royalism. Yet, by duplicationof decadentbourgeoisvaluesby be considered as a significant departure the othersegmentsfromwithin from representing workerswho, by doing so, ensure stability the hegemony theory as well as the struc- the series, Bonapartein a process of hard within the system.The analyticalstresshere turaltheory-inMarxism.The recognition of strugglewas able to emergeas "the patriarr is obviouslyon the modeof communication, the crucialdistinctionsin the belief systems chal benefactor"of the French peasantry. i e, on how the whoie gamut of rulingideas upheld by different classes in the complex This seems to be a process by which, we are manufactured, and subsequently pro- of class struggleshas a critical significance suggest,the common sense of the subaltern pagated among the subalterngroups, and for a Marxist political theory. groupsarebroughtinto an affinity with the how theseideas arereproduced by subalterns Now the question which remains to be principlesof the rulingbloc. It is necessary themselves.This may be called a hegemony answered is: how is 'the originalthought'of to explore in detailhow thisaffinity,as Marx theory in the Marxist tradition. the subalternsbroughtinto the fold of the suggests,is establishedin concretehistorical The l'ogicof inversion,on the otherhand, hegemonyprocess;i e, how is a "pedagogic gcases.When the ministers in loan melas

scheme is thaf this process of "original thought"of the subalterns is essentially conin character. tradictory In the normallife of a hegemonicsystem,thereare not merelyrationalisations of the hegemonyprocess,there are also different forms of dissent constructed by subaltern groupsthemselves. Finding a convergence with another anthropological study, Freeman [1979: 397] makes a similar point: On the basis of evidence from many stratified concludes societies,Berreman that no groupof peopleis contentto be low in a castehierarchy-to live a life of inherited deprivation andsubjection-regardless of the apparent stabilityof the systemand regardless of the rationalisations offeredby their superiors or constructed by themselves'. Thus, evenwhen "rationalisations" of the caste/class system are offered by the lower castes/classes, there are evidences to show the proliferationof discontent and resentment about their subordinationin a hierarchical society.This seems to be preciselythe character of the "original thought" of subalfern groups and the nature of contradictionsembedded in this thought.

laysstresson morestructural dimensions like the treatmentof consequencesas the cause, object as subject,and so on. A producerno longerknowswhat becomesof the product. The link betweenproductionand'consumption is 'lost sight of' in the market.The purpose for which he produces is constantly contradicted by the consequences. The workers areforcedto sell their 'labourpower' without knowing what they are doing. The workers are dissociated from any control over the labour-process without any knowledgeof it. The workersproducemore than whatthey receive withoutknowingthat they do so. These are a few crucial meanings of 'inversion' in the structural sense.The whole idea of 'losingsightof' one'ssubjectivity, one's own potentialities,the causality of one's own action, means only this: the workingclass is tied to the totalityof "structural antagonisms" in bourgeois society without any knowledgeof being so tied; it is consequently 'duped'by the possibilities in the bourgeoissystem.This logic of inversion is typical of what may be termedas a structuraltheory in Marxism.

PE-8

Economic and Politient. Wepidd T"'.>"'

-A

1 00

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

single out only the local state officials as and mainlyresponsiblefor 'fraud,.cheating the grabbing', they do seem to be reinforcing beliefs already existing in the peasants' world. In this sense, the official mobilisation of the masses for loan melas/village rallies where schemes are allotted may be seen as attempts of the provincial/national certain levels of the leadersin representing peasant'sview of "bad life" inflicted upon them by local bureaucrats.More elaborate studies of this sort of problemare needed.

sense is basicallya spontaneousphilosophy of the multitude, meaningful in its 'imThus a glorification mediate'surroundings. of spontaneous movements, ignoring the limits of their 'logic',not to speak of their spatial and temporallimits, is necessarilya glorification of common sense arnd,consequentlya glorification of 'immediacy'as opposed to a 'totality. Ideas'like spontaneous, uninterrupted militancy or the methods of annihilating the 'immediate' enemy without creatingideological awareness of a 'totality',do considerablyunderV mine the perspectiveof a totality which is for the creation an ideological prerequisite Now we returnto the second set of ques- of a revolutionarysituation. Such movetions raisedin the last'section. As Gramsci ments,however numerous and scattered they argues,one can ask a seriesof questionson may be, are consistent with Croce'sproject the relationshipbetweencertain schools of and seem to be rootedin a commonsensical thought of elite groups and the common radicalism of the working classes who sense perceptsof the subalternblocs. One possiblyin their everyday existencehavethe may ask, for example,what constitutesthe urge for 'annihilation' of the 'immediate relationhip betweenthe hegemonicsystems enemy',uninterrupted militancyand so on of thought on the ope hand and the and thus, now and then, tend to accept the percepts/structures for feeling of the revolutionaryprotagonistsof the Crocean subaltern groupson the other?Or,say,what frame. constitutes the relationship between the The advocates of 'organisation, on the counter-hegemony strategies of "profes- other hand, do seem to tilt somewhat on the one handand the ironicallyin Bukharin's sionalintellectuals" way.The votariesof of common sense of the popular 'organisation' stress the fact that for a structures element on the other? Here we can discuss socialist revolution to succeed, it must be these problems only in a limited sense. We guided by an 'organisation'of the working go backto the pointsraisedin SectionII and class,a vanguard of professional intellectuals use these as reference points to examine armed with the 'instruments'of Historical curtain parallel tendencies in Marxism Materialism. undertakes the The 'vanguard' noticeable in recent times. Here, as in task of 'educating'the workingclass which, Section II, Gramsci'scritiqueof Croceand presumably underthe perniciousinfluences Bukharinought to be borne in mind. of the ruling classes, has appropriatedthe In the Crocean scheme, as Gramsci decadentbourgeoisvalues.The primary task argues,philosophyconvergeswith common of 'organisation'in such cases is to enable sense. common sense is philosophy and the revolutionaryspirit to 'trickle down' philosophy is commonsensical. common among the workersby way of a critique of sense seems to be not merely the source of bourgeoisvalues (Ideas) or the exploitative philosophybut also its 'content'The forms, social relations (Structures)or both. however, may be at variance with one another. When the philosophy of an elite The immediateworking-classconsciousgroup of intellectualspatronises 'common ness in the hegemonyprocessis thusbelieved sense' as the sense of a society, it does not to be a bourgeois cozsciousness-an idea merely ignore the historical growth of an perhaps deduced from one of Marx's forbut also in a way servesa more mulations,"The ideas of the rulingclass are epistemology contemporarypolitical project of contain- in everyepoch the rulingideas".Or else,how the logic of appropriation ing "littlepeople"in their "littletraditions" does one interpret and therebychokes the possibility of pro- adoptedby the hegemonytheory?The point gress of their knowledge and traditions. to be noted, however,is that the working Croce'sphilosophy patronisesthe common class under bourgeois hegemony does not man's common sense and inserts in the seemto haveany 'subjectivity' exceptits own 'common'people a Fitchean Ego "I = 1". 'being'. Even in cases where workers But a life proud of itself, "6= I"in the im- autonomously appropriate the bourgeois mediatesense, is a stationarylife. It would values,they are treatedno betterthan "selfsoon lose sight of its limits and would not acting mules".The logic of appropriation, be able to create the possibilities of its fur- autonomousor not, means only one thing: ther growth. More precisely,it would miss that bourgeois ideologies predominatethe the significanceof being a 'Critique',i e, it working classes in normal times. The would not be able to understand its own vanguardorganisationand its intellectuals and limitationsand look for ways must consequently provide a critique of strengths bourgeois ideologies or the structural of overcomingthe limits. is inspiredby contradictions. Whena prose of insurgency it resultsin disasters the Crocean Bukharin's interpretation, if the properspective, forthe socialistrevolution. In the 'spontanei- tagonistsof 'organisation' suggestanything ty' vs 'organisation' debate, spontaneity at all, seems to be the dominant tendency within mostsortsof Marxism. seems to stand on Croce's side. common stillpersisting Economic and Political Weekly January 30, 1988

This is why it is significant today to recall Gramsci'streatment of the subject; As it comes from one of the leading spokesmen of the 'vanguard' traditionin Europeof the time,it is all the moresignificantto takeintoaccounthis critiqueof the tendenciesgrowing in the tradition. The protagonists of 'organisation' on the questionsof hegemony, 'subjectivity' 'revolutionary spirit'and so on seem to be employinga notion of 'totality' which is some kind of an undifferentiated whole and is completely oblivious of the concepts of 'levels', 'distinctions'. 'interconnections' established within a tbtality. The hegemonicsubjectivity is believedto be a single whole. In spite of multiple classes in bourgeoissociety, all the ideas of society ideas.The subarebelieved to be ruling-class jectivity of the whole society is one and the The subjective same:bourgeoissubjectivity. within the bourgeoiswhole are d'istinctions secondary or insignificant in character. What is crucial is its undifferentiated oneness. It is this sort of oneness which is presumed to haveensuredthe stabilityof the system.The questionof 'revolutionary spirit' is also treated the same way. The counterhegemonyprocess is not seen as a series of feelings o, percepts representedor transformedinto "stable'conceptsby the workers themselves.In this perspective,the revolutionary urgedoes not seem to be centralto the workers' "being". Whatis rather believed to be crucialis to treatthe workingclass as
a potential revolutionary force. Only via a

revolutionary organisation, a worker becomesan actualrevolutionary and realises his/her own 'being'. Hs 'being', due to its subjectionto a hegemonyprocess,does not on its own seem to determine his 'consciousness' until he is encountered by the 'vanguard'.His own consciousness in the hegemony process is only a 'reified' oine, fromthe dominantcusses The appropriated revolutionaryspirit must thus trickledown to the workers from the vanguard and its professionalintellectuals. Both the 'trickledown' hegemonytheory and the corresponding 'trickle down' areanalytically counter-hegemony strategies misplaced perspectives in the Marxist political tradition. For both considerably undermine the "original thought" of the subaltern groups, their own active will involved in hegemony as well as counterhegemony processes. For the sjubjectivity that dominates is not the subjectivityof a whole society consisting of severalclasses. There are different types of subjectivityin
consonance with the existence of different

classgroups.In a complexof class struggles, the othersbut one subjectivity predominates

does not pre-empt the others' existence. The

in consonance workers' originalsubjectivity

with their existence in hegemony processes

is not pre-empted by the fact of the subordination of workersto the ruling classes. In the process of continuous class struggles, what is probablycentralto the hegemonyof the bourgeoisie is how to produce and PE-9

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

reproduce the limits on the originalthought of the subalterngroups who constitute its basic opposites.9

VI
It is essential, a point which Gramsci reiterates, to examineon its own the original thoughtof the subaltern group-an elaboration independentof, but complementaryto a critique of the social structure and its dominant ideologies. So long as Marxism ignores this question, its relationshipwith its own 'agency',supposed to be a base of its philosophy, would remain an external one. From this angle, in the journey from Crocean radicalism to a Bukharin-type Marxism,c.-ieprobablyleaps only from the fetish of working-class commonsenseto the extreme oppositeof its objectification. In the latter case, Marxism is trapped within Enlightenment empiricismand its rationality. In the former version, it is paralysedby a criticaltheory tradition.Marxismis yet to attain the status of an autonomous philosopy with a capacity,as in the present case, to unravel the cognitive maps of its 'own' agencies. Gramsci'sconcept of commonsense, as stated above, offers a useful breakwith these traditionsin Marxismarid also supplies the elements for an adequate formulationof subalternpraxis tied within the hegemony process. It may, as Gramsci believes,offer a useful startingpoint to uncover a repository of percepts based on which an effective construction of Marxist theory and practice could be carried out. The journeyin the elaborationor in a critique of a hegemony process, as Gramsci [1971:425] suggests, ought to "start in the first place in commonsense, then secondly fromreligion,and only at a thirdstagemove on to .he philosophical systems elaborated by traditional intellectual groups". A systematicexaminationof this journey is a long task. The present paper is only about its starting point.
Notes

6 7 8 9

element and fatalism of the subalterns seen as an active process, see Gramsci [1971], p 337. See, Patnaik [1987]. Ibid. For an excellent treatment of hegemony as a pedagogy among-the different forces, see Mouffe [1979]. For now lower caste/class groups perceive certain attempts by the landlord/upper caste people as strategies in containing them in their original positions, cf Alam [1985], "Therehas been verylittle 'upliftment'of our community, except that some blatant forms of discrimation have gone. But the 'swarans' (upper caste people) think that we are getting too many benefits and forgetting our 'place'. So there is an opposite pressure by the powerfulpeople to hold us back and keep us in place". This is one of the expressions of a harijan agricultural labourer LAlam, 1985: 45].

Freedom:Essays ift Honour of Isaiah

Berlin, OUP, Oxford, 1979. Counihan, Carole, 'Antonio Gramsci and

SocialScience,Dialectical Anthropology,
vol 11, no 1, 1986. Engels, F, 'Preface to the English Edition, in Karl Marx,. Capital, vol 1, Progresses Publishers, Moscow, 1984. Freeman, James M, Untouchable: an Indian Life History, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1979. Gerrtz, Clifford, 'The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man', in his

The Interpretation of Cultures:Selected

Essays, Basic Books, New York, 1973. -, 'Common sense as a Cultural System', The Antioch Review, no 33, 1975. Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, International Publishers, New York, 1971. Institute for Study of Society and Culture 'GandhamardanShows the Way',Frontier, vol 19, no 34, April 11, 1987. Marx, K A1869), 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte'. in David Fernbach (ed

References
A Group of Scholars, BharatAluminium Company: Gandhamardan Hills and Peoples Agitation (mimeo), Burla (Orissa), 1986. Alam, Javeed, Domination and Dissent: Peasants and Politics, Mandira, Calcutta, 1985. Bailey, F G, 'Peasant Views of Bad Life, in The,odreShanin (ed), Peasants and Peasant Societies, Penguin Books, London, 1971. Bates, Thomas R, 'Gramsciand the Theory of Hegemony',Journalof the History of Ideas, vol 36, 1975. Cohen, G A, 'Capitalism, Freedom and the Proletariat'.in Alan Ryan (ed), The Idea of

and int), KarlMarr Surveyfrom Exile,

volume 2, Penguine Books, London, 1981. Mouffe, Chantal, 'Hegemony and Ideology in Gramsci' in the author (ed), Gramsci and Marxist Theory, RKP, London, 1979. Patnaik, A K, 'Power Structure and Rural Development Programme: A Study of the Digapahandi Block, Orissa' (unpublished M Phil dissertation), Centre for Political Studies, JNU, New Delhi, 1984. -, 'The Local State and Hegemony Strategies: A Study of the Politics of Rural Development Programmes in Digapahandi Block (Ganjam)' (unpublished paper), 1987.

APPOINTMENTS

rrheauthor is grateful to M S S Pandian, Asok

Sen and Partha Chatterjee for their valuable comments and suggestions on questions whose answers are not easily forthcoming. The paper was ega-lier presented at the Workshop on "AnLonioGrimsci and South Asia" held at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, July 1-2, 1987.] ; For the broad generalisations offered by Gramsci himself, see especially the section, hilosophy of Paraxis'in Prison Notebooks
.,1971].

Development Support Agency is looking for Executives for the following slots: 1. Executive to head Personnel & Administration Cell. Retired persons with sound knowledge of Personnel & Administration preferred. Computer knowledge will be an advantage. 2. Executive for Finance & Accounts Department. Must have sound knowledge of accounts, FCRAand Societies Act. Computer knowledge highly desirable. Apply in confidence with expected salary and joining time required within two weeks to Box No 112, Economic and Political Weekly, Hitkari House,' 284 Shahid Bhagatsingh Road, Bombay 400 038.

2 See, for example, works of Bailey [1971], Geertz [1973; 1975] and others. 3 See, 'Gandhamardan Shows the Way' in Frontier (1987); see also, a report of a Group of Scholars (1986). 4 The data presented here are from my field experiences and M Phil dissertation; see, Patnaik [1984; 1987]. 5 For a rigorous distinction between fatalism of professional intellectuals as a passive

PE-10

Economic

and Politicall Weell

Jniiutcal

This content downloaded from 171.66.223.3 on Tue, 28 May 2013 14:22:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions