Antonio Gramsci article critique paper

Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) was born in Sardinia. He studied at the University of Turin, where he became active in the Italian Socialist Party. By 1924 he became a founder and leader of the Italian Communist Party. Gramsci’s literary, journalistic, and political activities eventually led to his arrest in 1926. He spent most of the balance of his life in prison, where he wrote his famous Prison Notebooks, from which the following selections are taken. Gramsci greatly broadened Marxist thinking on the role of intellectuals in the political process and the social hegemony, both of which would influence later social and cultural theory. Intellectuals and Hegemony* Antonio Gramsci (1929–1936) All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals.** When one distinguishes between intellectuals and non-intellectuals, one is referring in reality only to the immediate social function of the professional category of the intellectuals, that is, one has in mind the direction in which their specific professional activity is weighted, whether towards intellectual elaboration or towards muscular-nervous effort. This means that, although one can speak of intellectuals, one cannot speak of non-intellectuals, because non-intellectuals do not exist. But even the relationship between efforts of intellectual-cerebral elaboration and muscular-nervous effort is not always the same, so that there are varying degrees of specific intellectual activity. There is no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded: homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens. Each man, finally, outside his professional activity, carries on some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a “philosopher,” an artist, a man of taste, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is, to bring into being new modes of thought…. It is worth noting that the elaboration of intellectual strata in concrete reality does not take place on the terrain of abstract democracy but in accordance with very concrete traditional historical processes. Strata have grown up which traditionally “produce” intellectuals and these strata coincide with those which have specialised in “saving,” i.e. the petty and middle landed bourgeoisie and certain strata of the petty and middle urban bourgeoisie. The varying distribution of different types of school (classical and professional) over the “economic” territory and the varying aspirations of different categories within these strata determine, or give form to, the production of various branches of intellectual specialisation. Thus in Italy the rural bourgeoisie produces in particular state functionaries and professional people, whereas the urban bourgeoisie produces technicians for industry. Consequently it is largely northern Italy which produces technicians and the South which produces functionaries and professional men. The relationship between the intellectuals and the world of production is not as direct as it is with the fundamental social groups but is, in varying degrees, “mediated” by the whole fabric of society and by the complex of superstructures, of which the intellectuals are, precisely, the “functionaries.” It should be possible both to measure the “organic quality” [organicità] of the various intellectual strata and their degree of connection with a fundamental social group, and to establish a gradation of their functions and of the superstructures from the bottom to the top (from the structural base upwards). What we can do, for the moment, is to fix two major superstructural “levels”: the one that can be called “civil society,” that is the ensemble of organisms commonly called “private,” and that of “political society” or “the State.” These two levels correspond on the one hand to the function of “hegemony” which the dominant group exercises throughout society and on the other hand to that of “direct domination” or command exercised through the State and “juridical” government. The functions in question are precisely organisational and connective. The intellectuals are the dominant group’s “deputies” exercising the subaltern functions of social hegemony and political government…. The philosophy of praxis does not tend to leave the “simple” in their primitive philosophy of common sense, but rather to lead them to a higher conception of life. If it affirms the need for contact between intellectuals and the simple, it is not in order to restrict scientific activity and preserve unity at the low level of the masses, but precisely in order to construct an intellectual moral bloc which can make politically possible the intellectual progress of the mass and not only of small intellectual groups. The active man-in-the-mass has a practical activity, but has no clear theoretical consciousness of his practical activity, which nonetheless involves understanding the world in so far as it transforms it. His theoretical consciousness can indeed be historically in opposition to his activity. One might also say that he has two theoretical consciousnesses (or one contradictory consciousness): one which is implicit in his activity and which in reality unites him with all his fellow-workers in the practical transformation of the real world; and one, superficially explicit or verbal, which he has inherited from the past and uncritically absorbed. But this verbal conception is not without consequences. It holds together a specific social group, it influences moral conduct and the direction of will, with varying efficacity but often powerfully enough to produce a situation in which the contradictory state of consciousness does not permit of any action, any decision or any choice, and produces a condition of moral and political passivity. Critical understanding of self takes place therefore through a struggle of political “hegemonies” and of opposing directions, first in the ethical field and then in that of politics proper, in order to arrive at the working out at a higher level of one’s own conception of reality. Consciousness of being part of a particular hegemonic force (that is to say, political consciousness) is the first stage towards a further progressive self-consciousness in which theory and practice will finally be one. Thus the unity of theory and practice is not just a matter of mechanical fact, but a part of the historical process, whose elementary and primitive phase is to be found in the sense of being “different” and “apart,” in an instinctive feeling of independence, and which progresses to the level of real possession of a single and coherent conception of the world. This is why it must be stressed that the political development of the concept of hegemony represents a great philosophical advance as well as a politico-practical one. For it necessarily supposes an intellectual unity and an ethic in conformity with a conception of reality that has gone beyond common sense and has become, if only within narrow limits, a critical conception. However, in the most recent developments of the philosophy of praxis the exploration and refinement of the concept of the unity of theory and practice is still only at an early stage. There still remain residues of mechanicism, since people speak about theory as a “complement” or an “accessory” of practice, or as the handmaid of practice. It would seem right for this question too to be considered historically, as an aspect of the political question of the intellectuals. Critical self-consciousness means, historically and politically, the creation of an élite of intellectuals. A human mass does not “distinguish” itself, does not become independent in its own right without, in the widest sense, organising itself; and there is no organisation without intellectuals, that is without organisers and leaders, in other words, without the theoretical aspect of the theory-practice nexus being distinguished concretely by the existence of a group of people “specialised” in conceptual and philosophical elaboration of ideas. But the process of creating intellectuals is long, difficult, full of contradictions, advances and retreats, dispersals and regroupings, in which the loyalty of the masses is often sorely tried.

Lemert, Charles. Social Theory (pp. 209-210). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Type of service: Academic paper writing

Type of assignment: Writing from scratch

Subject: article critique

Pages / words: 4 / 1100

Number of sources: 2

Academic level: Undergraduate

Paper format: MLA

Line spacing: Double

Language style: US English

Get DISCOUNT BUY ESSAY

Topic: Teen Pregnancy article critique assignment

For this assessment task you will combine all you learned throughout this course into a well developed design for a group. This means you need to construct fully a group proposal for a topic and population of your choice. This will include how you would go about organizing the group, group format, and group outcomes. You will also develop a separate informed consent document for this group. Please review the rubric to learn how this assessment will be evaluated.

Type of service: Academic paper writing

Type of assignment: Writing from scratch

Subject: english

Pages / words: 4 / 1100

Number of sources: 2

Academic level: Undergraduate

Paper format: MLA

Line spacing: Double

Language style: US English

Get DISCOUNT BUY ESSAY

Industrial designer Belle Kogan essay

write an essay about industrial designer Belle Kogan.
paper should explores the work of designer
and issues in design that are intrinsic to the designer.

supply the necessary biographical information as a context for the designer’s career.
should be added 3 library sources and cited properly

Topic: Media Plan Philadelphia Ballet

Description

Budget/Recommendation
Prospect Audience
Basic Designation:
Media Strategies
Seasonality:
Scheduling:
Competition:
Geography:
Media Section and Rationale:Media Section and Rationale:
Proposed Testing:

Each a paragraph or two.

Needs to be scholarly articles / journals.

Philadelphia Ballet
Media Plan

Topic: Authentic Leadership essay

Description

Read the article, “Doing Good Requires Authentic Leadership (https://www.forbes.com/sites/prernasinha/2013/12/20/43/#72b3a9fe7cf8).”
Based on the content presented in the article,

– Why is it important for a leader to be consistently authentic with his or her stakeholders?
– How can an authentic leader’s sense of purpose, values and relationships connect with and improve his or her community?
– How does a leader’s authenticity and integrity relate to servant leadership?
– Support your claims with examples from required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.

Article Critique paper

Investigate professional journals and locate two articles pertaining to organizational behavior that are of interest to you. You are to critique each of the two articles according to the instructions below. The articles should be less than three years old. You are encouraged to use the ProQuest Database found in the Ashford Online Library.

Each one- to two- page critique (a total of two to four pages for both critiques) must include the following three parts and must be formatted according to APA style as outlined in the approved APA style guide (including title page, in text citations and reference list). Include both article reviews into one document for submission to WayPoint (do not submit two documents).

Identification of the Article – Provide the reader with enough information about your article so he/she will be able to locate the article.

Summary of the Article – List the main points that the author has tried to establish (i.e., 1, 2, 3 or first, second, third). There normally will be three to five main points. If you are summarizing a court case, you should discuss: What provision of the law was at issue? Briefly state the facts of the case. What legal tests were applied? Were there any unusual elements in the case?

Your Critique – Provide your reaction (insightful, critical, and logical) to the points that the author tried to make, or an overall critique of the entire article. A simple statement of agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. While you may make such a statement by way of introduction to your reaction, you must clearly and logically state the reasons for the position that you have taken.