those intellectuals who represent the interest of 'rising classes' under capitalism, i.e. either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. When representing the oppressed, such intellectuals directly hail from slaves, from feudal peasants, waged workers, etc., and they develop their own worldview primarily in course of their organizational work in the revolutionary movement (7). Traditional intellectuals, on the contrary, form an intrinsic part of the old class structure of society; their interests are tied up with the interests of the aristocracy and landlords, i.e. those classes which have a vested interest in opposing societal change. While it is often presumed, by superficial 'post-modernist' readers of Gramsci's, that the distinction between traditional and organic intellectuals is the main line of distinction he draws between sections of intellectuals, this is far from true. Another key-line of demarcation which he draws is that between urban and rural intellectuals, and this distinction is equally important for a re-analysis of (East) Bengal's socio-political history. Like the former distinction, this distinction brings out the fact that there are a large number of intellectuals - such as school teachers, rural doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc. - who in view of their profession form a part of society's intellectual community, but whose labour is not recognized as intellectual labour by the dominant section of (urban based, comprador) intellectuals. Rural intellectuals, according to Gramsci, are closest to the peasantry, and they often mediate between the peasantry and the institutions of the state. While rural intellectuals include a traditional segment (for instance, religious preachers) and a segment (e.g., teachers in secular schools), both categories lack social recognition for the intellectual work which they contribute to society. Gramsci's above-summarized categorisation of professional intellectuals was rudimentary, and it can be refined on the basis of further social investigations. Nevertheless, it represents a departure, an innovation, in the history of Marxism, for these categorisations were not put forward by any other Marxist philosopher. Moreover, Gramsci as no other Marxist theoretician argued that political work is the task of intellectuals: whether they be recognized or non-recognized, it is society's intellectuals who engage in the work of opinion-building on behalf of the various social classes aspiring to achieve or preserve hegemony. Hence,
those intellectuals who represent the interest of 'rising classes' under capitalism, i.e. either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. When representing the oppressed, such intellectuals directly hail from slaves, from feudal peasants, waged workers, etc., and they develop their own worldview primarily in course of their organizational work in the revolutionary movement (7). Traditional intellectuals, on the contrary, form an intrinsic part of the old class structure of society; their interests are tied up with the interests of the aristocracy and landlords, i.e. those classes which have a vested interest in opposing societal change. While it is often presumed, by superficial 'post-modernist' readers of Gramsci's, that the distinction between traditional and organic intellectuals is the main line of distinction he draws between sections of intellectuals, this is far from true. Another key-line of demarcation which he draws is that between urban and rural intellectuals, and this distinction is equally important for a re-analysis of (East) Bengal's socio-political history. Like the former distinction, this distinction brings out the fact that there are a large number of intellectuals - such as school teachers, rural doctors, journalists, lawyers, etc. - who in view of their profession form a part of society's intellectual community, but whose labour is not recognized as intellectual labour by the dominant section of (urban based, comprador) intellectuals. Rural intellectuals, according to Gramsci, are closest to the peasantry, and they often mediate between the peasantry and the institutions of the state. While rural intellectuals include a traditional segment (for instance, religious preachers) and a segment (e.g., teachers in secular schools), both categories lack social recognition for the intellectual work which they contribute to society. Gramsci's above-summarized categorisation of professional intellectuals was rudimentary, and it can be refined on the basis of further social investigations. Nevertheless, it represents a departure, an innovation, in the history of Marxism, for these categorisations were not put forward by any other Marxist philosopher. Moreover, Gramsci as no other Marxist theoretician argued that political work is the task of intellectuals: whether they be recognized or non-recognized, it is society's intellectuals who engage in the work of opinion-building on behalf of the various social classes aspiring to achieve or preserve hegemony. Hence,
ND59.docx