specialized category of (Gramsci, 1971: 7), such as political and social intellectuals’ parties’ and writers. movements’ internal theorists argument that each social group can produce its own intellectuals allows him to Gramsci’s posit a fundamental distinction between traditional and organic intellectuals. He argues that traditional intellectuals are those that autonomous and independent of present themselves ‘as the dominant social (1971: 7) but effectively function as an intellectual for the dominant group’ social group (Mackinnon, 2009), as with the example of public Anthony Giddens’ interventions in support of the and the New Labour ideological project (Burawoy, Third Way 2005; Callinicos, 1999). Conversely, organic intellectuals are rooted in, and bound to, a specific social group. This is created through an interrelationship between the perceived effectiveness of the ideas, in giving voice to the agents, and their active affiliation intellectual’s to the social group (see Connolly, 2010; Darlington, 2009). Significantly for Gramsci, the relationship is deepened through the direct involvement in visible intellectual’s struggle on the side of agents against the ruling ideological such as common sense, during protest campaigns and industrial action. This in turn nurtures the emergence of other organic intellectuals from within and encourages traditional intellectuals, such as sympathetic academic scholars, to also seek organic relationships with the subaltern group. The organic intellectual relates to subaltern groups not as an autonomous tribune but as the intellectual manifestation of their collective voice in counter-hegemonic struggle. Thus, the organic role can be that of strategist, leader, spokesperson and educator, working intellectual’s side-by-side with and within the subaltern group (MacKinnon, 2009). It is a relationship where organically forged ideas and political struggle are up in a constant dialogue in which ‘caught intellectual practice, rather than belonging to the exclusive domain of cultural production, is,
specialized category of intellectuals’ (Gramsci, 1971: 7), such as political parties’ and social movements’ internal theorists and writers. Gramsci’s argument that each social group can produce its own intellectuals allows him to posit a fundamental distinction between traditional and organic intellectuals. He argues that traditional intellectuals are those that present themselves ‘as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group’ (1971: 7) but effectively function as an intellectual for the dominant social group (Mackinnon, 2009), as with the example of Anthony Giddens’ public interventions in support of the Third Way and the New Labour ideological project (Burawoy, 2005; Callinicos, 1999). Conversely, organic intellectuals are rooted in, and bound to, a specific social group. This is created through an interrelationship between the perceived effectiveness of the intellectual’s ideas, in giving voice to the agents, and their active affiliation to the social group (see Connolly, 2010; Darlington, 2009). Significantly for Gramsci, the relationship is deepened through the intellectual’s direct involvement in visible struggle on the side of agents against the ruling ideological common sense, such as during protest campaigns and industrial action. This in turn nurtures the emergence of other organic intellectuals from within and encourages traditional intellectuals, such as sympathetic academic scholars, to also seek organic relationships with the subaltern group. The organic intellectual relates to subaltern groups not as an autonomous tribune but as the intellectual manifestation of their collective voice in counter-hegemonic struggle. Thus, the organic intellectual’s role can be that of strategist, leader, spokesperson and educator, working side-by-side with and within the subaltern group (MacKinnon, 2009). It is a relationship where organically forged ideas and political struggle are ‘caught up in a constant dialogue in which intellectual practice, rather than belonging to the exclusive domain of cultural production, is,
WES%20Partisanship%20%28final%29%202012.docx