As segue from Dave's post on economics, I wanted to also draw a parallel from contemporary economics to Gramsci, to one of the few parts of this first part of the text around which I can easily wrap my head (so I'm excited for class discussion, which will hopefully elucidate my reading), and that is as follows:- In economics, one cannot really know we are in a recession until it has passed (highlighted in McCain's response to the 60 Minutes question, "Do you think we're in a recession?" - "Sure. Technically, I don't know.");
- In Gramsci, "A structural phase can be concretely studied and analysed only after it has gone through its whole process of development, and not during the process itself, except hypothetically and with the explicit proviso that one is dealing with hypotheses" (191).
Now, Sheila mentioned this in class yesterday, but it had definitely caught my eye even when I first read it. What are we supposed to do with that? It seems to me the sort of statement that I love but also despise for its inutility, a statement like "We can never really know anything." In my personal understanding of experience, and I'm sure Gramsci would hate to hear it, I think we can only ever study hypothetically. If I understand correctly (and this may be a hazy, or at least dense, part for me), Gramsci is looking for hard evidence (200) in what is always contextual and thus mutable. As more recent criticism has suggested, no historic fact is a permanent fact. If that is true, is history any better than hypothesis?
Also, does anyone else see a potential problem with "structure" instead of "base"? Maybe it's the English . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment