Mahoney’s Advanced Comp Blog

Like the previous article, this one was pretty hard to get through. Most of what Gramsci had to say sort of flew right past me. However, I understood that each social group consists of intellectuals, which in turn gives the said group its meaning. Gramsci then went on to list the certain characteristics which make up an intellectual, one of which was organization, which explains why every group has and needs them. There are also different kinds of intellectuals, one being the organic intellectual, though I wasn’t really sure what all they do. There is a bit of history in this article, which I thought was very interesting, of how intellectuals have evolved over time, from feudal lords to ecclesiastics and so on. I did like how Gramsci mentioned that some of the intellectuals are of peasant origin, which goes to show that anyone, regardless of their class, race, etc, can be an intellectual. Clearly, not everyone is an intellectual, however in everything a person does, there is some amount of intellectual activity occuring, which I had never realized before reading the article.

This article was undoubtedly the most difficult for me to get through, as a lot of the statistics and numbers seemed to go right over my head. All I really picked up from those parts of the article was that they were supposed to support his argument concerning large scale media companies. With this being said, however, the discussion that we had in class about the article was the most interesting conversation that we had all semester thus far. I really enjoyed discussing the idea of an “expert”, and how it is a relatively socially constructed term.  The model that we used concerning left and right media coverage was a great visual, showing that the focus is not on whether the media is left or right oriented. The focus is on the bigger picture, and the concept that by looking at a conversation as black or white, or left or right, true discussion and debate is repressed. To bring “experts” from opposite sides of an issue and have them discuss the issue at hand does not highlight every area of debate. For the most part, however, the uneducated public does indeed believe that by viewing two opposite sides of a debate, they are hearing everything that could possibly be said about the issue.

I have been reading piece of Gramsci all weekend, trying to get a sense about what it is he is trying to say. After reading the article and going back over certain passages several times, I can still say I have no idea.

I took notes throughout my reading process and in the beginning when he describes the two types of intellectuals that are most important, I tried to dumb it down. The first type is that new groups form smaller groups with their own identities while still carrying the ideals of the larger group. The second are groups created by following groups that have existed for centuries.

The middle of the reading was where I was most profoundly confused. I really have no idea what was going on there, other than the fact that he consisentuly reiterates the importance of intellectuals at all levels.

The last 7 pages,  Gramsci compares intellectuals and the birth of intellectuals in countries throughout the world and compares them. This part of the article was most sound to me, and that which I found most interesting.

All I can say is I hope that tommorrow in class I can figure out what it is Gramsci is trying to say.