Posted: October 11th, 2022

Antonio Gramsci

Antonio Gramsci develops the concept of an ‘integral state.’ Why?
Social and Political Sciences
Topic:
Antonio Gramsci develops the concept of an ‘integral state’. Why?
Introduction
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist who wrote his Prison Notebooks from 1926 to 1937 while imprisoned by Mussolini (Cleffie, n.d.). Numerous scholars have produced countless analyses on his work, making it one of the most infamous texts analyzed in the Marxist tradition. One of his works was the integral state theory, which brought civil society into the dialectical totality that puts it into the dialectical relationship with the capital state. According to Gramsci, the integral state is the political society combined with the civil society, which is also referred to as hegemony under the protection of the coercion armor (Davis, 2010, 16). The political society denotes the coercive power of the state. In contrast, civil society refers to the terrain on which social classes compete for social and political leadership or the hegemony over the social classes (Davis, 2010, 16).
This research paper seeks to understand the concept of an ‘integral state developed by Antonio Gramsci and precisely why it was developed. Notably, this research will look into Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin on the civil and political society before discussing the concept of the integral state by Antonio Gramsci.
The Viewpoints of Marx, Engels, and Lenin on the Relationship Between the Civil Society and the State
Marxism is the society-based theory that views people within a specific society as being unequal. Marx states that the inequalities within civil societies shape the state’s essentials. The propeller to social change is industrial capitalism’s development and the state’s behavior (Barrow, 2020, 4). An individual’s life and political actions are determined by the relationship one will have with the capitalist mode of production, “bourgeoisie,” such that it shows one to be a class member rather than a citizen of the state. Marx argues that capitalism is an evil practice that is very exploitative hence the extensive margin of inequality. In these societies, some members gain to the detriment of others (Barrow, 2020, 4). Therefore, Marx argued that a state is principally a tool for establishing and maintaining the rich and poor individuals’ supremacy. Civil society will use the state as an instrument at the expense of the economically weak class (Barrow, 2020, 4). A change will only happen when equality is introduced, and the class system is eliminated since it will mean that the state is not needed.
Engels did agree with the viewpoint taken by Marx on the state and civil society. He asserted the fact that the goal of communism is having a classless society that has the state “withered away” (Lumen, n.d.). The two, Marx and Engels, did not give the state a definition with any form of ethical nature. Instead, it was considered the concentrated and organized societal force characterized by particular production forms and attendant social relations. Therefore, the abstraction-state is fundamentally conceptualized by the dominant class, “bourgeoisie.” The state is not a supersession of civil society, and it does not transform the latter into another thing. The state will incorporate civil society as it is. The relationship between the civil and political societies determines the state relationship, specifically the conditions and regulations governing it. Considering that the state is a transitory phenomenon, it needs to abolish itself after abolishing the pre-state natural society.
Lenin argued that the state is an organ of class rule or rather the organ used to oppress one class by another. This was a similar viewpoint to that taken by Marx and Engels. In his work, the State and Revolution, Lenin stated that the state would never have come up nor maintained itself if a reconciliation of classes had occurred. Therefore, opposing the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois politicians that have equivalently related social cohesion in class reconciliation. Lenin emphasized that “order” will encompass oppressing in a class by another and a systematic denial of all mechanisms of the struggle to the oppressed persons (Jessop, n.d., 16). Lenin further stated that since it is the repressive tool of the bourgeoisie, it cannot be utilized in advancing the cause of socialist transformation (Hay, 1999, 162). Furthermore, as a coercive institution, it needs to be confronted with force. To this effect, to liberate the oppressed class will not be possible by the violent revolution and the destruction of the apparatus of state power.
The Concept of the Integral State by Antonio Gramsci
Gramsci’s focus was mainly on the particularities in the formation of a state. In his work, he emphasized the class struggle that happened within the process of constituting the Italian state during the period when the international system of states was emerging (Bohm, 2018, 29). Throughout the analysis of unequal development. Gramsci pointed out the effect of the international sphere in state formation. Specifically, the Italian state’s emergence was different from state formation across Europe (Bohm, 2018, 29). Gramsci contrasted that development to the one in France where the protective shell of monarchy allowed a struggle within and between feudal classes while in Italy, the interstate if the mercantile capital could not go beyond the narrow-minded corporatism nor the creation of an individual integral state civilization (Bohm, 2018, 29). In Italy, the state formation was characterized by transformism, which formed a more extensive ruling class. Within the framework set up by the Moderates after 1848 and the downfall of both the neo-Guelph and federalist utopia.
While Gramsci did demonstrate great concern with the state, it is prudent to note he did not create a complete conception of the state. Instead, he availed numerous ideas and questions. Gramsci formulated an alternative conception of the state with an identity with the struggle over hegemony in civil society (Bohm, 2018, 29). This alternative defined the state as a balance between political and civil society. The state us a full complexity of both practical and theoretical activities where the ruling class will justify and maintain their dominance while winning the active consent of those under them. Gramsci developed the “integral state by incorporating political and civil aspects,” which was an extended notion. The integral state would refer to a combination of dictatorship and hegemony that greatly depended on civil society’s notion (Bohm, 2018, 29).
The current view by Gramsci was a distinct twist in civil society compared to that provided by Marx. He reversed Marx’s base or the superstructure model by placing the civil society within the superstructure and not in the base (Murphy, 2001, 5). Both Marx and Gramsci considered civil society as a fundamental point of revolutionary action. However, they had distinct interpretations on what constituted the civil society causing different implications on practice. Marx believed that the point of production-where the struggles between capital and labor- that the revolutionary action would primarily be executed, for Gramsci, the system if corporations provided the base of initiating the counter-hegemonic revolutionary force. Gramsci stated that civil society’s superstructures make up the trench systems of contemporary warfare (Murphy, 2001, 5). Therefore, the process of a revolutionary struggle will develop by mobilizing the grassroots and the following organizations. Gramsci believed that civil society is intimately connected to capitalism, and overthrowing the latter, will entail transforming it. In this case, civil society will need to widen to the point that it “swallows” the state. This would have overthrown capitalism.
Reasons why Antonio Gramsci Developed the Integral State
The main reason Gramsci developed the integral state is to emphasize the notion that the power of the capitalist class was not so much in the oppressive tool of the state being used by the bourgeoisie in terms of its ruthlessness and efficiency; but on its capacity to be influential and shaping the perceptions of the oppressed classes (Hay, 1999, 163). The latter was convinced that the system was either legitimate or on how it was futile to resist.
Gramsci does consider the assumptions on the origins of class and the functions of class struggle and consciousness in social change. He also considered Marx’s notion of hegemony and stated that it is essential that the ruling class’s ideological manipulation over the working class is considered. His view on hegemony is like a communicative power with an ideological justification for the inequities arising from capitalism. He stated that hegemony operated via institutions such as the church and the media. Therefore, hegemony and material class struggles are fundamental in overthrowing capitalism. Intellectuals gave a significant role in shaping the alternate egalitarian hegemonic project to replace capitalism’s dominant ideology while emphasizing how many are being exploited by a few.
His viewpoint led him to an even greater observation that became very famous. He notes that the state was everything in the Eastern Region, and civil society was primordial and gelatinous. On the other hand, the West had a proper relation between the state and civil society. Here, whenever the state trembled, there was a reveal of the sturdy structure of civil society. The effects of this socialist strategy were very significant, which Gramsci pointed out. In the east, which is primarily Russia, the war if maneuver or rather the frontal assault in the state was very proper while it would fail in the West. In areas like his own, the bourgeoisie was vital not only due to the coercive resources they owned but also to legitimize their domination within civil society, hence securing a passive acquiescence. Therefore, before the oppressed class challenging the state, it needs to challenge its war of position, which is primarily a battle of hearts and minds in civil society. Consciousness is individually a source of power for the proletariat to lay siege in the state and the means of production. The proletarian lacking consciousness is fundamentally the reason why the oppressors remain in their dominating position.
Additionally, Gramsci pointed out that coercion does play a fundamental role in the state’s educative and formative function (Jacomini, 2020). The state’s objective is to create new and greater types of civilization and adapt it and morality to the wiser population in consideration of the needs for continuous development of the economic production tools. For Gramsci, it is prudent to note that the state should not just be seen as a simple coercion tool but an ethical function (Tok, 2003, 247). Gramsci states that the state uses the tool for conforming the civil society to the economic structure. This differentiated the three elements, state economic structure and civil society. They all have reciprocal relations, with civil society being the mediator between the state and the economic structure. Civil society requires a radical transformation in a concrete manner and not just by following the statute or scientific books (Tok, 2003, 247). The conformance of civil society to the new structure will identify the two elements of the state: consent and coercion. Furthermore, societal transformation to socialism will entail the destruction of traditional economicus through an inevitable force. Marx and Engels also acknowledged this on the role of force within the required transformation (Tok, 2003, 247).
Conclusion
While looking at Gramsci’s development of the integral state, one acknowledges that both the state and the civil society play a fundamental role in the existing capitalism. Unlike the views taken by Marx, Engels, and Lenin, civil society takes is also an area of hegemonic action for believing in the legitimacy of capitalism. The integral state refers to the dialectical unity of the civil and political societies hence providing a better understanding of the modern capitalist societies and developing strategies for the socialist revolution.

References
Barrow, A., 2020. Relationship between State and Civil Society: Theoretical Review. Indonesian Journal of Sociology, Education, and Development, 2(1), pp. 1-9.
Böhm, F., 2018. Hegemony Revisited: A Conceptual Analysis of the Gramscian Concept of Hegemony in International Relations Theory.
Cleffie, J., n.d. Rescuing Gramsci from his misinterpretations. International Socialist Review (ISR), (93).).
Davies, J., 2010, December. Neoliberalism, governance, and the integral state. In Critical Governance Conference, University of Warwick, December (pp. 1-32
Hay, C., 1999. Marxism and the State. In Marxism and social science (pp. 152-174). Palgrave, London.
Jacomini, M.A., 2020. The Gramscian concept of Integral State in educational policy researches1. Educ. Pesquisa, 46, p.e214645.
Jessop, B., n.d. Marx and Engels on the State. Politics, Ideology and the State, pp. 1-28.
Lumen, n.d. Government and the State | Boundless Sociology. [online] Courses.lumenlearning.com. Available at: [Accessed 5 April 2021].
Murphy, M., 2001. The Political Economy of Civil Society: Implications for Adult and Community Education.
Tok, N., 2003. An Essay on Gramsci’s Concept of Civil Society. İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 17(3-4), pp.239-254.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Social and Political Sciences