This particular post was inspired by a question posed to me by my dear friend Maria. She asked me to clarify what is meant by the term ‘organic intellectual’. This was in particular to unpack the way it was used by the famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Maria’s primary question dealt with who could be considered an authentic organic intellectual. Did the person have to originate in the working class? or was it rather was it a manner of involving yourself in an act of solidarity with the working class (or the poor, the people etc.) that made you an organic intellectual? Did it also have to do with maintaining a close connection with the class and/or doing one’s analysis using their perspective as the base line for one’s analysis. Meaning did being an organic intellectual require that you use the hermeneutical lens of the working-class perspective to analyze all areas of social reality?
Before beginning a response to these questions, I would like to say that I am not very familiar with the work of Gramsci. I have read his Prison Notebooks, I have also read many of his supporters. I had just read a wonderful book called Using Gramsci: A New Approach by Michele Fillipini. I have also been blessed to read many others who use Gramsci’s work (including my esteemed friend Orlando Espin), I have also read some of the work done by Otto Maduro on Gramsci. As I was contemplating these issues, I found myself constantly returning to the questions or categories of marginalization vs exploitation. I have written a bit on this issue of marginalization/exploitation before, but I find that it is becoming very important to continue to highlight its relevance in the new context. I think that the distinctions between these two social relations offer us meaningful way for us to disentangle our understanding of what exactly is an organic intellectual. Particularly within the framework of a Marxist thinker like Gramsci.
It is important to begin with some of the basic features of Marxist theorie(s). These features can be seen as touchstones found in many of the traditional Marxist traditions. I want to list briefly some of these features: For Marxist
- Capital is understood to be the ‘extraction’ of labor on the part of the owners in relation to the worker. In simple terms it means that all workers are ultimately ‘exploted’ labor in a Capitalist framerwork. Workers are never paid the identical amount that the worker produced in any given ‘day’. This is true wether one is a multimillionaire basketball player or a ‘piece-meal’ worker at a sweatshop.
- The logic of Capital is that its primary (and overriding) motive in all issues of production will be the maximization of profit or the accumulation of wealth. This means that no matter what other motives are involved in production (Supply/Demand, status, human need etc.) the paramount force in all decisions on production will be profit (or accumulation of wealth).
- The logic of Capital is transpersonal (or anapersonal) in terms of human agency. This is sometimes inadvertently expressed when a wealthy person, who is caught doing something that hints at immorality will say something like ‘If I didn’t do this, someone else would’. In one sense he is being 100% accurate. The logic of the system requires this function to occur. It will be done by someone. This is one of the way to understand Marxism as a critique of the System of Capital. It is not an attack on anyone (or two) Capitalist.
- The nature of Class is always understood within a relational and dynamic reality. To speak of Class as a static entity is to completely misapprehend both the dynamic nature of Dialectical thinking and ongoing motion of all Dialectical movement. Class structure is not a static reality that is frozen in time. There are always trends, historical blocs (using a Gramscian category), alliances etc. that are part of authentic historical developement.
The reason this is so important to comprehend at the beginning of this question is to understand that within Capital(ism) there is already a center and periphery structure. This structure will be dynamic, ever evolving, chameleon like etc. This formation is not identical with the foundational feature of Capital exploitation. For me to be Anti-Capitalist is to be Anti-Exploitation. However, within any system, no matter, its level of exploitation or justice there will be some element of center and periphery. Now let us return to the place of the intellectual within any system in general and the organic intellectual in the specific place in Capitalism.
My understanding of Antonio Gramsci is that he was a Marxist. He was always a Marxist. He understood the foundational characteristic of Capitalism mentioned above. He also understood that this exploitation occurred at mutliple levels and required multi-layers of structures and institutional support. In a sense he understood that Capitialism to continue its inexorable movement towards exploitation (extraction of labor, accumulation of wealth as primary and exclusive goal of production etc.) it needed to recruit subjects at every level of social reality. This included the intellectual. All intellectuals are given certain ‘tools’ not given to others. But this is true for all workers. One can speak of organic (and inorganic auto-workers, pipefitters etc.). So what is the distinction that makes difference. My way of viewing this conundrum is to understand that we have conflated marginalization with being anti-exploitation. Let me now speak more specifically to how I view this playing out in the academy but also within broader social reality.
My experience is that Capitalism has been ‘forced’ to broaden its recruitment pool. Historically the ruling class has been White, property-owning males. This, simply put, was the make-up of the Capitalist Class at its inception. However, one of the wonderful (??) features of Capitalism is its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. At some point it needed to let member of communities that were previously marginalized (People of Color, Women etc.) into the framework of Capitalism. This did not actually change the ongoing marginalization of the communities (sexism is still very, very real, as are racialized hierarchies) What it was able to do was allow for certain members of said members of the communities to enter into the workings of the system to various degrees. It did this without in any way challenging the hegemonic elements of Capitalism. What this means is that some people might still be ‘marginalized’ within the context of larger forces but may be a reproducer and supporter of patterns of exploitation.
When we speak of what identifies an organic intellectual in the Gramscian sense we need to be clear that for him the primary (not exclusive!!) issue was to be against Capitalism. In this way he didn’t speak of the need to be marginalized or not. Gramsci was a trained journalist. He was deeply equipped, as is evidenced in his writing, with a depth and breadth of knowledge that might be the envy of many ‘intellectuals’ today! Did he ‘shy away from getting intellectual tools (weapons) to fight the enemy? I think not!
I hope and pray that I will always be marginalized from the social forces, institutions, communities etc. that are pro-exploitation in general and pro-Capitalist in particular. However, I don’t seek marginalization, nor do I hold it as a particular ‘badge’ or even an essentialized identity. I was born poor (cotton fields of Texas) but that doesn’t make me an organic (or inorganic) intellectual. What confers that degree of authenticity is my commitment to ending exploitation. I know of many people who are part of marginalized communities who have a deep loyalty to maintaining the status quo and explicitly a system that continues to exploit millions and millions of people. I remember hearing the term “sell-out” Or vendido, tio taco, uncle tom, etc. I have always wondered what that meant. I have come to realize that it indicates someone who is still a member of a marginalized group but seeks to reproduce the exploitative relations that have always hurt certain communities.
I want to end, in part, with talking about the ‘intellectual’, rather than the organic, part of organic intellectual. I think it is safe to say that certain levels of education do give us a certain degree of privilege, particularly in certain situations and institutions. This is certainly true for some of us with advance degrees. Although some of us are finally awakening to the reality of Capital logic (adjunct professors with advance degrees sleeping in cars!) we must not be seduced into the illusion that becoming in any way part of ‘the center’ in Capitalism allows you to change the foundational structure of Capitalism. It is very clear to me when you see the multi-millionaire baseball players being ‘locked-out’ of playing baseball in the same way that striking auto workers can be ‘locked-out’ of their places of employment. These auto workers are geniuses in ways that I will never be, they are in a very real sense ‘intellectuals‘ in their fields. One large difference is that they have much less of an illusion of their place in the hierarchy of Capital. What is still frustrating at time is to convince auto-workers that the multi-millionaire athlete is also part of the working class. I am under no illusion that their lifestyle is similar but lifestyle comparisons is one of the ways that Capital has been able to ‘divide and conquer’ us…not merely through race, gender etc.
For me an organic intellectual is anyone who uses his or her capacities to end the profound and inhumane exploitation that this system produces, perpetuates, etc. This will at times put you in the periphery and at other times may have you be among the center (“In the world but not of it”). However, for me what is important is to remember that Gramsci understood the logic of Capitalism and saw his work as an intellectual to ultimately overthrow this inhumane system. For me as a person of Faith this also requires that I never lose site of the deep humanity found within everyone, including in particular way the individual Capitalist. It also requires a deep commitment on my part to speak critically about the sickening level of destruction being caused by this system in relation to our environment and ecology. It also requires that I never seek to ‘get to the center’ to try to change the system, knowing that the very desire to ‘get to the center’ indicates that the system has already gained victory over me! I have already become inorganic (dead)…
Prophetic Ruminations 