The reception of Gramscian concepts in our country goes back to the beginning of the 1960s. Unfortunately, due to controversies excited over the political strategies of the left- wing forces at that time, his concepts could not but be received superficially and for their immediate political interest. Nevertheless, we can call the 1960s and 1970s the dawn of Gramsci study in Japan because an important cornerstone for subsequent study was placed during this period. We particularly owe much to the study and translations of Gramsci's writings by Kiyotomo Ishido and other senior scholars.
The publication in Italy, in 1975, of Valentino Gerratana's critical edition of the Quaderni del carcere also gave new momentum to the study of the Italian thinker in our country. In the early 1980s a project got under way to prepare and publish a critical edition of the "Prison Notebooks" for Japanese readers. Unfortunately, however, the project was suspended after the appearance of the first volume (which comprised only Notebooks 1 and 2). This fact in itself demonstrated that Gramsci study in Japan as a whole had not yet reached an advanced stage of development.
Following collaborative work and scholarly efforts by individual scholars and researchers, an international symposium commemorating the 50th anniversary of Gramsci's death was held in Tokyo in 1987 with the participation of Aldo Natoli from Italy. The proceedings were published in a book entitled "Gramsci and our times". Not long after the symposium came the great historical upheavals that brought about, among other things, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. These changes created a new political and economic as well as cultural and ideological situation in advanced capitalist countries, including Japan; it forced us to search for and construct a new paradigm. In this context, Gramscian thought, particularly his concept of hegemony, was re-examined anew from a variety of angles.
"The crisis," Gramsci wrote, "consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born: in this interregnum, morbid phenomena of the most varied kind come to pass"(Q3§34, p.32-33). In our country, as a result of the failure of the so-called bubble economy, critical symptoms were produced and deepened in the political, economic, social and cultural fields of national life. [END PAGE 7]
Meanwhile, Professor Eisuke Takemura and Professor Seiji Honkawa suddenly died one after another. We wanted to memorialize their efforts and their achievements of interpretation and clarification of Gramscian concepts in conformity with the critical edition of the "Prison Notebooks."
In mid-November of 1997 an international symposium commemorating the 60th anniversary of the death of Gramsci, co-sponsored by the Italian Embassy in Japan, was held at the Italian Institute of Culture in Tokyo. This became a true international forum summarizing the results of the past ten years of Gramsci study and research in different countries. At the opening session of the symposium Mr Kiyotomo Ishido delivered a talk on " The Concept of Hegemony and the Road to Social Transformation." Professor Hiroshi Matsuda (Japan), Professor Giuseppe Vacca (Fondazione Istituto Gramsci of Italy), Professor Joseph A. Buttigieg (IGS-USA), and Professor Kang Ok Cho (ROK) also talked on the state of Gramsci studies in their respective countries. The symposium also offered a forum for open discussions in two subcommittee meetings. The proceedings, supplemented by papers from Russia, Spain and Germany, were published in late 1999, in a volume on" How Is Gramsci Read in the World?"
In Japan there are now two Gramscian organizations: the Kyoto Gramsci Society (KGS) and the Tokyo Gramsci Society (TGS), whose members include scholars and researchers from Kyoto, the ancient Capital, and from Tokyo. For over ten years the former has been engaged in organizing a series of workshops and in regularly publishing the KGS Newsletters. During these years KGS has twice featured articles on the study of the critical edition of the "Prison Notebooks" in the quarterly magazine "Study of Materialism". The second special issue contained the following articles: "Studying the Critical edition of the Prison Notebooks: Significance and Problems" by Hiroshi Matsuda; "The Concept of the 'Human Being' in Gramsci: Logic and Perspective" by Tomihisa Suzuki; "Implications of Marx's ' Preface to the Critique of Political Economy' in the Prison Notebooks" by Koichi Ohara; "The Formation of Historism in Gramsci" by Satoe Kawakami; "Gramsci and His 'Adaptation' of Croce's Philosophy" by Minoru Tabata; and "Re-reading 'Some Aspects of the Southern Question'" by Kang Ok Cho.
The TGS, on the other hand, was established as a forum of cultural exchange in April, five months after the Tokyo international symposium. It has been engaged in organizing various talks and discussions and in publishing its own bi-monthly bulletin La Città Futura for the exchange of opinions and information on Gramsci. In 1999, the TGS (with the co-sponsorship of the Trotsky Study Center) organized an open discussion on the historical and intellectual conections between Trotsky and Gramsci. In autumn 2000 it organized another forum (co-sponsored by the Trade Union Movement Institute) to discuss the 'Italian road' and other experiences of socialism in the twentieth century. [END PAGE 8]
Both the KGS and the TGS continue to have active programs of study and research; they also maintain close relations of exchange and cooperation with one another. We are thus reaching the stage of formally establishing an IGS-Japan.
Some Characteristics and Problems of Recent Gramsci Studies in Japan
Since, in Japan, we do not yet have a full translation of the critical edition of "Prison
Notebooks," the study of Gramscian concepts has been characterized by scrupulous
analysis of the structure of prison notebooks as a whole, through critical reading of the
original Italian texts of the Gerratana edition. We believe this kind of study is extremely
important. In the first place, it allows us to understand correctly the continuity and
discontinuity within Gramsci's writings before and after his imprisonment; in other
words, to find moments in the prison notebooks that constitute a further development of
his earlier thinking. Second, this kind of study enables us to arrive at a better grasp of
significance of each individual notebook or of the specific subject of a given notebook. In
other words, in order to arrive at the right conclusions from the reading of each individual
notebook, it is indispensable to examine it in light of the structure of the prison notebooks
as a whole. In the third place, this approach enables us to identify certain limits and
shortcomings of the first edition of the notebooks (the so-called Togliattian edition) and
also to become aware of whatever limits and shortcomings the critical edition itself may
have.
We would like to emphasize that this kind of analysis is not only philologically important but also indispensable from the viewpoint of grasping and verifying the elements of continuing relevance in Gramscian concepts that were developed almost seventy years ago. In this sense we cannot but agree with the views expressed by Giorgio Baratta in his recent book, Le rose e i quaderni: "Leggere Gramsci è stato per me, in questi quindici anni, una continua sorpresa: la sorpresa di trovarmi di fronte a testi estremamante aderenti a un vissuto di altri tempi, ma altresi ricchi di universalità e capaci di stimolare interrogativi del passato sulle vicende del presente; capaci anche di promuovere dialoghi e aggregazioni tra 'intellettuali' e 'semplici', tra cultura e senso comune" (p.22). From such a standpoint we would like to describe some of the issues we are faced with at the present stage of Gramsci study in Japan.
It seems internationally and commonly recognized that the radical turn adopted by the Comintern at the end of 1920s cast a certain shadow on the process of reflection by Gramsci in prison One might ask: if the relationship between Gramsci and the Comintern can be taken as some kind of rupture or "discrepancy," is it true and correct to affirm that the Turi Notebooks constitute the high point of the prison notebooks and that the Formia Notebooks are a simple extension or supplement of the Turi Notebooks?
With the prospect of being released and free before long, Gramsci might have been so ambitious as to undertake the task, in the special [END PAGE 9] notebooks, of establishing the basis of a new study plan. (G. Baratta uses the phrase "re-elaboration (certainly still creative) of the special notebooks" in a footnote (p. 325) in Le rose e i quaderni.) So, should we regard Gramsci's work of re-elaboration in the Formia period as his "ultimate struggle" or as the result of the final stage at which Gramsci's reflections could have arrived? Anyhow, we believe that it is extremely important to examine this question because it will make a useful contribution not only to understanding the structure of the prison notebooks as a whole, but also to tracing comprehensively the process of development of Gramsci's concept of hegemony (particularly the cultural aspects of hegemony) and to making clear the relevance of Gramsci's concepts in our time. It should be stressed that the subjects Gramsci set out to study in his special notebooks--the history of subaltern groups, folklore, popular culture and literature, journalism, Lorianism, the linguistic problem, etc.--had not been sufficiently explored by the so-called traditional Marxist scholars. Gramsci's method of study was always of a practical character, he did not study just for the sake of studying; he especially wanted to know how hegemony is organized and how it operates in civil society.
Scholars working in the field of cultural studies and those associated with Subaltern Studies groups make frequent reference to Gramsci writings. The work of these scholars has had considerable influence on Gramsci study in Japan. But, as Joseph A. Buttigieg pointed out in his essay, "On Gramsci's Category of the 'Subaltern'", both the cultural critics and the Subaltern Studies groups have often relied on an English anthology of the Prison Notebooks, condensed from the original Italian thematic edition. Thus the could refer only partially to those cultural aspects of hegemony that are extensively developed in the Formia Notebooks--that is the notebooks on popular culture, folklore, popular literature, journalism, Lorianism, language, and so on. Now, however, we have complete French, Spanish and German translations of the critical edition--and the English translation is under way. Hence, we believe that is quite possible and important to overcome previous shortcomings and develop qualitatively superior cultural studies in different countries.
From a broader perspective, in the present international situation characterized by information technology and globalization, it is increasingly important to clarify the implications of the contemporary structure of (and struggle for) hegemony through a cultural approach informed by the Formia Notebooks. The situation requires us re- situate and re-elaborate the cultural aspects of Gramsci's concept of hegemony from the new international perspective.
History of Japan and the Present Relevance of Gramsci's Method in Japan
The "Prison Notebooks" study group of the Tokyo Gramsci Society has translated
Notebook 25 (History of Subaltern Social Groups) and Notebook 27 (Folklore) and now
is about to translate Notebook 28 (Lorianism). As for the Subaltern notebook, we have
published it in full as a pamphlet with the Buttigieg article, "On Gramsci's Category of
the 'Subaltern'", [END PAGE 10] as an introduction. This pamphlet has been used at our joint study meeting and has been read by not a few scholars interested in the topic.
Keeping in mind those special notebooks, I would like to explain our views on a new history textbook for middle school that has been recently compiled by an "association for producing a new national history textbook" and authorized by the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports of our country.
As is well known, in the past, Japanese ruling circles succeeded in producing a state history textbook based upon a Shintoist and Tennoist view of national history, imposing it on the people and driving them towards the wars of aggression. As soon as this new history textbook was made public, a number of Japanese intellectuals and citizens expressed serious concerns and criticisms regarding its content because of its editors' particular outlook on the state, its history, and its culture. Fortunately, so far, most public middle schools have not adopted this history textbook. However, the ideological bias fostered among the mass of Japanese people by members of the association has by no means been eliminated; it continues to exercise a certain influence over the people. This fact must never be ignored. Hundreds of thousands of copies of the history textbook have been sold in less than a month since last July when it put on sale at ordinary bookstores.
Professor Akira Itoh, a member of the Tokyo Gramsci Society, analyzed the motifs of the new history textbook in the following five points:
1. A Japanese version of historical narcissism. In other words, the presupposition that the Japanese nation consists of a homogenous people. The editors praise the ability of the Japanese nation to assimilate foreign cultures into a "pure" Japanese culture. In fact they proclaim that Japanese civilization is superior to the four World Civilizations (i.e., the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Indus, and Hwang Ho civilizations).
2. The editors try to portray 100 years of Japanese modern history as the history of a struggle against the oppressions of Western great powers; they argue for a Japanese "legitimate" sphere of existence in East Asia; and on the basis of the struggle against oppression they justify the Japanese aggressions against China and Korea, as well as the Pacific War--they proclaim that Japan was a "star,' liberating Asia from the domination by Western powers.
3. The revival of state authoritarianism peculiar to an advanced country. According to the editors of the history textbook, if China and Korea were invaded by Western powers, the independence and security of Japan would be threatened; and, the Japanese struggle against the Sinocentrism in China and Korea was a historical mission of the Japanese nation which represented modern civilization in Asia.
4. The resurrection of the argument that the Japanese nation is homogeneously united under the single state of the Emperor (Tenno). Since the national integrity of the Japanese people and Tenno cannot be historically or scientifically verified, the editors of the history textbook try to emphasize that the beliefs in Tenno among the people of Japan date back to [END PAGE 11] ancient times and they seek evidence of national integrity in Japanese traditional religion. According to them, the myth is not a fact but the Japanese people used to commit their dream to the myth and this dream should be considered the "truth of history."
5. Male chauvinism, according to which masculine values should be praised and historically recognized.
Time does not permit me to elaborate these points, but what the editors of the history textbook are aiming at is quite clear. They are convinced that the history of Japan should be portrayed and viewed as the history of a "liberator" of Asia and as the history of a strong, prosperous, and superior nation. At the same time, they attach special importance to traditional Japanese "myth" and "legend" as the basis for scientifically justifying the "integrity" of the Japanese nation and the "purity" of Japanese culture. They extol "those who served and died for the state" as the bears of history. They seek to propagate among the mass of people certain views of the world and outlooks on life by means of those "myths" and "legends" in which their primitive consciousness is deeply rooted.
Of course, one should not exaggerate the danger of the positions expressed by the editors
of this history schoolbook. Yet, one should make light of them either, just because they
are anachronistic and ridiculous. We must recall Gramsci's warning in Notebook 28;
namely, that one should not ignore Loria's arguments, however ridiculous or
anachronistic they may sound. "Every period has its own more or less accomplished and
perfected Lorianism, and each country has its own: Hitlerism has shown that in Germany
underneath the apparent domain of a serious intellectual group there smoldered a
monstrous Lorianism which has cracked the official crust and has become widespread as
the scientific concept and method of a new 'officialism.' [ . . .] But the fact that Loria
became a pillar of culture, a 'master,' and that he 'spontaneously' found an enormous
audience--this is what makes one reflect on the weakness of the bulwarks of criticism
which existed even during periods of normality. One should consider how easy it is
during abnormal times of uncontrolled passions for individuals like Loria, supported by
interested powers, to overwhelm every bulwark and to transform an environment of
intellectual culture which is still weak and frail into a swamp for decades to come" (Q28,
§1).
It will be quite easy to criticize and refute the arguments of Japanese Lorias--such as the group of editors that produced the history textbook--by saying that their work has no scientific legitimacy. But it may be dangerous to affirm that their assertions about the "purity" of Japanese culture and the "integrity" of the Japanese nation--based on their use of "myth," "Legends" and "folklore"--could never become a "pillar" of culture and find "an enormous audience." The danger is especially serious in this time of crisis when frustrations have been accumulating among the people who see no way out of the crisis.
Gramsci emphasized the importance of studying folklore in Notebook 27: "tutte le religioni, anche le più dirozzate e raffinate, siano 'folclore' in rapporto al pensiero moderno" [END PAGE 12] (Q28, §1). And: "Il folclore non deve essere concepito come una bizarria, una stranezza o un elemento pittoresco, ma come una cosa che è molto seria e da prendere sul serio" (ibid.). Gramsci also attaches importance to the study of the close relation between folklore and "common sense," which is philosophical folklore (ibid.). As we reflect on the issue of the history schoolbook, the Gramscian approach to "folklore" and "the morality of the people" (as opposed to the "official" world view or "official" morality) is rich in lessons. In this context the Gramscian method and approach gains credibility for us as an instrument of analysis. Can we say, however, that this enables us to articulate persuasive alternative ideas or projects in opposition to the ideological seeds sown by the new history textbook? Of course, we cannot seek answers or solutions for this in Gramsci and his prison notebooks; for that we have to rely solely on our own joint, creative efforts.
As is known, Gramsci paid special attention to the question of how the ideological structure of a ruling class is organized. He pointed out: "The press is the most dynamic part of this ideological structure, but not the only one. Everything that directly or indirectly influences or could influence public opinion belongs to it: library, school, associations and clubs of various kind, even architecture, the layout of streets and their names" (Q3, §49). To this list we now have to add many other means of communication that did not exist in Gramsci's time: many different kinds of TV shows and performances, multitudes of images including those disseminated through the internet, cellular phones, etc. Gramsci then poses the question: "What can an innovative class set against the formidable complex of trenches and fortifications of the ruling class?" His immediate answer: "The spirit of cleavage--that is, the progressive acquisition of the consciousness of one's historical identity [ . . .] All of this requires complex ideological work, the first condition of which is an exact knowledge of the field that must be cleared of its element of human mass" (Q3, §49).Further, he wrote: "The historian must record, and discover the causes of, the line of development towards integral autonomy, starting from the most primitive phases; he must note every manifestation of the Sorelian 'spirit of cleavage'" (Q25, §5).
For Gramsci the "sprit of cleavage" does not mean, as it does for Sorel, the destruction or negation of what exists "without an implicit construction or affirmation" (Q13, §1); it means, rather, the acquisition of "historical identity" or "integral autonomy" that will be further materialized in a collective will. And it is important for us to know how we can find a "spirit of cleavage," in the Gramscian sense, in Japanese civil society, which is the terrain of hegemony; in other words, how we can arrive at the acquisition of a Japanese historical identity that is opposed to the ultra-nationalistic concepts of the "integrity" of the Japanese nation and the "purity" of Japanese culture. For us, as Japanese scholars of Gramsci--one of whose main objectives is to conduct an earnest study of the ideological structure of the ruling class and of the possibility of setting a counter-hegemony against their "formidable complex of trenches and fortifications"--it is increasingly important to find and identify "spirits of cleavage" [END PAGE 13] among the popular consciousness and struggles in order to erase the "separation between modern culture and popular culture or folklore" (Q27, §1); and, thus, to initiate an intellectual and moral reform, and to enable the formation of a "national and popular collective will aimed at achieving a superior and total form of modern civilization" (Q13, §1).
The Relevance Today of Gramsci's Concept of "organic crisis"
First, I would like to recall the central idea of the talk I delivered at the last IGS congress in Naples with regards to the continuing relevance of Gramsci's thought. Interest in
Gramsci continues to rise internationally because Gramsci, in a sense, "announced in
advance" the collapse of "real existing socialism", and he also provided us with effective
"cues" to ideas and concepts with which to chart a democratic way out of deep crisis of
contemporary capitalist societies. Gramsci was one of a small number of twentieth-
century intellectuals who had criticized the "parthenogenesis" of ideology. When one
sifts the current relevance of this or that idea, one should first find out whether or not the
idea is still capable of "defining a given situation." Besides, for us, living in a different
historical situation, the intellectual freshness of the diverse problematics put forward by
Gramsci--what one could call the "Gramscian method"--has never been lost. From such
a viewpoint, and bearing in mind that changed situation in our country, I would like to
offer some reflections on Gramsci's concept of "organic crisis" and its relevance today.
Mr Kimhide Mushakouji, a well-known scholar of international relations, has referred to the concept of hegemony in Gramsci, pointing out that it should be applied with a view to overcoming a "Nippon-centrism in today's Japanese civil society." He affirmed the importance of setting up a "hegemony by progressive civil forces." As the critical situation--it could be called an "organic crisis" that extends from the political and economical to the social and cultural spheres--the interest in Gramsci's concepts of hegemony and crisis has been rising in a variety of fields because of the need to grasp the character and the essence of the crisis and to formulate an alternative (counter- hegemonic) view.
Having defeated the "Olive Coalition" in political elections held last May, Mr Berlusconi, "King of the Media," has again acquired power in Italy. And in Japan, the Liberal Democratic party, the biggest party of the majority, followed up on the "Koizumi sensation" with its overwhelming victory and a serious defeat of "progressive forces" in the election to the House of Councilors in late July of this year. For an analysis of this political and cultural situation that prevails in our country, Gramsci's concept of crisis is very suggestive. I would like to deal here with the manuscript C version of Gramsci's discussion of "organic crisis" in the notebook on Machiavelli (Q13, §23).
First, Gramsci called attention to the fact that the decline of the hegemony of a ruling class over the different strata of society does not offer a straightforward or automatic opportunity to the opposing forces; it creates, rather, a certain critical situation also for the opposing forces. [END PAGE 14] Gramsci wrote: "At a certain point in their historical lives, social classes become detached from their traditional parties [. . .] When such crises occur, the immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous, because the field is open for violent solutions, for the activities of unknown forces, represented by charismatic 'men of destiny'" (Q13, §23). The forms of expression of this crisis are indeed complicated, but its real essence is a "crisis of hegemony of the ruling class" which is also a "crisis of authority" or a "crisis of orthodoxy." "One speaks of a 'crisis of authority' and this is precisely the crisis of hegemony, or general crisis of the State" (ibid.). This is not the only issue. One thing that matters is whether the opposing forces that have criticized the crisis of hegemony are capable of creating a new counter-hegemony.
Second, regarding this capability of the opposing forces, Gramsci pointed out: "The crisis creates situations which are dangerous in the short run, since the various strata of the population are not all capable of orienting themselves equally swiftly, or of reorganizing with the same rhythm. The traditional ruling class, which has numerous trained cadres, changes men and programs and, with greater speed than is achieved by the subaltern classes, reabsorbs the control that was slipping from its grasp. Perhaps it may make sacrifices, and expose itself to an uncertain future by demagogic promises; but it retains power, reinforces it for the time being, and uses it to crush its adversary and disperse his leading cadres, who cannot be very numerous or highly trained" (ibid.). Gramsci here emphasizes that "crisis" is not only composed of the crisis of hegemony of the traditional leading class but also of the weakness of the opposing forces. "When the crisis does not find an organic solution, but that of the charismatic leader, it means that a static equilibrium exists (whose factors may be disparate, but in which the decisive one is the immaturity of the progressive forces" (ibid.).
Third, Gramsci addressed the question of the political party which, in his view, must
know how to acquire the ability of creating a hegemony and of innovating itself as part of
the apparatus of hegemony. He wrote about "the party's capacity to react against force of
habit, against the tendency to become mummified and anachronistic" (ibid.). In other
words, Gramsci stressed the importance of constructing a political party that is sensitive
and open to social and cultural change, that is rooted in civil society, and that constantly
forms cadres that are prepared to organize a hegemony both inside and outside the party.
The party must do this without relying on any closed and dogmatic organizational theory.
For if "it ends up by constituting a comapct body, which stands on its own and feels itself
independent of the mass of members, the party ends up by becoming anachronistic and at
moments of acute crisis it is voided of its social content and left as though suspended in
mid-air" (ibid.). Gramsci always criticized the trajectory of political parties that arise
initially as forms of association from within civil society but then become absorbed,
consolidated and institutionalized within "political society." In his view, the political
party is a specific type of association whose role is to bridge civil society and political
society and mediate between them. It is indispensable for us to overcome a discrepancy
or rupture between a political party and civil society and to renovate [END PAGE 15] and re-elaborate a
theory of the political party as an "apparatus of hegemony within civil society." This is
another message we receive from Antonio Gramsci.
Meanwhile, the political situation in our country had been characterized by a "transformist" type of hegemony that the ruling party and its allied political forces have tried to adhere to. This kind of politics means an "art of politics" by interparliamentary forces. There was no inclination to be expansive; the tendency, rather, has been regressive and reductive. This type of hegemony was not able to eliminate the imbalance or discrepancy between political society and civil society. It simultaneously minimized the significance of politics in political society and increased the people's distrust of politics and political parties in civil society. The "Koizumi phenomenon" during the campaign for the presidency of the Liberal Democratic Party last April, has to be seen against the background of the public's deep distrust of politics which had been growing for a long time. Contrary to most predictions, Junichiro Koizumi, supported by the overwhelming majority of LDP members, was elected president of the party, and soon after was elected Prime Minister. Why did Mr Koizumi succeed in obtaining such overwhelming support from the Japanese electorate? It should be noted that Mr Koizumi has his own distinctive discourse and style that set him apart from the old type of "trasformismo." By making maximum use of the media, the biggest apparatus of hegemony in contemporary society, he was able to rouse public opinion and generate consensus in a populist manner. The LDP was thus encircled by public opinion. In other words, by totally mobilizing civil society, including the media, Koizumi successfully contained the "transformist" groups of his party. Naturally, in this respect, Koizumi's leadership conveyed the impression of utmost "freshness" to a large number of Japanese voters. Furthermore, Koizumi's there are unmistakable Caesarist elements in Koizumi's declarations which are aimed at connecting and integrating political and civil society in an authoritarian manner. On the one hand, Prime Minister Koizumi has repeatedly declared that it is necessary to take resolute steps to bring about "structural reform without sanctuary." On the other hand, defying strong protests and criticism from both inside and outside the country, he went ahead with his official worship at the Yasukuni Shrine, which is a symbol of past Japanese militarism. This is indicative of his Caesarist aspects.
What, then, should constitute a counter-hegemonic opposition to Koizumi's strategy? It should be emphasized that one cannot successfully strike back at Caesarist authoritarian populism with conventional discourses of anti-transformism. In this regard, it is indispensable to renovate and re-elaborate political and cultural discourses to remedy the discrepancy and the rupture between political society and civil society--and to do so while eschewing all forms of authoritarianism. Gramsci's reflections on this issue are still very relevant. If the political parties (and the progressive parties in particular) fail to renovate themselves they will radically undermine their raison d'être and, as Gramsci pointed out, they could become "hollow." In Japan, the overwhelming majority of people do not support any particular political party. The established parties are becoming more or less "hollow" entities. [END PAGE 16]
The key to any counter-hegemonic strategy is the "war of position" which is waged against the wide variety of sites and operations of hegemony. A wide spectrum of issues--such as education, the environment, gender discrimination, injustice against minorities--that, at first sight, appear to be cultural and social rather than political, are among the most important features of hegemony. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance to organize a counter-hegemonic struggle in these arenas. From this perspective one can also estimate the degree to which the established parties (especially the progressive parties) are attuned to civil society. A vertical and authoritarian relationship between the political party and mass movements would certainly create obstacles to the multilateral pursuit of a "war of position" in civil society.
As we have already stated, Gramsci studies are growing in depth and breadth in various
fields, such as political science, social studies, cultural studies, and the humanities. It is
important for us to conduct an analysis of the strength and tenacity of the hegemony of
modern capitalism, and to make use of it as the basis for constructing a new alternative
hegemony. This will be a trial to restore the Gramscian message to life in our times.
Studying Gramsci in a period of "organic crisis" and in the "interregnum" of hegemony
will fill up the vacuum, and it will render Gramsci's thought fertile and bring it to
maturity.
This above is the edited text of Koichi Ohara's talk (which he co-authored with Hiroshi Matsuda) at the IGS congress held in Rio de Janeiro in September 2001.
The Tokyo Gramsci Society and the Kyoto Gramsci Society continue to regularly publish
their respective newsletters--i.e. La Città Futura and the Newsletter of the Kyoto Gramsci Society. Because of constraints of space it is not possible to reproduce (as we have done regularly in the past) a summary of the contents of the most recent issues of La
Cittá Futura--we will, however, resume providing this information in future issues of the IGS Newsletter. [END PAGE 17]