It is not surprising that Gramsci drew a crowd at the 1996 American Anthropological Association meeting in San Francisco. The size of the audience, however, was far greater than expected, especially considering that the panel explicitly attacked the ways in which Gramsci's theories have been (mis)used in the discipline. This panel, "Gramsci, Hegemony and The Critique of Anthropology," organized by Jason S. Greenberg and P. Kerim Friedman, grew out of an upper- level anthropology seminar on Gramsci taught by historian Peter Gran at Temple University. This seminar examined the ways in which Gramsci's theories have been used within the social sciences. Despite its origins as a "student" panel, the size quickly doubled as established scholars expressed interest in participation. As the panel solidified both Partha Chatterjee, and this newsletter's editor, Joseph Buttigieg, graciously agreed to participate as discussants.
Unfortunately, the panel was plagued by illness. The chair, Tom Patterson of Temple University, was struck ill by a virus feasting on the 6,000 anthropologists gathered together that weekend. John Gledhill, the newly appointed chair of Social Anthropology at Manchester University, suffering from a "lesser virus," was able to both present his paper and serve as chair. Niyi Akinnaso of Temple University was unable to attend the conference due to illness.
The critique of anthropology--via Gramsci--took several forms. All of them, in some way, sought to emphasize the importance of theorizing the state. Some sought to re-introduce theories of the state to discussions of culture, hegemony, and globalization, while others sought to locate anthropological theory itself within the state, by applying Gramsci's concept of the "state intellectual."
Many of the panel's themes were introduced at the beginning by Peter Gran's paper, "The Continuing Relevance Of Gramsci's Concept Of Hegemony," which focuses upon the continuing relevance of the state. Attacking globalization theory, Gran argues that the state, as a unit of analysis, allows us to understand a wide range of phenomena, from social history to international relations. John Gledhill also attacks globalization theory for leaving out the state. Focusing upon Mexico, Gledhill argues that the state has adopted neoliberalism as a device to handle the many [END PAGE 25] contradictions between regional power blocs and global capitalism. He sees a politics of "difference" as the best hope of challenging the neoliberal state.
Both Jason S. Greenberg (Temple University) and Pamila Gupta (University of Michigan) examine the role of intellectuals within state structure. While Greenberg concentrates upon the appropriation of Max Gluckman's anthropological theory in Israel, and Gupta on the legacy of Charles Boxer's writings on Portuguese colonialism, both concluded their analyses with a positive affirmation of Gramsci's unique contribution to the relationship between intellectuals and the state.
Swapna Banerjee's (Temple University) paper examines the extension of Indian state hegemony into the middle-class household in Bengal, arguing that middle-class and gendered identity is based on difference and opposition with lower social classes. In a similar vein, Dina Mendros (Temple University) examines the construction of gender through a detailed analysis of a cross-dressing "academy" in New York. Both Banerjee and Mendros suggest that recent studies of gendered identity have ignored the dimensions of both state and class, and that Gramsci's vision of hegemony can serve as a powerful corrective. Susan Levine (Temple University) takes as her starting point Gramsci's discussion of his youth and schooling in his Letters From Prison. Looking at active role of students in the Soweto riots, Levine argues that childhood needs to be re-theorized, and that Gramsci's writings, particularly his reflections on his own youth in his letters, are an important and interesting point of departure.
Kate Crehan (The New School) investigates Gramsci's writings on culture, arguing that they are firmly grounded in a Marxist theory of class relations. Culture, she argues, is "actively created" by classes, either for the maintenance of hegemony, or as part of an organized struggle against it. In a similar vein, P. Kerim Friedman (Temple University) focuses upon the ways which Gramsci and Bourdieu have been used in the literature on language policy. Friedman argues that, while Bourdieu takes social reproduction for granted, Gramsci saw social reproduction as a problem which needed to be solved. F. Niyi Akinnaso (Temple University) was also to discuss Gramsci and Bourdieu in a paper on language rights in Nigeria. Unfortunately he was unable to attend because of illness.
The discussants supplied both audience and participants with many points to ponder, providing criticism and closure. Perhaps these are best summarized by Joseph Buttigieg's moving admonition that a current application of Gramsci's ideas and writings is arduous work. Like Gramsci himself, the contemporary writer must constantly call into question the very foundation upon which the ideas are built. After the panel, most of the participants enjoyed an excellent meal, with much discussion, of course, of Gramsci.