A newly hegemonic subaltern group must build a new intellectual and moral order

Evidence

A further criterion of research must be borne in mind, in order to emphasise the dangers inherent in the method of historical analogy as an interpretative criterion. In the ancient and mediaeval State alike, centralisation, whether political-territorial or social (and the one is merely a function of the other), was minimal. The State was, in a certain sense, a mechanical bloc of social groups, often of different race: within the circle of political-military compression, which was only exercised harshly at certain moments, the subaltern groups had a life of their own, institutions of their own, etc., and sometimes these institutions had State functions which made of the State a federation of social groups with disparate functions not subordinated in any way a situation which in periods of crisis highlighted with extreme clarity the phenomenon of ‘dual power’. … The modern State substitutes for the mechanical bloc of social groups their subordination to the active hegemony of the directive and dominant group, hence abolishes certain autonomies, which nevertheless are reborn in other forms, as parties, trade unions, cultural associations. The contemporary dictatorships legally abolish these new forms of autonomy as well, and strive to incorporate them within State activity: the legal centralisation of the entire national life in the hands of the dominant group becomes ‘totalitarian’. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1867 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Hegemony builds collective will by articulating differences, not erasing them; Elite intellectuals must be created through a slow contradictory process; A new science must defeat its strongest intellectual opponents to prove itself (+8 more)

Related

• Modern states replace the mechanical bloc with active hegemony by dominant groups (similarity 0.88)
• Dominant groups conquer traditional intellectuals by developing organic ones. (similarity 0.85)
• States rule subject groups by allying with their internal elites (similarity 0.84)
• Transformism absorbed opposition elites into the ruling bloc (similarity 0.83)
• All state powers are organs of hegemony in varying degrees (similarity 0.82)
• Elite intellectuals must be created through a slow contradictory process (similarity 0.82)
• Ascendant groups develop from subaltern to hegemonic status through acquiring autonomy and allies (similarity 0.82)
• A rising class can dominate economically while old elites retain politico-intellectual supremacy. (similarity 0.81)
• A class lacking moral prestige can borrow the State’s reflected authority to found itself (similarity 0.80)
• Subaltern classes lack unity until they achieve statehood, hence history of subalternity (similarity 0.80)
• Pre-modern states worked as mechanical blocs of semi-autonomous social groups with dual power (similarity 0.80)
• Ruling-class unity is forged through the organic ties between State and civil society (similarity 0.80)
• Hegemony works by making the status quo appear to lack alternatives. (similarity 0.80)
• A subaltern group’s disorganic growth blocks its access to state power and hegemony (similarity 0.79)
• Counter-hegemonic elites require an internal hierarchy to develop (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Creating new intellectual strata from unprepared groups faces unprecedented difficulty #expands (0.82)
• An international class must nationalise itself to lead nationally-rooted social strata #corroborates (0.78)
• Modern states replace the mechanical bloc with active hegemony by dominant groups #qualifies (0.75) — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1867