Notes on Gramsci: Folklore, Popular Culture, and Hegemony

Overview

• Antonio Gramsci’s observations on folklore (folklore-popular culture) explore how mass culture relates to ideology, hegemony, and potential transformative leadership.
• Key tension: Gramsci argues that popular culture is vitally important for understanding society, yet he remains fundamentally critical of popular culture as a form of spontaneous, unorganized thought. This dual stance raises questions about how the working class can base a hegemonic project on popular ideologies.
• The central question for Cirese’s reading of Gramsci: how can positive elements inside popular views be harnessed to build a new hegemonic influence, while recognizing the limits and backwardness Gramsci attributes to folklore?
• Gramsci’s background (childhood in Sardinia) informs his insistence on serious, critical analysis of folklore because it shapes people’s daily life and realities. His interest is not utopian; it is practical and historical: the mass has the potential to intervene in transforming society for the first time, but its beliefs lack a coherent system of thought.
• Gramsci treats popular beliefs as a starting point for political transformation, not as an end in itself. The aim is to birth a new culture among the masses and close the gap between modern and popular culture.
• The relationship between beliefs that seem spontaneous and a conscious revolutionary leadership is a core concern: how do spontaneous elements become part of a larger, coherent philosophy or program?

Folklore as Conception of Life and World

• Folklore (or popular culture) expresses a conception of life and the world that is locatable in socio-cultural terms and reveals in what ways it compares to other conceptions (especially official ones).
• The people (Gramsci’s term for subaltern and instrumental classes across societies) hold a worldview that is often different from, and opposed to, official concepts held by the ruling strata.
• Official conceptions (cultured sectors, state, ruling classes) are in competition with folklore; folklore is understood only in relation to the conditions of the people’s cultural life.
• Research into folklore must change its approach: the people are not a culturally homogeneous group but consist of multiple cultural stratifications that can be identified by historical isolation of groups.
• Folklore is not inherently valid politically or culturally; its significance lies in how it relates to the birth of new culture and to the possibility of mobilizing popular knowledge toward transformative ends.

Two Analytical Trajectories

• Folklore as an object of study: Gramsci validates folklore as a real domain with serious content, though often negative in its features when judged as a live social force.
• Folklore as a force in real life and development: Gramsci describes it with a long, systematic set of negative traits that impede elaboration, coherence, and centralization (at least as a live force). This view contrasts with its status as a legitimate object of study.
• Gramsci’s aim: to move folklore from a mere curiosity to a recognized conception of the world and to place it within the framework of a nation and its culture (subaltern vs official in social terms).

Core Oppositions: Key Conceptual Pairs

• Gramsci uses a structured set of oppositions to distinguish folklore from official culture, and subaltern groups from hegemonic ones. The following pairs form the backbone of his analysis:
  • Folkloric vs Official conception of the world
  • Subaltern vs Hegemonic social class
  • Simple vs Cultured intellectual category
  • Unorganic vs Organic (in social formation and cultural organization)
  • Fragmentary vs Unitary internal organization
  • Implicit vs Explicit mode of expression
  • Debased content vs Original content
• These pairs map onto two broad axes: a socio-political axis (subaltern/hegemonic) and a socio-cultural/intellectual axis (simple/cultured).
• A compact schema to summarize the relations (textual representation):
  
  \text{Folkloric conception} \text{ is to } \text{Official conception} \ \
  \text{Subaltern social class} \text{ is to } \text{Hegemonic social class} \ \
  \text{Simple intellectual category} \text{ is to } \text{Cultured intellectual category} \ \
  \text{Unorganic} \text{ is to } \text{Organic} \ \
  \text{Fragmentary} \text{ is to } \text{Unitary} \ \
  \text{Implicit} \text{ is to } \text{Explicit} \ \
  \text{Debased content} \text{ is to } \text{Original content} \ \
  \text{Mechanical} \text{ is to } \text{Intentional} \ \
  \text{Passive} \text{ is to } \text{Active}
  
• Reading the pairs vertically highlights the two underlying axes:
  • Socio-political: subaltern vs hegemonic
  • Socio-cultural: simple vs cultured intellectual categories
• From folklore’s perspective, the oppositions imply passivity (folklore tends to be implicit, static, and resistant) while from the official perspective, the oppositions imply activity, organization, and centralization.

Formalization of the Opposition: Consciousness and Capacity to Influence

• Gramsci distinguishes two related but distinct schematizations:
  • Consciousness axis: mechanical vs intentional opposition (how beliefs are formed and discrepancies within the mind/collective thought). This axis deals with spontaneity vs conscious leadership.
  • Capacity-to-influence axis: passive vs active conflict (how beliefs act in the social world and how they influence or contest power).
• Combined, they yield a two-dimensional map of opposition:
  • Mechanical opposition (folklore’s viewpoint) vs Intentional opposition (official/elite viewpoint)
  • Passive conflict (folklore’s social effects) vs Active conflict (official culture’s capacity to shape and impose)
• A consolidated statement (as a formal schema):
  
  \text{Folkloric conception is to official as subaltern social class is to hegemonic as simple intellectual category is to cultured as unorganic}\
  \text{combination to organic as fragmentary internal organization is to unitary as implicit mode of expression is to explicit as debased content is to original as mechanical opposition is to intentional as passive conflict is to active.}
  
• Gramsci’s analysis often presents these as a deliberately systematic dichotomy, with the implicit and weaker terms tied to folklore and the explicit and stronger terms tied to official conceptions. Yet the system remains contestable and historically conditioned.

The Positive and Qualitative Nuances in Folklore

• Gramsci also provides several positive observations about folklore, which complicate the otherwise negative portrayal:
  1) Tenacity: certain folk-imperatives are stronger and more effective than official morality in some domains of life. These tenacious elements persist and influence conduct.
  2) Spontaneous adherence to reality: some folk-conceptions adhere spontaneously to actual conditions of life and its development, without deliberate ideological design.
  3) Progressive potential: within folklore there can be progressive values or innovations that challenge the ruling morality and institutions.
  4) Popular songs: even though folklore materials are produced within elite cultural descent, popular songs can be taken up by the people and reflect the people’s worldview, thereby representing their life and world in contrast to official culture.
• These positive qualities are context-specific and do not overturn the broader negative assessment of folklore as a whole. They mainly affect particular elements (content, mode of expression, and conflict) rather than the entire spectrum of folklore.
• The presence of progressive or tenacious elements within folklore means the opposition is not a simple, universal negative; it is a nuanced scale where some aspects can be more favorable to autonomy and potential transformation than others.

Quantitative Gradations: Differences of Quantity, Not Only Quality

• Gramsci sometimes presents differences of quality (e.g., folklore vs official) but also introduces a quantitative reading: there can be a continuum in the quantity of qualitative elements within folklore and official conceptions.
• Core idea: there is a quantitative continuity between the most fragmented folklore and the most organic official conceptions; likewise, between the most spontaneous and the most scientific thought. This implies that philosophy and thought are present in everyone, differing only in degree and organization, not in essence.
• Key statements (paraphrased):
  • There is a quantitative difference of degree, not a difference of quality, between modern theory (Marxism) and spontaneous masses’ feeling; a reciprocal reduction is possible. (Source: SPN 199)
  • All men are philosophers; the difference between a professional/philosopher and the masses is one of quantity (homogeneity, coherence, logicality) rather than inherent quality. (Source: SPN 347)
• This quantitative focus is a methodological device to reconcile spontaneity with scientific theory, but Gramsci emphasizes that the distinction between quality differences and quantity differences is not always straightforward in practice.
• The risk: over-relying on a purely quantitative read can obscure the essential qualitative discriminations Gramsci highlights, particularly the sharpness of the subaltern/hegemonic divide and the formal/content distinctions.

“Spontaneity” vs “Conscious Leadership” and the Social Field

• Spontaneity is not pure; Gramsci argues that genuine spontaneity contains elements of conscious leadership and is never a pure, unstructured force (pure spontaneity would reduce to mechanics).
• The relationship between the masses’ common sense and conscious leadership is central to understanding how a new culture could emerge. There are multiple social layers and groupings that generate different forms of common sense and philosophy (e.g., parish priests, local elders, women’s lore, etc.).
• He emphasizes that every social group shares a conception of the world, forming a social grouping or ‘grouping’ that bears a cultural unity and can be described as a particular ‘conception of the world’ for that group. This unity may be internal to the group and not fully recognized from outside.
• The relationship of folklore to intellectuals and social groups is always mediated by concrete social situations (parishes, villages, neighborhoods), which grounds the analysis in lived social relations rather than abstract dichotomies.

Folklore as an Object of Study vs. Force in Political Life

• As an object of study, folklore is valuable and legitimate for understanding the cultural life of the people, including its content, forms, and internal contradictions.
• As a political force, folklore often shows negative traits: fragmentation, dispersion, lack of elaboration, and impersonal “mechanical” reproduction that resists coherent organization and centralization.
• Gramsci’s approach highlights a dynamic tension: the same folklore that deserves scientific study as a cultural manifestation also acts as a potential obstacle to political change if its forms and contents remain purely inert or reactive.
• This dual stance explains the ambivalence and shifting interpretations about using folklore for political purposes: it can be a source of autonomous culture and class-inspired resistance, yet it can also reproduce backwardness or social passivity.

The “Four-Field” Repatterning and the Dynamics of Change

• A formal reformulation arises when the “progressive” vs “reactionary” dimensions are separated from the folkloric/official dichotomy. The author suggests a four-quadrant schema where the combinations are:
  • Folkloric + Reactionary
  • Folkloric + Progressive
  • Official + Reactionary
  • Official + Progressive
• This split shows that the official category can carry both reactionary and progressive qualities, and that folklore can contain both reactionary and progressive tendencies. It also reveals that Marxist/official progressiveness is not automatically identical to “official” in general; it depends on the specific content and the material conditions.
• The four-quadrant view also clarifies that progress in Gramsci’s sense involves not only content but the capacity to become fully hegemonic (i.e., official) through organic intellectual work, centralization, and organization. It points to the praxis link: the movement from a folkloric progressive to an official progressive through leadership and organizational development.
• This reconceptualization implies a process orientation: from a subaltern, implicit, fragmentary, debased folklore to an officially hegemonic, explicit, unitary, original, and active position, driven by conscious leadership and political organization.

Implications for Method and Politics: Toward a Critical Yet Generative Use of Folklore

• The Gramscian framework demands cautious, precise assessment of cultural forces in society and a nuanced approach to how popular culture can be mobilized for transformative ends without ignoring its fragility and tendency toward backwardness.
• The analysis insists on social specificity: folklore must be studied within concrete social groups, with attention to historical strata and the distribution of cultural power.
• It warns against homogenizing folklore as merely “the people” and against viewing official culture as a monolith. Instead, it emphasizes the complexity of social groups, their groupings, and their own conceptions of the world.
• The overarching aim is to understand how to build a “new culture among the great popular masses” that can challenge official conceptions and advance historical transformation (the praxis of historical materialism).
• Finally, Gramsci’s observations invite debates about the role of spontaneous beliefs, education, and ideological work in creating a lasting hegemony, including the tensions between cultural autonomy and political leadership.

Connections to Spontaneity, Leadership, and the Theory of the Historico-Bloc

• Gramsci connects folklore to broader questions about the relationship between intellectuals and masses, and between spontaneity and conscious leadership. He argues that spontaneity does not exist in a pure form and must be understood as shaped by leadership and organizational processes.
• The concept of the “historic bloc” emerges when material forces (economic and social conditions) and ideologies (cultural and political forms) are integrated: content = material forces, form = ideologies. This distinction has didactic value but also reflects a living social reality where thought and material life inform each other.
• The analysis ties into Gramsci’s broader historical project: building class-consciousness, developing a party that can articulate the needs and potential of the subaltern masses, and guiding a transition from a subaltern to an hegemonic position.

Concluding Reflections on Gramsci’s Folklore Observations

• Folklore is not merely a quaint pastime; it is a serious, multifaceted phenomenon that reflects the conditions of the people’s cultural life and can function both as a barrier to and a potential engine for social transformation.
• Gramsci’s two-pronged approach—recognizing folklore as an object of study and as a real force in social life—reveals an intricate, sometimes paradoxical relationship between spontaneity, leadership, and the struggle for hegemony.
• The spectrum of oppositions (from implicit to explicit, from debased to original, from fragmentary to unitary) helps to describe how popular culture can be both a reservoir for autonomous culture and a site of struggle against dominant norms.
• Ultimately, the insights call for a cautious but ambitious political strategy: identify the persistent, creative elements within folklore; build organic leadership structures; and develop a political culture that can transform spontaneous beliefs into a coherent, revolutionary philosophy and praxis.

Key Quotes and Textual References (indicative, not exhaustive)

• Folklore can be understood as a reflection of the people’s conditions and must be studied in socio-cultural terms in relation to other conceptions of the world.
• The people is a broad social category consisting of subaltern and instrumental classes; official conceptions belong to the ruling strata and state power.
• Folklore’s content and form are generally negative in Gramsci’s assessment when viewed as a live social force, yet it can contain elements that are tenacious, spontaneous-adherent to reality, or progressive within certain strata.
• The relationship between spontaneity and conscious leadership is central to understanding how folklore might contribute to or resist historical transformation.
• A refined schema shows the interplay of the folkloric/official dichotomy with the subaltern/hegemonic axis, and how added dimensions (progressive vs reactionary) require a fourfold analytical frame.

References to Gramsci’s Terminology (for further study)

• Spontaneity and conscious leadership (Spontaneity and conscious leadership; note on how spontaneous movements contain elements of leadership but lack a single dominant leader).
• The concept of the ‘people’ as the subaltern and instrumental classes.
• The distinction between form and content in the historical bloc; the role of ideologies as form and material forces as content.
• The plurality of Catholic and other religious-cultural formations within different social strata as illustrative of the complexity of groupings and conceptions of the world.
• PP 172-3: Ideological material; SPN: key passages on spontaneous philosophy and common sense; LVN: notes on folklore.