Gramsci is one of the most important thinkers of our century. The Right created a new line in the culture war by centring on Gramsci’s concepts. We talked to Guilherme José about Gramsci’s concept of metapolitics from the right perspective.
What are Antonio Gramsci’s concepts of ‘cultural hegemony’, ‘war of position’ and ‘organic intellectual’? Why do right-wing intellectual movements aiming to rebuild cultural power today turn to Gramsci and how do they deal with him?
I dare say that no one in the last century interpreted the ideological superstructure — what we might call esoteric politics — as well as Gramsci did. In a sense, he outlined an entire operative path, a praxis, through which one can manipulate the zeitgeist (spirit of the time) and, in doing so, alter subjectivities so that a new ideology becomes “natural” or “consensual.”
Let us briefly see how: the concept of hegemony arises within the Marxist tradition – this is indisputable – and it boils down to the action and control of the ideology and worldview of one class over the others. This allows the dominant class to become sovereign. What Gramsci does is take this concept, rooted in Leninist theory, and structure it. Whereas until then hegemony was concerned with the struggle for visible power, for Gramsci it is a struggle for invisible power – hence, I referred earlier to esoteric politics. In this case, we are talking about the transformation of common sense, the intellectual, moral, and cultural direction of society. This structure is particularly well developed in the “Quaderni del Carcere”, especially in the third notebook, where he outlines some notes on Machiavelli, politics, and the modern state, and develops hegemony as intellectual control — something I will call, in my own words, the “dominion of the symbolic.”
Therefore, the concept is developed throughout the Quaderni, but, in short, the methods for establishing cultural hegemony begin in civil society, as an ethical-political content, which serves as the terrain for the preparation of state dominance. This leads to a crucial understanding: the dominant class does not govern only with the state (force) but primarily with civil society: schools, churches, universities, media… these platforms are where the invisible roots are planted.
This cultural hegemony is legitimized by those detached from social struggles, individuals without an ideological role, whom Gramsci calls Traditional Intellectuals. In contrast, we have the Organic Intellectuals: these take on the role of changing reality, are deeply rooted, and, through infiltration into social structures, help to secure a new cultural hegemony, a new order.
At this point, it should be clear why all of this is so important for right-wing intellectual movements, correct? Because it provides a practical side that has long been dormant – I would even say, in metapolitical terms, it has been dead. While left-liberal groups have perpetuated the hegemonic state post-Gramsci, we have theorists like Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, who adapted the entire theory to a politicization of democracy. Meanwhile, the right remained frozen, indifferent to the Gramscian model all this time, until the concept was repurposed by Alain de Benoist.
It is with Benoist that the notion of a cultural war begins to be understood, and with that, the importance of establishing cultural struggles for the fight for hegemony is recognized. Therefore, understanding Gramsci on the right means understanding that, although the structure has changed – we are no longer in biopolitical times, but in psychopolitical times – the Gramscian ‘modus operandi’ remains an effective model, especially if it is well adapted and directed towards cultural control.
In what ways do right-wing populist or conservative cultural strategies in the name of defence of traditional values overlap with Gramsci’s theoretical framework and where do they diverge?
What kind of traditionalism is advocated by populist right-wing movements? This does not practice anything other than exoteric politics, and is therefore not esoteric. Furthermore, these populist cultural strategies, in essence, do not seek genuine change, but rather the preservation of the same ideology: liberalism. They merely change their mask; sometimes positioning themselves on the right, sometimes on the left… We know how liberal democracy is the ideal setting for various camouflages of neoliberalism to operate. Therefore, this populism must be understood as “controlled opposition,” still functioning as antibodies within the hegemonic organism.
They are not traditionalists in the Guénonian sense; they are dissolved in the Realm of Quantity, but they are traditional intellectuals from the Gramscian perspective. Is this clear? They are not truly revolutionary; they do not behave as organic intellectuals. I would even say that the current ideology is so dominant, a true Big Brother, that it castrates any organic element that may arise. We are in a stage of inauthenticity, in the very Heideggerian sense, and soon Dasein will be compromised; we are becoming trapped in a plane of immanence, an inorganic sphere.
What is metapolitics? With which tools and strategies do right-wing intellectual movements adopt and transform metapolitics in order to construct cultural power?
Many misconceptions have been said about metapolitics. In fact, the term remains largely abstract, which is why many people, without ideological, political, or religious knowledge, use it arbitrarily. The definition established by Alberto Buela, in a very succinct manner, is: cultural activity that necessarily precedes political action. And it is here that we can see why metapolitics and Gramsci merge.
Now, in the theory I have been developing, metapolitics consists of three stages: at the first, idealistic level, it is the manipulation of the Zeitgeist, which I approach according to a Hegelian measure; in terms of the psychosocial perspective, metapolitics is a key to accessing symbols and elaborating a new imaginary, for which I draw on Gilbert Durand and Henry Corbin; lastly, in an ontological sphere, it is the struggle against the abandonment of being (Seinsverlassenheit), the battle against alienation, for which Heidegger is an important author.
As is clear, the current metapolitical struggles, according to my model, have still been taking place only in the first two stages: idealistic and psychosocial. At these stages, the strategies of right-wing Gramscism have been to battle on unconventional platforms, that is, on social media, in the contest for the algorithm. Social media is the fertile ground where the ultimate cultural battle is taking place at this moment. On a civil and political level, it is largely occurring through an infiltration of those populist groups we discussed earlier. This has been the main avenue for recruitment. However, I should not speak much about these infiltration models, to avoid compromising myself and my partners. Certain matters must remain in the shadows, faceless. But I believe your question has been answered.
From the perspective of both ‘cultural hegemony’, ‘organic intellectual’ and ‘war of position’, how does today’s digital world transform these concepts and strategies?
We are living in times of psychopolitics, and social media is the driving force behind its realiz1ation. Today, ideology is disseminated in a more diffuse and personalized manner through the internet. The digital world takes on various forms of ideological reproduction, which currently influence the perception of reality, often without conscious mediation. Very soon, I believe, it will be the internet itself that fully controls the simulacrum, the hyperreality, as elaborated by Baudrillard.
The entire digital sphere is a new arena for cultural battles, where cultural hegemony is contested, simultaneously functioning as a struggle for the symbolic and ideological domination of virtual spaces. However, social media continues to convey an illusion of democratic participation, as its manipulation is subtle. In the future, what Vilfredo Pareto referred to regarding the “circulation of elites” will shift to the realm of data and algorithm manipulation. It is through these means that the elites will circulate, simulating power alternations.
In fact, the digital realm has transformed Gramscian concepts. It is from this environment that we will see the emergence of new organic intellectuals, along with many falsifications, of course. However, it is also the stage for the war of position, the creation of new narratives through the production of content that challenges the dominant narratives, the building of online communities, and constant mobilization – all of this is already happening, and we will see how it unfolds moving forward.
Therefore, the concept is developed throughout the Quaderni, but, in short, the methods for establishing cultural hegemony begin in civil society, as an ethical-political content, which serves as the terrain for the preparation of state dominance. This leads to a crucial understanding: the dominant class does not govern only with the state (force) but primarily with civil society: schools, churches, universities, media… these platforms are where the invisible roots are planted.