Two Conceptions of State: Antonio Gramsci and Michael Mann
| Author | Jonathan Moran |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9256.00073 |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Two Conceptions of
State: Antonio Gramsci
and Michael Mann
Jonathan Moran
Gramsci revised classical Marxist accounts of
Weberian. These latter scholars such as
the role of the state in society, culture and
Michael Mann, Anthony Giddens, Charles
ideology, and stressed the autonomy of the
Tilly, whilst remaining discrete from the
political process from the economic base.
Marxist tradition have nevertheless moved
Sociologists often labelled neoWeberian also
away from classical non-Marxist sociology and
focus on social change, the state and the poli-
engaged with materialism in their analyses of
tical process. Michael Mann, whilst remain-
the politics of the state and class con¯ict.
ing discrete from Marxism has nevertheless
It appears there may be common ground
moved away from classical Weberian sociol-
developing between the Gramscian tradition
ogy, engaging deeply with materialism in
of Marxist study and the new materialism of
analysing the state. This article compares the
non-Marxist scholars. Both attempt to synthe-
work of Gramsci and Mann regarding the
sise a materialist analysis with an appreciation
state, to examine whether a genuine synth-
of the role of ideology, culture and the auton-
esis is possible between Gramsci (perhaps the
omous nature of the political process.
®rst `neo-Marxist') and Mann, a neoWeber-
Gramsci himself labelled the 1917 Russian
ian.
Revolution `the revolution against Karl Marx's
Kapital' (quoted in Bottomore, 1983, p. 118)
since it demonstrated that the productive
Introduction
forces were not determining of the possibi-
lities for revolution: culture and politics dis-
The work of Antonio Gramsci has been the
played an autonomy. (Bottomore, 1983
subject of voluminous debate and interpreta-
p. 194) Similarly, Mann has argued that
tion over the last 20 years. Central to discus-
although material developments and classes
sion has been the extent to which Gramsci a)
are vital determinants in social development,
broke with classical Marxism b) made valu-
there is no determination in the last instance.
able new interpretations to the theory of
(Mann, 1986, p. 1) Perry Anderson, in his
materialism and c) thus either rejuvenated or
review of Mann's historical sociology of
dissolved classical Marxism as a relevant theo-
power, argued Marxist historiography and
retical and historical enterprise. Gramsci's
theory would have to engage with Mann's
work was concerned with social change, the
vital work, whilst recently, Giddens and Mann
state and classes, areas subject to detailed
have placed emphasis on the role of classes
analysis by sociologists often labelled neo-
in social change.1
Jonathan Moran, Liverpool John Moores University
# Political Studies Association 1998. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
159
Two Conceptions of State . Moran
Politics (1998) 18(3) pp. 159±164
This article seeks to compare the work of
becoming a state. However because the state
Gramsci and Mann in regard to their con-
is at once unique and also a re¯ection of the
ceptualisation of the state, to examine whe-
spread of power relations in society, there
ther a genuine synthesis is possible between
exists a constant oscillation between the state
Gramsci (perhaps the ®rst `neo-Marxist') and
and civil society. (Mann, 1989, p. 116±117)
Michael Mann, a scholar in the neoWeberian
Gramsci also adopted a society centred
tradition.2
view of the state, conceptualising it as re¯ect-
ing the spread of power relations in society:
Similarities between Mann
Ãthe general notion of the state includes ele-
ments which need to be referred back to the
and Gramsci
notion of civil society (in the sense that one
might say that state = political society + civil
Both Mann and Gramsci reject idealist / spiri-
society.) (Gramsci, 1971, p. 263) Thus like
tual accounts of political development and
Mann, Gramsci moved away from the classical
the state. Both are concerned with accounting
/economistic Marxist view of the state as
for the power of material and ideological
existing in line with a given mode of produc-
forces in social development. Both focus on
tion, and also away from the `statist' view of
class as an important historical variable. How-
the state as the centre of social and political
ever both sought to importantly qualify the
change, to conceiving the state as conditioned
ways in which the state was viewed as essen-
by, even subordinated to fundamental move-
tially beholden to economic interests (clas-
ments in society. (Bobbio, 1988, p. 76;
ses) thus rejecting `vulgar materialism.'
pp. 87±88) As with Mann there exists a dialec-
In this regard Mann...
To continue reading
Request your trial