Croce, Philosophy and Intellectuals: Three Aspects of Gramsci’s Theory of Hegemony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a recent revival of interest in Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. Within this revival, some scholars have focused upon the question of the sources of Gramsci’s theory, particularly with reference to linguistic sources; others have focused upon applications of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, particularly in conjunction with the question of the subaltern. This article seeks to contribute to this revival by nuancing three aspects of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony. Firstly, Croce’s presumed influence over the latter is rejected in favor of a commonality of concerns with a whole generation of Italian intellectuals, not just Croce. Secondly, it is emphasized that philosophy played an important role in Gramsci’s theory of hegemony in that it provided the all-important critiques of common sense and false consciousness. Lastly, it is argued that the intellectuals’ need for a new hegemony was not just organic but included traditional intellectuals in complex new formations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".