SRIJAN BASU MALLICK

POLITICAL SCIENCE
PG SEM – 1
POLS 05
MIDSEMESTER ASSIGNMENT
POLS 701 AND POLS 702
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF ENLIGHTENMENT – POLS 701

The Enlightenment can be defined as the formation of a new set of ideas regarding man,
society and nature which critiqued and provided alternatives to existing notions of society
which were deeply influenced by Christianity. The Christian clergy, who held control over
the ideas of the world, was challenged by the thinkers of Enlightenment. The prominent ways
in which these new ideas found articulation and expression was through innovations in
various forms of writing, printing, painting, music, sculpture, architecture and gardening, as
well as the other arts. A certain number of features gave enlightenment a unique identity. The
notion of reason took primacy where the formation of knowledge was based upon reason and
rationality which was based upon experiences. Empiricism comes next where the idea of
empirical assertion of each and every perception about the natural and social world is
understood through human sense organs. Science is the next idea where scientific knowledge
resulted by experimentation developed as the parameter to the enhancement of human
knowledge. Universalisms discusses about the applicability of reason and science in each and
every context and the homogeneity of principles in every case. The idea of general laws in
science finds precedence in this regard. The applicability of science and reason gives birth to
the notion of progress which advocates the idea that there can be an improvement in the state
of natural and social condition of a human being. Individualism finds space in enlightenment
and it asserts the fact that individual knowledge forms the basis of society and should be
refrained from being subjected to higher authority. Tolerance highlights the sameness of the
human race and freedom stressed on the opposition to any kind of feudal and traditional
constraints on the life and activities of an individual. Secularism is an agency in
enlightenment which is based upon anti-clericalism. Freedom from religious orthodoxy and
the need for secular knowledge was the primary component of secularism. Following this, I
shall highlight the perspectives of Social Sciences in the context of Enlightenment. There is a
contradiction that arises as a result of glorification of sciences to appropriate Enlightenment.
Scientism stood upon the concept of rationality and the objectivity of knowledge. There are
questions raised on philosophical grounds when the positivist mechanisms, adopted by them
distinguish between fact and value. The context under which the contradiction stands upon is
the fact that scientism negates a set of values propagated by Christianity and replaces it with
values based upon science and reason. However, the separation of facts from values does not
find shape here which should not be the case as scientism claims itself to be value neutral.
Hence, it becomes problematic to put forward scientific grounds on which a set of new socio-
cultural values can replace the values of the Christian Divine Order because in order for
science to be value neutral, it must reject any form of social arrangement based upon a set of
values, however ‘enlightened’ the values may appear.

REFERENCE:

Hall, Stuart and Gieben, Bram (1992); ‘THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE BIRTH OF
SCIENCE’; FORMATIONS OF MODERNITY; UK: Polity Press; Pp. 21, 23, 43
GRAMSCI’S IDEA OF HEGEMONY – POLS 702

According to Gramsci, the intellectuals, along with carrying out the task of establishing their
economic position and political power, should establish the hegemony of their class over the
society in complete terms through entrenchment of their ideological premises. The term was
conceptualised and developed by Gramsci as the means through which the proletariat will be
able to establish their leadership amongst all the anti-capitalist forces and organise them
under a ‘new homogeneous politico-economic historical bloc, without internal
contradictions.’ The ideas of the ruling class had become diffused throughout the society by
its intellectuals and as a result it became the ‘common sense’ of the society as a whole. As a
result of this, the ruling classes did not require force to assert their dominance. Hegemony,
Gramsci argued, was exercised in bourgeois capitalist states through a combination of
coercion and consent and both reciprocated each other. A situation is created where the
coercion appears to become the consent of the people. The existence of a cultural hegemony
made the achievement of proletarian revolution a near difficult task. Gramsci argued that the
existence of capitalist hegemony made the proletariat unconscious of the existence of
contradictions within capitalism and the zeal of demolishing it to achieve socialism as the
capitalists i.e. the ruling class was successful in advocating its interests as that of the entire
society and it was done using consent and coercion, as a result, took a backseat. Gramsci
went on to assert that the working class, to establish its own hegemony, must take the role of
advocating the interests of the entire society. Counter hegemony of the proletariats could be
achieved only through the proactive role of working class intellectuals in the movement of
transformation. The role of the party would be a thorough praxis of ideological and cultural
struggle along with the capture of state power. Since the ideological hegemony of the
bourgeoisie was deeply rooted in the advanced industrial countries of the West, the party
should play the role of an educational tool which will initiate a movement of counter culture
where it will capture the elements of civil society through an ideological, political and
cultural struggle. Gramsci stressed on the importance of hegemony over the civil society and
dialectically linked it with the control of state power. He asserted the need for both ‘force’
and ‘persuasion’ in the process of initiating proletarian revolution. In the context of Western
countries, he highlighted the importance of an ideological struggle against the deeply
entrenched capitalist hegemony which, he recognized was a herculean task as the struggle
was devoid of the resources in which the bourgeoisie had an upper hand in terms of resources
of different forms. This sometimes reaffirmed the need for achieving political power initially
in order to achieve hegemony in civil society.

REFERENCE:

Mclellan, David (2007); ‘GRAMSCI’; MARXISM AFTER MARX; NEW YORK: Palgrave
Macmillan; Pp. 200-203