This summer I have been reading selections from Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks. The Gramscian construct of cultural hegemony is brilliantly insightful and something every political economist should be aware of. The notebook entries are also very akin to blogs in construction and length.
Given my recent suspension by the Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES) for posting an announcement of an article on the political economic impacts of the Ukraine war (“The Ukraine war and Europe’s deepening march of folly”), that has prompted me to wonder if Gramsci would have also been banned had he posted his notebook entries from his prison cell? Sadly, the answer seems to be “Yes”.
Plus ça change
Worse yet, it seems to me that Gramsci would also be banned under the PKES Committee’s proposed amended listserv policy. That proposal states the listserv is intended for “economics-related announcements (rather than discussions) of academic and/or policy-related events, jobs, and research… Non-academic blog posts, op-eds, and other self-published materials should generally not be posted.”
Since one reason for the new proposal was my public protest against my suspension, below is my response to it.
(1) The Committee’s proposal is essentially “more of the same”.
(2) The proposal is unsound and invites arbitrary enforcement.
What constitutes “economics-related”? Is Zionist settler colonialism economics-related? Is imperialism economics-related? Is the war in Ukraine economics-related?
What constitutes “academic research”? I have often used non-refereed material in my teaching and research. Does that material qualify?
If blogs and op-eds are “generally” disallowed, what determines which are allowed?
Is Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony economics-related? Is it academic research? Would Gramsci’s notebook entries be disallowed as impermissible blogs?
(3) It is easy to envisage an alternative workable system consisting of an “Announcement Listserv” and a “Discussion Listserv”. Announcements would be narrowly defined to make sure they are just that. Members would be automatically enrolled in both and could then unsubscribe at their discretion.
(4) Let people decide what announcements they want to open and read. They can delete announcements on controversial issues they don’t like.
(5) There has never been a problem with “excessive announcements”. The only problems have been i) inappropriate “excessive responses” to announcements, and ii) some people have not liked the content being announced for their own personal political reasons.
The first problem can be fixed by adding a Discussion Listserv. The second problem should be ignored as that is the price of “academic freedom”.
(6) As of now, the PKES listserv has become moribund, and the Committee’s proposal will keep it that way if adopted.
Conclusion: we need more openness, not less
This is a time when we need more openness, not less. A policy that would ban Antonio Gramsci should not be approved. Though people may not realize, it is cut from a similar type of cloth as the Starmer Labour government’s designation of Palestine Action as a banned terrorist organization. The proposed PKES policy diminishes space for freedom of intellectual exchange and tacitly serves the forces of intolerance. That is something Post Keynesians should reject. I hope PKES members will advise the Committee accordingly.