Gramsci’s Tentacles

by Robert Gear (October 2017)

The Dead Come out in Their Sunday Best, Peter Blake, 2013


Come to think of it, perhaps I could have titled this article pertinently, but less delicately, ‘Gramsci’s Testicles.’ The two slight orthographic substitutions necessary neatly connote the fact that this man’s ideas have spread like the broadcast spawning of certain bony fish. But I digress.

That the Gramscian tentacles have dug fissures into the refuge of the traditional family is a logical extension of his reigning idea. As Jonah Goldberg so perceptively put it, “the traditional family is the enemy of all political totalitarianisms because it is a bastion of loyalties separate from and prior to the state, which is why progressives are constantly trying to crack its outer shell.”

The family can be attacked from outside by external enemies, but isn’t it also true that the family can be undermined from within by politically engaged adults encouraging their children to adopt a ‘progressive’ attitude, to turn their offspring into embryonic gauchistes? But at what age do children start to form political opinions? Young children do have notions of justice and fairness, knowing when to hurl the accusation “That’s not fair” by about age 5 or thereabouts. According to Jean Piaget, children develop their own moral notions which emerge through their play and often, perhaps surprisingly, in contradiction to adult teaching. They certainly sense at some innocent level, feelings of oppression, bullying and the subtleties of power and control by the time they are in school and even within their own family arrangement. No doubt this is purely at an unreasoned level—it is all about feelings, not deliberated, and certainly not infused with the relatively sophisticated thoughts necessary to understand the abstractions of political give-and-take as it is played out in the larger arena of society.

What started me thinking about this question was a political cartoon competition held by a weekly magazine of local news and culture in a mid-size Southwestern American town. The Grand Prize Winner, Honorable Mentions and the Under 18 Entries were published to the no doubt smug satisfaction of much of the readership. Have you guessed yet the range of topics illustrated by the entries? I say ‘range’ but the word is hardly applicable. No more applicable than ‘diversity’ is germane to the range of thought displayed by the professoriat of departments of humanities at most Anglosphere and European universities.

The Grand Prize in the cartoon competition depicts Putin and a sidekick, Kislyak, maneuvering a giant wooden head of President Trump past the barricades and walls surrounding the White House. An open door in the Trump head allows Russian agents to slip in under cover. Kislyak’s bubble says “Putie, are you sure they’ll take this thing in! (sic)” Putie’s bubble says, “Sergey, who cares (sic) it’s already paid for!”

Geddit? The reader is supposed to concur with the view that somehow Russian money and ‘collusion’ was involved in Trump’s election. Trump is linked to the hypothetical Russian attempt to engineer the outcome of the 2016 election. But like a lot of leftwing ‘humor’ such fumbling attempts at jocularity only provokes a laugh if one has a very low threshold for laughter. So, basically the submissions were a predictable trickle feeding into the rising ocean of Trump Derangement Syndrome. But was wit here demonstrated? I need hardly point out that the question is rhetorical. Not, of course, that sitting presidents or political leaders of any stripe should be immune from the assaults of cartoonists. Such, for example, is the great tradition of satirical and often scatological caricatures flourishing splendidly in 18th century Britain. These were often propagandistic and aimed at political leaders of the day.


Some of these parents, then, could be in for a nasty shock. And in fact, some evidence points to the contrariness of the offspring of over-politicized parents. This strikes me as a curious echo of Piaget’s evidence from young children. A study published in the British Journal of Political Science (Oct, 2014), using data from both the USA and the UK, found that parents who try too hard to indoctrinate their progeny actually cultivate opposing ideas. Apparently, when such children leave home and engage in frequent political discussions, they are exposed to a range of new viewpoints, which they then adopt with surprising frequency.

Parenthetically, cases of political metanoia (those who in popular parlance have swallowed the red pill), in individuals of more advanced age are not so uncommon. Perhaps most famously, Whittaker Chambers underwent an epiphany regarding the moral turpitude of the Soviet system and its infiltration into US government agencies and civil society. David Horowitz is another with a radical past who rejected the moral degeneracy of the radical left, and more recently, the playwright, David Mamet, entered the ranks of ‘traitors’ to his erstwhile ‘liberal’ comrades. Even Scruton himself claims that he was raised in a ‘socialist household.’



Robert Gear now lives in the American Southwest.  He is a retired English teacher and has co-authored with his wife several texts in the field of ESL.


If you enjoyed this article and want to read more by Robert Gear, please click here.