Newsletter - International Gramsci Society

Conferences
Professor Massimo Lollini of the University of Oregon organized and chaired a session on
Gramsci at 1993 conference of the American Association of Italian Studies that was held on
15-18 April 1993 in Austin, Texas. Mr. Lollini has kindly provided us with the following
description of the papers that were delivered on that occasion:
1. “Reclaiming Gramsci: Unearthing Italy’s Internal Colonial History”
Pasquale Verdicchio (University of California at San Diego La Jolla)
This presentation outlined uses of Gramsci in the fields of cultural and post-colonial
studies. While Gramsci’s works are quoted with regularity, many of his concepts have been
incorporated within the critical body of cultural studies without reference as to their
provenance. As a result of the distancing of the works from the context that stimulated them
(Italian nationhood and the North/South question), a large and valuable dimension has been
lost. Restoring Gramsci’s signature to his works, and reconsidering them in the light of the
colonial relationship that was installed by Northern Italy in the Southern part of the peninsula,
would offer a revitalized Gramsci, useful not only to cultural and post-colonial studies, but
also to an expansion of the scope of Southern Italian studies. This shift of focus would not
subtract Gramsci from an internationalist view, and will redefine the relationship of the South
to Italy and Europe, possibly toward a Mediterranean perspective.
2. “Gramsci, Mosca and the Fascist Law Against Freemasonry”
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (University of Nevada—Las Vegas; Dept. of Philosophy)
This paper discussed the hypothesis that the political theory of Gramsci is largely a
constructive criticism or critical development of that of Gaetano Mosca. A crucial example of
the theoretical convergence between Gramsci and Mosca is the recognition by Gramsci of the
fundamental law of Mosca’s political science, which Professor Finocchiaro calls “The
analytical principle of elitism.” Moreover, the two thinkers interpreted Freemasonry as an
effective political organization; and both gave a partially positive favorable evaluation of
Freemasonry.
— 52 —