International Gramsci Society Newsletter

ealisation that no pedagogical activity is ever neutral. All educational activity therefore needs to bethoroughly examined for signs of complicity with anti-liberatory practice.Mayo acknowledges that this is by no means an easy task, the danger being that the linescan easily become blurred as to what exactly constitutes effective counter-hegemonic practice. Here,Gramsci's concept of the organic intellectual is especially valuable, juxtaposed, as it should be,against this vision of a politicised civil society. The role of the organic intellectual is essentially,then, a political one: that is, it is a role which requires the constant modelling of self-reflectivepractice and the initiation of social critique as a vital component of Gramsci's "war of position."Illuminating the possibilities available to enable subaltern groups to engage in effective powersharinginitiatives therefore entails that the adult educator work across a number of cultural siteswith a variety of groups. Accordingly, "education" is certainly not confined to formal encountersbut is to be viewed as synonymous instead with "cultural struggle." As Mayo also urges,"hegemony" presupposes the need for a strong sense of intervention on the part of the adulteducator, a move which further underscores the need for active human agency as a necessarycatalyst for self-activity (self-agency) among the marginalised and dispossessed. Deducing fromGramsci's factory council experience that for such local activity to be effective, it must also beconnected ultimately to an international alliance of movements—an "international historical bloc"(pp.176-77)—Mayo then observes that the arena of industrial production constitutes an important,contemporary and increasingly globalised site of social-change-oriented educational activity.Indeed, as perhaps the most obvious site, still, where issues of economic injustice generally surface,Mayo reasons that the "democratisation of relations in the sphere of production" represents a keystrategy in the "democratisation of wider social relations," in general (p.47). And what Mayo meansby democratisation is clearly the establishment of reciprocal educational relationships (basically, a"collaboration" between individuals at a site), a theme which serves as an appropriate introduction toFreire's work.Of perhaps the greatest import with regard to Freire's contribution is that it informs the"how" of the Gramscian vision of more democratic social relations. In particular, Freire's pedagogyserves to illuminate how the politicisation of individuals is to occur: how they are to undergo thetransition from a state of submersion within (and therefore submission to) the dominant culture totake an active role in the shaping of both their own destinies and that of their culture. Wellrehearshing the key components of Freire's liberatory pedagogy throughout his book—the focusbeing on the role of critical dialogue as a key constituent of an anti-banking, anti-hierarchical andpoliticising pedagogy—Mayo's synopsis undoubtedly succeeds in offering the reader a valuableoverview, nonetheless. Overall, that Mayo finds in favour of a complementarity between the ideas ofGramsci and Freire, I feel is well argued—albeit somewhat repetitious, given the formulaic layout ofthe chapters (an ongoing reiteration of themes of social relations, sites of practice, and the content of— 19 —