Daldal’s comparative analysis argues that both Gramsci and Foucault understand power not as a possession held exclusively by the state, but as a dynamic relation of force embedded in social life. Gramsci, drawing on Machiavelli, locates power within ideology: a dominant group becomes hegemonic when it transforms its worldview into “common sense”, thereby winning consent rather than relying solely on coercion . His account of civil society is therefore crucial, since schools, churches, media and cultural institutions reproduce bourgeois values while appearing neutral. Foucault similarly rejects a narrowly repressive model of power, insisting that power is diffuse, productive and present in everyday practices; however, he shifts attention from ideology to knowledge, discipline and the body. Whereas Gramsci emphasises consciousness, collective will and ideological struggle, Foucault examines how individuals are objectified through scientific classifications, disciplinary institutions and normalising practices . A useful case study is education: for Gramsci, schooling helps create consent by shaping popular mentality; for Foucault, it disciplines bodies, regulates conduct and produces obedient subjects through surveillance and examination. The decisive divergence lies in ideology itself. For Gramsci, power is fundamentally ideological because domination requires access to consciousness; for Foucault, ideology is too abstract to explain the concrete technologies through which power operates. Ultimately, Daldal shows that the two thinkers converge in rejecting simple state-centred repression, yet diverge in their analytical emphasis: Gramsci privileges hegemony, while Foucault privileges disciplinary power.
