ABSTRACT
Opening his seminal study of Gramsci in 1981 Joseph Femia acknowledged that there was ‘remarkably little agreement about what Gramsci really said’, and lamented the fact that the tentative and provisional character of his writings (especially the Prison Notebooks) made them particularly amenable to ‘a wide variety of interpretations’ and therefore fair game for ‘a battle of citations’
)HPLD ± 0RUH WKDQ \HDUV ODWHU WKH KRSH RI HVWDEOLVKLQJ VRPH ZLGHO\ DFFHSWHG GH¿QLWLRQV FDSWXULQJ WKH QDWXUH RI *UDPVFL¶V NH\ FRQFHSWV remains elusive, and the current volume highlights once more the lack of agreePHQWRYHUKLVZULWLQJV7KLVFRQWLQXLQJGLYHUJHQFHRIRSLQLRQDERXWWKHFKDUDFter and utility of Gramsci’s concepts of course makes the task of applying his ideas to the contemporary world all the more problematic, and it is worth highlighting how the current volume once again bears testimony to some of the key LQWHUSUHWLYHGLI¿FXOWLHV
Foremost among these is of course the problem of negotiating Gramsci’s FRQWUDGLFWRU\GH¿QLWLRQVRIKHJHPRQ\LQWKHPrison Notebooks7KHUHDUHLQIDFW IRXUNH\FRQÀLFWLQJDFFRXQWVRIKHJHPRQ\WKDWKDYHEHHQZHOOH[SORUHGLQWKH secondary literature (see, for example, Anderson 1976/7; Buci-Glucksmann ±0DUWLQ±)LUVWKHJHPRQ\LVXVHGWRGHVFULEHDQHZ relationship in modern Western societies between the state as an agent of coerFLRQ DQG FLYLO VRFLHW\ DV WKH UHDOPRI FRQVHQW H[HPSOL¿HG LQ*UDPVFL¶V HDUO\ description of hegemony in the Prison Notebooks as ‘una combinazione della forza e del consenso che si equilibrano’1*UDPVFL6HFRQGKHJHPRQ\ LVIUHTXHQWO\LQWHUSUHWHGLQDQDUURZHUVHQVHDQGLGHQWL¿HGsolely with the struggle for ideological ascendancy in civil society as Gramsci distinguishes between µWZRPDMRUVXSHUVWUXFWXUDO³OHYHOV´³FLYLOVRFLHW\´¶ZKLFKFRUUHVSRQGVWRµWKH IXQFWLRQRI³KHJHPRQ\´DQGWKDWRI³SROLWLFDOVRFLHW\´¶ZKLFKFRUUHVSRQGVWR the ‘ “direct domination” or command exercised through the State and “juridical JRYHUQPHQW´¶ *UDPVFL 7KLUG KHJHPRQ\ LV DJDLQ H[SDQGHG WR include an essential economic and class base – ‘il contenuto dell’egemonia politica del nuovo gruppo sociale che ha fondato il nuovo tipo di Stato deve essere prevalentemente di ordine economico’*UDPVFL±WKXVLGHQWLI\LQJ it more closely with Gramsci’s holistic concepts of ‘integral state’ and ‘historical EORF¶$QG¿QDOO\EH\RQGWKLVGLVFXVVLRQRIµOHYHOV¶KHJHPRQ\DSSHDUVLQWKH Prison Notebooks to denote a new kind of relationship or alliance between social forces in which ‘a fundamental social group’ abandons its ‘economiccorporate’ phase (sectarianism), eschews reliance solely on domination (dominazione) and sets out to establish ‘intellectual and moral leadership’ (direzione) over the various subaltern forces – creating a new power ‘equilibrium’ – by engaging in an ideological and ‘educational’ struggle to gain their consent for its FRQWLQXLQJUXOH*UDPVFL±±±
All of the above appear in the current volume to some extent, and the interSUHWLYHFRQWURYHUV\DQGWHQVLRQVEHWZHHQWKHVHIRXUGH¿QLWLRQVRIKHJHPRQ\DUH WKXVIDUIURPUHVROYHGE\WKLVERRN7RWDNHEXWDIHZH[DPSOHVWKHWZRFKDSters by Ludwig and Dikici-Bilgin are very much within the second tradition of hegemony, as they highlight how Gramsci’s concept can be deployed to illumiQDWHWKHZD\VLQZKLFKWKHPRGHUQVWDWHH[SDQGVLWVLQÀXHQFHLQWRFLYLOVRFLHW\ and struggles to establish a new relationship between state and civil society that will protect the former by reinforcing identities and groups that serve to maintain LWVSDUWLFXODUSRZHUFRQ¿JXUDWLRQ7KHFRQWULEXWLRQVRI:RUWKDQG3DWHUVRQRQ WKH RWKHU KDQG FOHDUO\ LQÀXHQFHG E\&R[¶V UHDGLQJ RI*UDPVFL LQ ,5 VWXGLHV
follow the latter in identifying hegemony much more closely with the notion of µDQKLVWRULFDOEORF¶&R[DQGWKH\WKXV¿W LQZLWKWKHWKLUGGH¿QLWLRQRI hegemony that focuses on a form of supremacy that has as its principal raison d’être the institution of a particular mode of economic production and distribuWLRQJOREDOLVHGFDSLWDOLVP:RUWKKRZHYHULVNHHQWRVHHQHR*UDPVFLDQVLQ ,5 GHYHORS WKHLU ZRUN LQ WKH GLUHFWLRQ RI 6WXDUW +DOO DQG 5D\PRQG:LOOLDPV ZKRKDYHEHHQDVVRFLDWHGPRUHZLWKWKHVHFRQGGH¿QLWLRQRIKHJHPRQ\DVDFXOWXUDO DQG LGHRORJLFDO VWUXJJOH IRU VXSUHPDF\ LQ FLYLO VRFLHW\ )RU :RUWK WKLV ZRXOGLQIDFWRSHQWKHZD\IRUDZHOFRPHVKLIWDZD\IURPWKH¿UVWGH¿QLWLRQRI hegemony that retains a central focus on the state and which he feels has been VRPHWKLQJRIDZHDNQHVVLQWKHDQDO\VLVRIQHR*UDPVFLDQ,5WKHRULVWV)LQDOO\ WKHGLVFXVVLRQRIKHJHPRQ\LQWKHFKDSWHUE\'HYLQHDQG3XUG\FRQFHUQVLWVHOI PXFKPRUHZLWKWKHODVWGH¿QLWLRQQRWHGDERYHDVWKH\DUJXHWKDWWKHHPHUJHQFH of a new radical alliance in contemporary Britain will require above all a willingness by each of the political forces involved to abandon ‘economic-corporate’ DQGµVHFWDULDQ¶SRVLWLRQVLQRUGHUWREXLOGDQHZXQLWHGKHJHPRQLFEORF$PRQJ these contributions to the volume, therefore, we can see that the divergences and WHQVLRQV EHWZHHQ FRQÀLFWLQJ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI KHJHPRQ\ DUH NHSW YHU\ PXFK alive, and thus continue to present a problem for the application of Gramsci’s LGHDVWRWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFDOZRUOG ,QGHHGEH\RQGGLVDJUHHPHQWVRYHUWKHGH¿QLWLRQRIKHJHPRQ\LWVKRXOGEH DFNQRZOHGJHG WKDW WKH YROXPH KDV LQ IDFW DGGHG WR LQWHUSUHWLYH FRQWURYHUVLHV )HPLDIRUH[DPSOHKDYLQJGLVSXWHGWKHDSSOLFDWLRQE\QHR*UDPVFLDQ,5VSHcialists of Gramscian ideas to the internationalFRQWH[W)HPLDUHWXUQVWR the fray in this volume by accusing them now of misunderstanding the ‘realist’ FKDUDFWHU RI *UDPVFL¶V 0DFKLDYHOOLDQ HSLVWHPRORJ\ *LYHQ WKDW *UDPVFL KDV served these theorists as a useful ally to mount a challenge to the ‘realist’ tradiWLRQ LQ ,5 VWXGLHV WKLV ZLOO RI FRXUVH EH SDUWLFXODUO\ XQZHOFRPH FULWLFLVP +RZHYHU )HPLD¶V DFFXVDWLRQV WKDW QHR*UDPVFLDQV KDYH DWWULEXWHG DQ LGHDOLVW epistemology to Gramsci and followed suit will no doubt be strongly contested, since – as Worth points out in this volume – some of these theorists have been equally arraigned for a tendency to assume all too easily a priori economic and class structures that are fundamental or primary, and therefore by no means ameQDEOH WR UHFRQ¿JXUDWLRQ LQ WKH UHDOPRIFRQVFLRXVQHVVRU µGLVFRXUVH¶DV)HPLD VXJJHVWV*HUPDLQ+REVRQ
While Femia opens up a new interpretive can of worms for neo-Gramscians, 0F1DOO\UHYLVLWVWKHWKRUQ\LVVXHRI*UDPVFL¶VLQWHUQDWLRQDOLVPWDNLQJLVVXHZLWK those who claim that Gramsci is essentially a theorist of the nation-state rather WKDQ DQ LQWHUQDWLRQDOLVW HJ )HPLD *HUPDLQ DQG .HQQ\ ZKLOH defending nonetheless a reading of Gramsci’s internationalism that preserves his DWWHQWLRQWRWKHVSHFL¿FLW\RIQDWLRQVWDWHVDJDLQVWDQRYHUO\µJOREDOLVW¶RUµFRVPRSROLWDQ¶FRQFHSWLRQRIKLVZRUN0F1DOO\UHMHFWVLQSDUWLFXODUFODLPVE\*HUPDLQ DQG.HQQ\WKDW*UDPVFL¶VFRQFHSWRIµWKHQDWLRQDOSRSXODU¶GHPRQVWUDWHVWKDWKH was principally concerned with the nation-state and national culture rather than LQWHUQDWLRQDOSROLWLFV*HUPDLQDQG.HQQ\±DUJXLQJLQVWHDGWKDWKLV
development of this concept represented an enrichment of his internationalism UDWKHU WKDQD UHMHFWLRQRI LW7KHVH LQWHUSUHWLYHGLOHPPDV±ERWKROGDQGQHZ± H[HPSOL¿HGLQWKLVYROXPHWKHUHIRUHUHPDLQFKDOOHQJLQJOLPLWDWLRQVWRWKHDSSOLFDWLRQRI*UDPVFL¶VLGHDVWRWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFDOZRUOG
7KHQHZZRUOGRUGHU
Indeed, this problem of interpretation is exacerbated by the issue of the historical gap between our world and that of Gramsci – or for that matter, the world RI WKH VZKHQ KLV LGHDV VHHPHG WR UHVRQDWH ZLWK WKH FULVLV LQ (XURSHDQ FDSLWDOLVPDQG WKHQHHG IRUDQHZDSSURDFKE\ WKH/HIW WRPHHW LW7LPHDQG again the essays in this volume have acknowledged and endeavoured to surmount this problem of demonstrating how Gramsci’s ideas remain relevant, despite the fact that they were originally conceived to engage critically with a political environment and mobilise social forces in an environment that is arguDEO\UDGLFDOO\DWRGGVZLWKWKHFXUUHQW LQWHUQDWLRQDORUGHU,QSDUWLFXODUPDQ\ contributors acknowledge that the new wave of economic ‘globalisation’ and the predominance of a ‘neo-liberal’ ideology in our world are developments that Gramsci could barely have imagined, let alone have taken into account in KLVZULWLQJV8QGHUVWDQGDEO\PXFKRIWKHGLVFXVVLRQLQWKLVYROXPHKDVWXUQHG on the key problems of ascertaining to what extent the political world has in fact changed since the 1930s and the 1970s, or indeed, to what extent there is still much that our world shares with Gramsci’s of an historical or a more HQGXULQJFKDUDFWHU
Those essays in the volume informed by a more sociological approach to the VWXG\RISROLWLFVDUHSDUWLFXODUO\VHQVLWLYHWRWKLVGLOHPPD6FKZDU]PDQWHOIRU H[DPSOHOHDQLQJRQWKHZRUNRI5LFKDUG6HQQHWWDQG=\JPXQW%DXPDQSRLQWV to the radically different character of capitalist production in the contemporary ZRUOG ± PDUNHG E\ ÀH[LEOH DQG HYHUFKDQJLQJ ZRUN SUDFWLFHV ± WKDW VHHPV especially incongruous with the kind of hierarchical and relatively stable mass production of a Fordist nature that Gramsci assumed to be increasingly hegemRQLF LQKLVZULWLQJV ,QGHHG WKLV UHYROXWLRQ LQ WKHHFRQRPLFV\VWHPVLQFH WKH 1970s is emblematic of the wider character of late modernity for many contributors who highlight the pluralised and fragmentary nature of society in our WLPH PDUNHG E\ ZKDW 'HYLQH DQG 3XUG\ FDOO µPXOWLSOH FURVVFXWWLQJ VRFLDO GLYLVLRQV¶:KLOH 6FKZDU]PDQWHO LQ SDUWLFXODU VHHPV VFHSWLFDO DERXWZKHWKHU Gramsci’s ideas are suitable for the analysis of such a complex and dynamic social order, given his concern with relatively homogenous proletarian and SHDVDQWPDVVHV/HJJHWW ± LQÀXHQFHG VWURQJO\ E\*LGGHQV¶V7KLUG:D\ VRFLology of globalisation – argues that Gramsci in fact lived through a period of rapid social transformation and it is precisely because he adapted his thinking to meet the necessities of social and economic change that we can learn much IURPKLVZRUNWRGD\:KHUH6FKZDU]PDQWHODQG/HJJHWWZRXOGFOHDUO\DJUHH however, is that the scale of recent change requires us to move beyond GramsFL¶VLGHDVLQRXUHIIRUWVWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFDOZRUOG
There are, nonetheless, some contributors to the volume who – while recognising the evident gap between Gramsci’s world and ours – remain convinced WKDW WKHUHDUHDOVR VLJQL¿FDQWFRQWLQXLWLHV WKDW LWZRXOGEHXQZLVHDQG LQGHHG socially detrimental for radical politics to overlook as it struggles to cope with WKHFKDOOHQJHVRI WKHQHZPLOOHQQLXP7KLV HPSKDVLVRQDGHJUHHRI FRQJUXence opens the way of course for maintaining that at least some of Gramsci’s NH\ LGHDV UHWDLQ WKHLU YDOLGLW\ LQ FRQWHPSRUDU\ FRQGLWLRQV 7RZQVKHQG IRU H[DPSOHDUJXHVWKDWWKHFRQWLQXLQJVLJQL¿FDQFHRI*UDPVFLDQDQDO\VLVUHVLGHV in its critical engagement with Western capitalism and its refusal to present some of its key attributes – including its ideological preference for individualism – as somehow neutral and natural developments in late modernity, as he DFFXVHV 7KLUG:D\ WKHRULVWV RI VXJJHVWLQJ *UDPVFL¶V DQWLFDSLWDOLVP LV DOVR YHU\PXFKWRWKHIRUHLQWKHFRQWULEXWLRQVRI:RUWK3DWHUVRQDQG'HYLQHDQG 3XUG\ZLWK WKH ODVW LQ SDUWLFXODU LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH FKURQLF LQVWDELOLW\ ÀX[ DQG individualism – which Leggett argues the Left will now have to learn to live with and tame since these are constitutive elements of late modernity – with a kind of rampant neo-liberal capitalism that has ‘feelbad’ and even pathological FRQVHTXHQFHVIRUFRQWHPSRUDU\VRFLHWLHV)RUWKHVHFRQWULEXWRUVWKHQFDSLWDOism may have changed its spots, but it is still essentially as exploitative and socially destructive as it was in Gramsci’s day, which is why his analysis of :HVWHUQFDSLWDOLVPUHWDLQVLWVYDOLGLW\ 6LPLODUO\0F1DOO\FRPLQJIURPDEDFNJURXQGLQWKHVWXG\RIQDWLRQDOLVP is a lot more sceptical about the extent of contemporary ‘globalisation’ – particularly its political and cultural dimensions – that represents for some the PDMRU JXOI EHWZHHQ *UDPVFL¶V ZRUOG DQG RXUV ,QÀXHQFHG E\ HPSLULFDO DQG theoretical work that supports the view that forms of nationalism and national identity are continuing to thrive in the conditions of late modernity and should QRW QHFHVVDULO\ EH YLHZHG DV DQWLSDWKHWLF WR SURJUHVVLYH SROLWLFV HJ 6PLWK 5RUW\0LOOHU0F*DUU\DQG.HDWLQJDVZHOODVUHFHQW LQGLFDWLRQVLQ(XURSHDQSROLWLFVWKDWQDWLRQVWDWHVDUHE\QRPHDQV¿QLVKHGDV ORFL RI SRZHU LQ WKH QHZJOREDOLVHG HFRQRPLF RUGHU0F1DOO\PDLQWDLQV WKDW *UDPVFL¶V GHWHUPLQDWLRQ WR WDNH DFFRXQW RI WKH VSHFL¿FLW\ RI QDWLRQVWDWHV LQ GHYHORSLQJ VWUDWHJLHV RI UHVLVWDQFH UHPDLQV UHOHYDQW LQ RXUZRUOG ,QGHHG KH VXJJHVWVWKDWWKHFXUUHQW$OWHUQDWLYH*OREDOLVDWLRQ0RYHPHQW$*0KDVPXFK to learn from Gramsci’s internationalism and especially his concept of ‘the national-popular’ which represented an attempt by Gramsci to emphasise the need to win each national battle for the state as a vital preliminary stage to WUDQVIRUPLQJ WKH LQWHUQDWLRQDO RUGHU 1RQHWKHOHVV HYHQ WKRVH FRQWULEXWRUV WR this volume who assume a degree of continuity between Gramsci’s world and ours, recognise that adapting his political thought to this new world order is clearly not without its tensions, and all seem particularly determined to avoid the kind of ahistorical applications of Gramsci’s ideas that writers such as *HUPDLQ DQG .HQQ\ DQG %HOODP\ DQG 6FKHFWHU KDYH ULJKWO\ FULWLFLVHG
7KHSUREOHPRIDJHQF\
5HODWHG WR ± DQG WR VRPH H[WHQW GHSHQGHQW RQ ± WKH SUREOHPV RI LQWHUSUHWLQJ Gramsci and negotiating the gap between his world and ours is the vexed question RI WKHDJHQWVRIKHJHPRQ\$V6FKZDU]PDQWHOKDVSRLQWHGRXW LQDVXEVWDQWLDO discussion of this issue, Gramsci at different stages of his political and intellectual GHYHORSPHQW LGHQWL¿HGYDULRXVIRUFHVRI UHYROXWLRQDU\FKDQJHDQG WKHGLI¿FXOW\ of deciding which of these accounts of agency one should regard as the authentic Gramsci is compounded by the fact that some or all may well have outlived their XVHIXOQHVVLQFRQWHPSRUDU\FLUFXPVWDQFHV,WLVQRWVXUSULVLQJWKHQWKDWWKHFXUUHQW YROXPHE\QRPHDQVUHVROYHVWKHLVVXHRIZKHUHZHVKRXOGORRNWR¿QGWKHHIIHFWLYH DJHQWV RI KHJHPRQ\ ,QVWHDG LW FRQWDLQV D GLYHUJHQFH RI DSSURDFKHV WR WKLV TXHVWLRQZKLFKIUHTXHQWO\RZHWKHLURULJLQVWRVSHFL¿FLQWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI*UDPVFL¶V work, but also to a determination to confront Gramsci’s account of agency with WKHFKDQJLQJFRQGLWLRQVRIWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFDOZRUOG
Schwarzmantel, for example, focusing on Gramsci’s early and late tendencies to identify the forces of revolutionary change with the proletarian masses in the IDFWRULHVDQGWKHPDVVSDUW\µWKH0RGHUQ3ULQFH¶HQJDJHGLQDQLGHRORJLFDODQG educative battle to win the consent of subaltern political forces, is sceptical about WKHUHOHYDQFHRIVXFKDSSURDFKHVWRDJHQF\LQWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\ZRUOG)URPKLV perspective, the transformation of capitalism from a Fordist to a post-Fordist order has effectively dissolved the mass proletariat which Gramsci believed – particularly in his early writings – would form the kernel of the new proletarian RUGHU6LPLODUO\ WKHPDVVSROLWLFDOSDUW\HQJDJHGLQDVWUXJJOHIRUµLQWHOOHFWXDO and moral leadership’ is also problematic for this contributor, who views party politics in contemporary conditions as focused almost exclusively on immediate and short-term electoral victories, rather than on Gramsci’s ambitious project of creating a new culture or Weltanschauung as a crucial staging-post in transformLQJWKHVRFLDODQGHFRQRPLFRUGHU:KHUHKRZHYHU6FKZDU]PDQWHOGRHVEHOLHYH Gramsci has something to offer on thinking about agency today, is in his stimulating observations about the need for democratic institutional structures – whether at the level of the party or the state – which this contributor sees as complementary to current discussions on the deepening of democracy and thereIRUHULSHIRUIXUWKHUGHYHORSPHQW
Other contributors to the volume continue to regard the key agents of hegemRQ\LGHQWL¿HGE\*UDPVFL±WKHVWDWHWKHSROLWLFDOSDUW\LQWHOOHFWXDOVWKHPHGLD and civil society associations – as retaining their relevance in contemporary conGLWLRQV 7KH\ JHQHUDOO\ UHFRJQLVH KRZHYHU WKDW WKH WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ RI VRFLHW\ VLQFH*UDPVFL¶VWLPHUHTXLUHVDUHFRQ¿JXUDWLRQRIWKHVHDJHQFLHVDQGQHZWKLQNing to meet new challenges in ways which Gramsci could not possibly have HQYLVDJHG7KHSUREOHPKHUH RQFH DJDLQ VKLIWV WR LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI KHJHPRQ\ whose agency is by no means consistent throughout Gramsci’s work and especially in the Prison Notebooks7KLVGLI¿FXOW\LQLGHQWLI\LQJWKHSULQFLSDODJHQWV of hegemony from Gramsci’s writings and addressing the tensions that inevitaEO\HPHUJHLQDQ\PXOWLSOHDJHQF\DSSURDFKLVDJDLQZHOOUHÀHFWHGLQWKHDERYH
FRQWULEXWLRQV7KHVHULHVRIHVVD\VRQ%ULWLVKSROLWLFVWKXVFDQFOHDUO\EHYLHZHG as within a Gramscian framework that asserts the continuing relevance of the SROLWLFDOSDUW\DQGWKHVWDWHDVNH\VLWHVRIKHJHPRQLFDJHQF\,QGHHGRQHRIWKH key issues for Leggett and Townshend is the extent to which the British Labour 3DUW\KDVSURYHGLWVHOIZLOOLQJRUDEOHWRXVHWKHSRZHURIWKHVWDWHWRHPEDUNRQ DQHZKHJHPRQLFSURMHFWVLQFHLWVHOHFWLRQLQ7KHLUIRFXVKRZHYHUFRQWUDVWVVRPHZKDWZLWKWKDWRI'HYLQHDQG3XUG\)RUDOWKRXJKWKHODWWHUFRQWLQXH to regard the political party and state as central agents of hegemony, they noneWKHOHVVVHHPSDUWLFXODUO\FRQFHUQHGWKDWLIDVXFFHVVIXO1HZ/HIWLVWRGHYHORSLQ British politics much greater attention will have to be dedicated to creating and sustaining multiple relations between a whole range of groups and associations in British civil society that will effectively act as satellite agents of its hegemRQ\7KLVDWWHQWLRQWRFLYLOVRFLHW\JURXSVDVVRFLDWLRQVDQGLQGHHGLQWHOOHFWXDOV linked to political parties and the central state is taken up too by Dikici-Bilgin in KHUDQDO\VLVRI7XUNLVKSROLWLFV+HUDSSURDFKLVSDUWLFXODUO\DWSDLQVWRGUDZRXW the tensions that emerge when the agents of hegemony are conceived broadly as HPEHGGHGLQWKHVWDWHWKHSDUW\DQGFLYLOVRFLHW\:KLOHDFNQRZOHGJLQJWKDWDW ¿UVWWKLVVHHPVSUREOHPDWLFKHUH[DPLQDWLRQRIWKHLQWHUDFWLRQEHWZHHQVWDWHDQG civil society in Turkey nonetheless supports her argument that a Gramscian approach to the relations between the agents in both these spheres in fact appears much more realistic when it comes to the dynamic and dialectical nature of conWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFDOVWUXJJOHVIRUKHJHPRQ\ )LQDOO\WKHUHLVWKHSUREOHPRIMXVWKRZIDUZHDUHMXVWL¿HGLQVWUD\LQJIURP Gramsci’s conception(s) of agency in order to take account of perceived changes in the contemporary political world, while credibly claiming to be within a *UDPVFLDQWUDGLWLRQ7KLVKDVFOHDUO\EHHQRQHRIWKHPRVWFRQWURYHUVLDOLVVXHV DURXQGWKHUHFHQWDFTXLVLWLRQRI*UDPVFLE\WKHRULVWVRI,5,3(DQGWKHLULGHQWL-¿FDWLRQ RI QHZ DJHQFLHV RI global hegemony and global resistance that were EDUHO\FRQFHLYDEOH WR*UDPVFL -RVHSK)HPLD LQSDUWLFXODUKDVFDVWGRXEWQRW only on the whole enterprise of applying Gramsci’s categories to the internaWLRQDORUGHUEXWVSHFL¿FDOO\WRWUHDWLQJWKH:72WKH:RUOG%DQNWKH,0)WKH 2(&'DQGWKH1*2VRIWKH$OWHUQDWLYH*OREDOLVDWLRQ0RYHPHQWDVDJHQFLHVRI hegemony (or counter-hegemony) that can be equated with those Gramsci idenWL¿HGDWWKHQDWLRQDOOHYHOVXFKDVSROLWLFDOSDUWLHVWUDGHXQLRQVDQGHGXFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQV)HPLD:RUWKDQG3DWHUVRQ±DQGLQGHHG0F1DOO\IURP a somewhat different perspective – all maintain the validity of treating organisaWLRQVZKLFKPRELOLVHWRYDU\LQJGHJUHHVRQDJOREDOVFDOHLHWKH:72DQGWKH $*0DVSRWHQWLDODJHQWVRI LQWHUQDWLRQDOKHJHPRQ\7KH\ WKHUHIRUHZLOOFRQtinue to be confronted not only with the task of producing coherent and persuasive political analysis, but also with the need to counter suggestions that they are PLVDSSO\LQJ*UDPVFL¶V LGHDV ,Q VXP WKLV YROXPH KDV VKRZQ WKDW LGHQWLI\LQJ agents of hegemony – both hegemonic and counter-hegemonic – is by no means DVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGDQGXQFRQWURYHUVLDOXQGHUWDNLQJDQGWKHGLI¿FXOW\RIWKLVWDVN should therefore be acknowledged as a further limitation in any effort to apply *UDPVFL¶VLGHDVWRWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFDOZRUOG
Developing Gramscian insights in dialogue with our own time One reaction to these limitations is of course to recognise them as manifestations of the fragmentary – if insightful – quality of Gramsci’s later thought or the somewhat outdated character of his social analysis, and accordingly to look to other more comprehensive and contemporaneous theoretical approaches with ZKLFK WR GHYHORS KLV PRVW XVHIXO DQG SHUWLQHQW LGHDV 7KLV DSSURDFK LV ZHOO represented in the volume too, and it is especially evident in the contributions of \RXQJ VFKRODUV OLNH 3DWHUVRQ /XGZLJ DQG )LOF ZKR DUH OHVV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK arguments about orthodoxy and interpretation, and more willing to marry ambitiously Gramscian analysis with the ideas of contemporary thinkers – even if this LQYROYHVDGRSWLQJDFULWLFDODWWLWXGHWRVRPHRI*UDPVFL¶VNH\DVVXPSWLRQV 3DWHUVRQ¶VFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKLVYROXPHIRUH[DPSOHRQFHDJDLQUHPLQGVXVWKDW neo-*UDPVFLDQ,5WKHRULVWVDUHQRWGHSHQGHQWVROHO\RQ*UDPVFLIRUDOORIWKHFDWHJRULHVWKH\HPSOR\WRDQDO\VHWKHFXUUHQWLQWHUQDWLRQDORUGHU0XUSK\ Worth and Femia in this volume), and therefore are to some extent immune from DFFXVDWLRQVWKDWWKHLUDQDO\VLVVWUD\VIURPWKHOHWWHURI*UDPVFL¶VZULWLQJV,QIDFW 3DWHUVRQ¶VDSSURDFKKHUHLVW\SLFDORIPXFKZRUNLQWKLVJHQUH+HSLFNVXSRQHRI Gramsci’s key concepts – trasformismo – and privileges its mode of ideational as opposed to leadership decapitation of oppositional movements, which allows him to PDNHWKHOLQNEHWZHHQWKLVIRUPRISDFLI\LQJPRYHPHQWVRIUHVLVWDQFHDQG5REHUW Cox’s novel concept of the nebuleuse; ‘a transnational and international network of state elites, corporate representatives and intellectuals’ responsible for carrying out this ideational work that builds ‘a policy consensus for global capitalism’ (Cox and 6FKHFKWHU±3DWHUVRQWKXVGHYHORSV*UDPVFL¶VFRQFHSWRItrasformismo to meet the needs of contemporary conditions through his critical analysis of the µWUDQVIRUPLVW¶ VWUDWHJLHV RI WKH:72 ZKLFK LV LGHQWL¿HG DV D NH\ SOD\HU LQ WKH current neo-liberal nebuleuse as it seeks to neutralise the progressive ideas of the DOWHUJOREDOLVDWLRQPRYHPHQWDQGLWV1*2V
In a similar fashion, Gundula Ludwig draws on Gramsci’s extended and integral conception of the state to meet a perceived weakness in the current literature on feminist state theory which has tended to focus on what she describes as µWKHDQGURFHQWULFORJLFRIWKHVWDWHDSSDUDWXVWKHODZDQGEXUHDXFUDF\¶8SWRD point, Gramsci’s penetrating analysis of how the modern state not only dominates but also inculcates a new culture and way of life – that has inscribed within LWIXUWKHUJHQGHULQHTXDOLWLHV±VHUYHVKHUSXUSRVHZHOO+RZHYHU/XGZLJLVQRW afraid to confront Gramscian analysis with what she regards as its limitations, and she therefore critically engages with the Gramscian notion of ideological state power, demonstrating its tendency to reduce power to the internalisation of KHJHPRQLF LGHDVDW WKH OHYHORIFRQVFLRXVQHVV+HUH VKHEHJLQV WRERUURZDQG build on Gramsci’s notion of the ‘integral state’ by enriching it with poststrucWXUDOLVW FRQFHSWLRQV RI SRZHU FRPPRQO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH ZRUN RI 0LFKHO )RXFDXOW DQG PRUH UHFHQWO\ (UQHVWR /DFODX DQG &KDQWDO 0RXIIH ZKR YLHZ power as an ongoing and pervasive process in modern societies (Foucault 1980; /DFODXDQG0RXIIH7KHNH\VXSSRUWIRU/XGZLJ¶VDSSURDFKKRZHYHULV
Judith Butler’s concept of ‘reiteration’, used here to transform what she regards as Gramsci’s unsatisfactory notion that ideas become internalised in consciousQHVV 6KH LQ IDFW DUJXHV WKDWZH VKRXOG DYRLG VXFK UHGXFWLRQLVPE\ IROORZLQJ Butler in viewing norms (of sexual inequality) as inscribed in everyday practices which are of course then amenable to subversive activity at various levels and VLWHV DFURVV VRFLHW\ DQGQRW MXVW WKH FHQWUDO VWDWH:KLOH ERUURZLQJ*UDPVFLDQ ideas, Ludwig thus also criticises and develops them in a dialogue with conWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFDOWKHRU\
Filc too, leaning on a similar tradition in contemporary political theory, situates his analysis of the Israeli political party Likud within the Gramscian tradition of hegemony and counter-hegemony, and then develops and enriches these FDWHJRULHV E\ GUDZLQJ RQ WKH ZRUN RI &KDQWDO 0RXIIH DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ RQ (UQHVWR/DFODX¶VDSSURDFKWRSRSXOLVP/DFODX/LNH/XGZLJKHHVFKHZV the essentialist core in Gramsci’s theory of hegemony which both these theorists regard as out of place in the contemporary political arena where power cannot be UHGXFHG WR HFRQRPLFV RU FODVV LQWHUHVWV +RZHYHU DQG LQ OLQH ZLWK &KDQWDO 0RXIIH¶VLQÀXHQWLDOUHDGLQJRI*UDPVFL¶VWKHRU\RILGHRORJ\0RXIIHDKH is less inclined to see the Gramscian conception of power as reductionist, pointLQJLQVWHDGWR*UDPVFL¶VGHVFULSWLRQRIKHJHPRQ\DVLQVWLWXWLQJDQHZµSUD[LV¶,W ZDVLQGHHGWKLVµPDWHULDO¶GLPHQVLRQRILGHRORJ\WKDWRSHQHGWKHZD\IRU0RXIIH to argue that Gramsci was a lot less incompatible with the poststructuralist tradition of conceiving power as a process in which subjects are produced by discurVLYH SUDFWLFHV WKDQ KDG EHHQ DVVXPHG 0RXIIH D )LOF¶V PDMRU departure from Gramsci, however, consists in his adoption of Laclau and 0RXIIH¶V UHFRQ¿JXUDWLRQRI WKH µZDURISRVLWLRQ¶ DQG WKHEDWWOH IRUKHJHPRQ\ DURXQGLQFOXVLRQDU\DQGH[FOXVLRQDU\SUDFWLFHV/DFODXDQG0RXIIH± +HWKXVIROORZV/DFODXLQYLHZLQJSRSXOLVP±LQRQHRILWVJXLVHVDWOHDVW± as an expansive inclusionary counter-hegemonic project that sets out to unite a ZKROHUDQJHRILGHQWLWLHVDJDLQVWDQH[FOXGHGDQGFRUUXSWVWDWXVTXR)LOFLQIDFW uses this Laclaudian conception of populism to shed new light on Likud’s shortOLYHGVXFFHVV LQ ,VUDHOLSROLWLFV LQ WKH ODWHVDQGV/LNH3DWHUVRQDQG /XGZLJ WKHUHIRUHKLVZRUN LV¿UPO\VLWXDWHGZLWKLQDneo-Gramscian or what might even be described – as Filc does – a post-*UDPVFLDQWUDGLWLRQ
Enduring attractions But regardless of whether one considers the essays in this volume as authentically Gramscian, neo-Gramscian or post-Gramscian, they all bear testimony to the continuing attraction of Gramsci’s political thought – notwithstanding its limitations and the fact that it was originally conceived in reaction to the political problems of a world that seems in many respects radically at odds with our RZQHUD:KDWWKHQLVLWDERXW*UDPVFL¶VNH\SROLWLFDOFRQFHSWVWKDWOHDGVERWK seasoned, and a new generation of, political theorists to turn to his work in their efforts to understand and normatively engage with modern politics? On the evidence of this volume, there appear to be two dimensions of Gramsci’s political
thought that prove particularly alluring, and indeed which compensate for the REYLRXVGLI¿FXOWLHVGLVFXVVHGDERYHWKDWRQHLQHYLWDEO\HQFRXQWHUVLQDWWHPSWLQJ WRDSSO\KLVLGHDV
First, there are his penetrating observations on the nature of power in the modern state and his ability to develop political concepts to successfully and critiFDOO\ H[SORUH LWV ZRUNLQJV ± RIWHQ WKURXJK UHÀHFWLRQV DQG REVHUYDWLRQV RQ WKH political history of his own period, thus lending them a more concrete and illuPLQDWLQJFKDUDFWHU7KLVGHWHUPLQDWLRQWRSXUVXHYLJRURXVO\DQGFRXUDJHRXVO\WKH operation and effects of modern power in his Prison Notebooks beyond its relaWLRQVZLWKWKH0DU[LVWVDIHKDYHQVRIWKHRZQHUVKLSRIWKHPHDQVRISURGXFWLRQ and the control of the coercive and juridical apparatus of the central state has cerWDLQO\SOD\HGDVLJQL¿FDQWSDUWLQSUHVHUYLQJ*UDPVFL¶VZRUNDQGUHSXWDWLRQWRD JUHDWHUGHJUHH WKDQ LV WUXHRIPDQ\RIKLV0DU[LVWFRQWHPSRUDULHV ,W VKRXOGEH acknowledged, nonetheless, that the questions that led Gramsci on this path – the problem of the failure of the working classes to rise successfully against capitalism in the West in the aftermath of the First World War and the subsequent invesWLJDWLRQ RI WKH GLIIHUHQW QDWXUH RI WKH :HVWHUQ FDSLWDOLVW VWDWH LQ WKH V FRPSDUHGWR7VDULVW5XVVLD±ZHUHWRDODUJHH[WHQWLQKHULWHGE\KLPIURPOHDGLQJ 0DU[LVWVRIKLVGD\VXFKDV/HQLQ7URWVN\DQG%XNKDULQDQGVHHPGLVWLQFWO\RXW RISODFHLQWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\ZRUOG<HW*UDPVFL¶VREVHUYDWLRQVDQGFRQFHSWVRQ WKH QDWXUH RIPRGHUQ SRZHU FRQWLQXH WR LQWULJXH DQG ¿QG D UHVRQDQFH LQ FRQWHPSRUDU\FRQGLWLRQVDVWKLVYROXPHEHDUVZLWQHVV
Take, for example, that most distinctive characteristic of Gramsci’s theory of hegemony involving the reconceptualisation of ‘civil society’ as a new terrain of power and struggle, and the argument that the social forces that dominate the :HVWHUQ FDSLWDOLVW VWDWH KDYH DOVR IRUWL¿HG WKHLU LGHRORJLFDO KHJHPRQ\ KHUH through building associative relations with so-called ‘private’ groups and organiVDWLRQVDQGWKHLULQWHOOHFWXDOV0DUWLQ:KLOHWKHKDOOPDUNVRI*UDPVci’s historical context are clearly visible in this pursuit and illumination of the QDWXUH RIPRGHUQ SRZHU WKHUH FDQ EH OLWWOH GRXEW WKDW KLV UHGH¿QLWLRQ RI FLYLO society in this manner has far from outlived its usefulness, and it is for this reason that it has continued to attract political theorists such as Worth and Dikici-Bilgin LQ WKLV YROXPH ,QGHHG ERWK WKHVH FRQWULEXWRUV XVH WKH FRQFHSW WR LQWHUYHQH LQ FXUUHQWGHEDWHVLQWKHLURZQUHVSHFWLYH¿HOGVH[SRVLQJDGLPHQVLRQRISRZHUWKDW KDVQRWEHHQVDWLVIDFWRULO\LOOXPLQDWHGLQWKHH[LVWLQJOLWHUDWXUH:RUWKWKXVPDLQWDLQVWKDWQHR*UDPVFLDQ,5VSHFLDOLVWVKDYHIDLOHGWRIXOO\H[SORLWWKHSRWHQWLDORI Gramsci’s concept of civil society, and he argues that if we are to get a more complete understanding of the kind of neo-liberal hegemony that characterises the current international order this dimension of its dynamic construction of consenVXDO SRZHUZLOO KDYH WREHJLYHQPXFKJUHDWHU DWWHQWLRQ'LNLFL%LOJLQ IRU KHU SDUWXVHV*UDPVFL¶VFRQFHSWWRSRLQWRXWKRZFXUUHQWDSSURDFKHVWRWKH.HPDOLVW state in Turkey have taken a somewhat unsophisticated perspective on its historical development, associating it too readily with coercion alone without examining how it sought to expand and reinforce its power in civil society by engaging LQDµZDURISRVLWLRQ¶IRUJUHDWHULGHRORJLFDOLQÀXHQFH
It is moreover this illuminating account of new forms of power that also marks Gramsci’s related concepts of ‘passive revolution’ and trasformismo, and it is no surprise that they too have continued to inspire contemporary theorists VXFKDV3DWHUVRQDQG7RZQVKHQGLQWKLVYROXPH)RU*UDPVFLWKHVHQRWLRQVKDG RI FRXUVH D VSHFL¿F ,WDOLDQ UHVRQDQFH3 but there is no doubt that they were GHYHORSHG WKURXJKKLV UHÀHFWLRQVRQ WKH H[SOLFLWO\0DU[LVW SUREOHPRIKRZ WR deal with the tendency of socialist movements to become manipulated, co-opted and neutralised by the ingenious powers of the modern capitalist state in his own WLPH $JDLQ LW ZRXOG WDNH D FRQVLGHUDEOH HIIRUW RI ZKDW $GDP 0RUWRQ FDOOV µDXVWHUHKLVWRULFLVP¶0RUWRQ±WRPDLQWDLQWKDWVXFKPRELOLVDWLRQVRI SRZHUDUHDOLHQWRRXUGD\DQGLQGHHGWKHFRQWULEXWLRQVRI3DWHUVRQDQG7RZQVKHQGWRWKLVYROXPHSUHVHQWSHUVXDVLYHDUJXPHQWVWRWKHFRQWUDU\7RZQVKHQG WKXV¿QGV*UDPVFL¶VFRQFHSWDQH[WUHPHO\XVHIXOPHDQVWKURXJKZKLFKZHFDQ FULWLFDOO\XQGHUVWDQGWKHFRPLQJWRSRZHURI1HZ/DERXULQ%ULWDLQDQGLWVFR option into a neo-liberal and fundamentally capitalist agenda under the ideoORJLFDO LQÀXHQFH RI WKH 7KLUG :D\ WKHRULVW $QWKRQ\ *LGGHQV )RU WKLV FRQWULEXWRUDW OHDVW1HZ/DERXUZDVDFRQWLQXDWLRQRI WKH7KDWFKHULWHSDVVLYH revolution which had characterised British politics from the early 1980s, with the supposed forces of change failing to challenge the privileges of the minority on behalf of the majority and therefore leaving intact the fundamental relations RIHFRQRPLFH[SORLWDWLRQRQZKLFKWKHIRUPHU¶VUXOHGHSHQGHG6LPLODUO\3DWHUson uses Gramsci’s related concept of trasformismo to demonstrate how the forces of radical change at the international level – the alter-globalisation movement – are falling victim to comparable forms of power as their radical ideology is skilfully co-opted, tempered and rendered ineffective by powerful neo-liberal LQWHUHVWVDWWKH:72
Just as this volume illustrates how Gramsci’s insights into the workings of the modern state and its novel power apparatus continue to provoke and inform the critical analysis of contemporary politics, so too does it reveal the continuing appeal of the truly transformativeTXDOLW\RIKLVSROLWLFDOWKRXJKW+HUHLWLVYLWDO to point out that Gramsci was not simply in the business of criticising conWHPSRUDU\FDSLWDOLVPDQGWKHNLQGRIVWDWHWKDWLWVSDZQHG(TXDOO\LPSRUWDQWWR him was the need to elaborate political concepts that would inspire and guide the DJHQWV RI UHYROXWLRQDU\ FKDQJH LQ KLV RZQ GD\ 7KLV GXDO FKDUDFWHU RI KLV thought, where the critical is mixed with an innovative will to create a new and more equitable world, remains one of its most alluring qualities; not least in a contemporary context in which radical political theory has become overly engrossed with an all-out criticism, jointly informed by Foucault’s invocation of UHOHQWOHVVLQWHUURJDWLRQRIDQGUHVLVWDQFHWRDOOIRUPVRISRZHU)RXFDXOW DQG'HUULGD¶V GHFRQVWUXFWLRQ 'HUULGD :KLOH*UDPVFLZRXOG FHUtainly have agreed with Foucault’s famous declarations on the pervasive nature of power which cannot be escaped even in the act of resistance (Foucault 1990: ±KLVVROXWLRQWRWKLVSUREOHPZDVFUHDWLYHDVZHOODVGHVWUXFWLYHZKLFKRI course suggested that new relations of consensual power could be constructed which enjoyed greater democratic legitimacy and guaranteed more extensive
HTXDOLWLHV WKDQ WKH H[LVWLQJ FDSLWDOLVW RUGHU ,WZDV IRU WKLV UHDVRQ WKDW KH FRQcerned himself so thoroughly with the organisation of power in the capitalist state – economic, political and cultural – and became convinced that the only KRSHIRUSUROHWDULDQUHYROXWLRQZDVWRPDWFKLWVHI¿FLHQF\DQGLQJHQXLW\ZKLOH LQIXVLQJLWZLWKDQHZGHPRFUDWLFHWKRVVHH0F1DOO\:KLOHWKHUHFDQEH no denying the undeveloped and sometimes contradictory nature of Gramsci’s thought in this area, neither should we neglect the enduring attraction of this transformative dimension of Gramsci’s concepts to which this volume is once DJDLQWHVWLPRQ\ 3DWHUVRQ DQG 0F1DOO\ IRU H[DPSOH ERWK OHDQ RQ WKLV FUHDWLYH DVSHFW RI Gramsci’s thought in their critical observations on the Alternative Globalisation 0RYHPHQW3DWHUVRQSRLQWVRXWKRZWKLVQHZFRDOLWLRQRIUHVLVWDQFHZLOOQHHGWR guard against ideological manipulation by powerful forces in the neo-liberal VWDWXV TXR DQG PDLQWDLQ LWV DXWRQRP\ YLVjYLV FDSLWDOLVW LQWHUHVWV 6LPLODUO\ 0F1DOO\ XVHV *UDPVFL¶V LQQRYDWLYH FRQFHSWLRQV RI LQWHUnationalism and ‘the QDWLRQDOSRSXODU¶ WR LQGLFDWHZD\V LQZKLFK WKH$*0FRXOGGHYLVH DOWHUQDWLYH VWUDWHJLHVRIUHVLVWDQFHDLPHGDWGHYHORSLQJPXFK¿UPHUSRSXODUVXSSRUWEDVHV in national arenas as a prelude – indeed precondition – to mounting a serious FKDOOHQJHWRQHROLEHUDOFDSLWDOLVPDWWKHLQWHUQDWLRQDOOHYHO6FKZDU]PDQWHOWRR drawing on Gramsci’s fascinating suggestions on the need for new forms of institutionalised democracy is on a similar terrain of developing this creative and FRQVWUXFWLYHFKDUDFWHURIKLVUHYROXWLRQDU\WKRXJKW ,WLVKRZHYHUWKH¿QDOHVVD\VRIWKLVYROXPHWKDWLOOXVWUDWHPRVWFOHDUO\WKH FRQWLQXLQJDWWUDFWLRQRIWKLVWUDQVIRUPDWLYHDVSHFWRI*UDPVFL¶VFRQFHSWV,QWKH context of British politics, there can be little doubt that it was primarily the work RI6WXDUW+DOOZKLFKSUHVHUYHGWKLV*UDPVFLDQKHULWDJHDQGRQWKHHYLGHQFHRI WKHVHWKUHHHVVD\V±ZKHUHKHLVDSHUVLVWHQWSUHVHQFH±LWLVIDUIURPUHGXQGDQW )RUZKDW+DOOGHPRQVWUDWHGDERYHDOOLQDSSO\LQJ*UDPVFLDQDQDO\VLVWR7KDWFKerism was the constructive and innovative character of its hegemonic strategy, PDUNHG E\ D YLJRURXV GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RQ WKH SDUW RI WKH &RQVHUYDWLYH 3DUW\ WR transform the face of British politics and create a new culture of neo-liberal µFRPPRQVHQVH¶VSHFL¿FDOO\DUWLFXODWHGWR%ULWLVKQDWLRQDOOLIHWKDWZRXOGSURWHFW DQG VXSSRUW D UHLQYLJRUDWHG IUHHPDUNHW FDSLWDOLVW UHJLPH +DOO ,QGHHG +DOOPDGH FOHDU WKDW WKH %ULWLVK /HIW FRXOG RQO\ VXFFHHG LI LW HPEDUNHG RQ D VLPLODUKHJHPRQLFVWUDWHJ\RUµKDUGURDGWRUHQHZDO¶+DOO'HVSLWH the obvious disparity between the approaches of Leggett on the one hand, and 7RZQVKHQGDQG'HYLQHDQG3XUG\RQWKHRWKHUWKHRQHWKLQJWKDWXQLWHVDOOIRXU LV WKHLU DJUHHPHQWZLWK+DOO RQ WKH QHHG WR GHYHORS D FRPSDUDEOH KHJHPRQLF SURMHFW RQ WKH%ULWLVK/HIWZKLFK1HZ/DERXU XQGHU%ODLU ± UHJDUGOHVV RI LWV LQLWLDOLQWHQW±IDLOHGWRGHOLYHU)RU/HJJHWWWKLVKHJHPRQLFSURMHFWFDQVWLOOWDNH its cue from Third Way analysis which he skilfully distinguishes from Blairism by identifying the former with Gramsci’s notion of organic struggle and the ODWWHUZLWK WKH¿HOG RIconjunctural VWUXJJOH VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKH/DERXU3DUW\ FDQSXWWKHIDLOXUHRI%ODLUWRDFWXDOO\FRQIURQWWKHQHIDULRXVLQÀXHQFHRIPDUNHW forces on British life behind it by rediscovering some of the essential elements
RIWKH7KLUG:D\SURMHFW7RZQVKHQGE\FRQWUDVWVWUHVVHVRQFHDJDLQ*UDPVFL¶V insistence on the need to establish autonomy from capitalism as a principal condition for embarking on a truly hegemonic project and this is what he argues 1HZ/DERXUKDVIDLOHGWRGR±ODUJHO\GXHWRWKHLQÀXHQFHRI7KLUG:D\WKHRULVWVVXFKDV$QWKRQ\*LGGHQV)LQDOO\IRU'HYLQHDQG3XUG\WKHRQO\KRSHIRU DUHMXYHQDWLRQRIWKH%ULWLVK/HIWOLHVRXWVLGHD/DERXU3DUW\±QRZDVFRPPLWWHG to neo-liberal capitalism as the Conservatives – and in the building of a coalition of progressive forces across British politics which they argue could eventually merge into a new party if they could be persuaded to genuinely embrace the logic of Gramsci’s hegemony and its eschewal of ‘economic-corporate’ and µVHFWDULDQ¶WHQGHQFLHV7KXVOLNHRWKHUFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKLVYROXPHDOORIWKHVH essays on British politics draw on the transformative and creative dimension of Gramsci’s concepts to criticise, analyse and direct the possible forces of radical FKDQJHLQWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\ZRUOG
On the evidence of this volume then, it seems that despite the considerable GLI¿FXOWLHVWREHRYHUFRPH$QWRQLR*UDPVFL¶VWKHRU\RIKHJHPRQ\DQGKLVUHYROXWLRQDU\WKRXJKWUHPDLQUHOHYDQWLQFRQWHPSRUDU\SROLWLFV,QGHHGWKHYROXPH demonstrates that Gramsci’s work is now informing radical thinking in ways that KHFRXOGEDUHO\KDYHLPDJLQHGSRVVLEOH LQZKHQKH¿QDOO\VXFFXPEHGWR his multiple illnesses, largely induced and exacerbated by his incarceration at the KDQGVRI,WDOLDQ)DVFLVP7KLVFROOHFWLRQRIHVVD\VLQIDFWHPHUJHGIURPDJDWKering that set out to test the relevance of his ideas 70 years after his death, and to SD\WULEXWHWRDQGFRPPHPRUDWH*UDPVFL¶VOLIHDQGZRUN7KHUHFDQRIFRXUVH EH QR JUHDWHU WULEXWH SDLG WR ERWK WKDQ RIIHULQJ IXUWKHU FRQ¿UPDWLRQ ± DV WKLV book does – that his writings continue to illuminate, provoke and inspire politLFDOWKRXJKWDQGDQDO\VLVDQGDUHOLNHO\WRGRVRZHOOLQWRWKHQHZPLOOHQQLXP
