Related Papers
Posthegemony: Political Theory and Latin America
2010 •
Jon Beasley-Murray
A challenging new work of cultural and political theory rethinks the concept of hegemony Posthegemony is an investigation into the origins, limits, and possibilities for contemporary politics and political analysis. Challenging dominant strains in social theory, Jon Beasley-Murray contends that cultural studies simply replicates the populism that conditions it, and that civil society theory merely nourishes the neoliberalism that it sets out to oppose. "In Posthegemony, Jon Beasley-Murray provides a superbly written and insightful theoretical evaluation of the shifting relation between culture and state in Latin America." — Gareth Williams, author of The Other Side of the Popular: Neoliberalism and Subalternity in Latin America
Infrapolitica y posthegemonía
Alberto Moreiras
Benjamin Arditi
This article looks at Laclau and Mouffe’s work as a starting point to raise some questions concerning post-Marxist and/or post-Gramscian accounts of politics. I argue that their take on hegemony oscillates between conceiving it as one form of politics amongst others and as the form of politics as such. They ultimately settle for the latter. This is problematic, if only because the absence of an outside shields their theory of hegemony from the test of its own contingency and prevents it from being falsified. This discussion clears the field for post-hegemony. I use ‘hegemony’ in the specific sense that these authors give to the term and not to designate the dominant force in a contested political field. By preceding it with the prefix ‘post’ I acknowledge temporality as a conceptual shift rather than as a discontinuity between past and present: what comes after hegemony is ways of thinking and doing politics that don’t conform to what the theory of hegemony prescribes. Yet what is at stake is not any outside. Electoral politics has been around for a long time and rarely bothered with the mechanics of the hegemonic format. Post-hegemony instead names an outside that seeks to elude hegemony explicitly. It includes viral politics and some aspects of what people like Beasley-Murray, Hardt, Negri and Virno have called the politics of the multitude, such as exodus, exodus or defection that I will examine here, but it need not be limited to these.
Theory & Event
Something Always Escapes!: Beasley-Murray's Posthegemony
2011 •
Donald Kingsbury
Contemporary Politics
Post-hegemony: politics outside the usual post-Marxist paradigm (Contemporary Politics, 2007)
2007 •
Benjamin Arditi
This article looks at Laclau and Mouffe’s work as a starting point to raise some questions concerning post-Marxist and/or post-Gramscian accounts of politics. I argue that their take on hegemony oscillates between conceiving it as one form of politics amongst others and as the form of politics as such. They ultimately settle for the latter. This is problematic, if only because the absence of an outside shields their theory of hegemony from the test of its own contingency and prevents it from being falsified. This discussion clears the field for post-hegemony. I use ‘hegemony’ in the specific sense that these authors give to the term and not to designate the dominant force in a contested political field. By preceding it with the prefix ‘post’ I acknowledge temporality as a conceptual shift rather than as a discontinuity between past and present: what comes after hegemony is ways of thinking and doing politics that don’t conform to what the theory of hegemony prescribes. Yet what is at stake is not any outside. Electoral politics has been around for a long time and rarely bothered with the mechanics of the hegemonic format. Post-hegemony instead names an outside that seeks to elude hegemony explicitly. It includes viral politics and some aspects of the politics of the multitude like exodus or defection that I will examine here, but it need not be limited to these.
Contemporary Politics
Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater: a Gramscian response to post-hegemony
2014 •
Tom Chodor
This article offers a Gramscian response to the theory of post-hegemony, suggesting that its rejection of Gramsci rests on misrepresentations of his work. Through a closer engagement with this work, the article outlines the ways in which Gramscian analysis can in fact complement the insights of post-hegemony in analysing the ways in which the social order is secured and the strategies of resistance to this order. This combination of Gramscian and post-hegemonic insights, the article argues, offers a more nuanced and comprehensive insight into power, radical politics and resistance in the twenty-first century, an insight which risks being lost in post-hegemony’s rejection of Gramsci and his work. The utility of this combined approach is illustrated via four short vignettes from contemporary Latin America: the emergence of the student protest movement in Chile since 2011; the Caracazo in Venezuela; the Argentine crisis in 2001; and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.
Review of Radical Political Economics
Book Review: Latin American Neostructuralism: The Contradictions of Post-Neoliberal Development (by Miguel Ramirez, 2011)
Fernando Leiva
‘Does the Neoliberal mantra of ‘institutions, institutions, institutions’ reproduce an American hegemony?’
Pasha Shahini
Antipode
A Gramscian Conjuncture in Latin America? Reflections on Violence, Hegemony, and Geographical Difference
2019 •
Chris Hesketh
This article addresses whether the concepts of Antonio Gramsci still "travel" to Latin America. During the 20 th century, Gramsci was one of the most important social theorists invoked to understand forms of social order in Latin America, as well as providing resources to reflect upon subaltern culture, resistance and the construction of alternatives. However, over the past two decades there have been several theoretical and practical challenges to the hegemony of Gramsci. These challenges are multifarious, but can be reduced to several important contentions that are explored in this article. These include the enduring role of violence, the alleged decline of ideology and finally the challenge of state-centrism in the face of geographical difference. In the current regional conjuncture, marked by the return to power of right-wing social forces, I therefore examine whether Gramscian concepts are still apposite for understanding the political economy of Latin America in the 21 st century. Resumen: Este artículo aborda si los conceptos de Antonio Gramsci todav ıa "viajan" a America Latina. Durante el siglo veinte, Gramsci fue uno de los teóricos sociales más importantes que se ha invocado para entender las formas de orden social en América Latina, así como un proveedor de recursos que reflexiona sobre la cultura subalterna, la resistencia y la construción de alternativas. Sin embargo, durante las últimas dos décadas, han habido algunos desafíos teóricos y prácticos del concepto de hegemonía de Gramsci. Esos desafíos son múltiples, pero pueden ser reducidos a varias discusiones importantes que son investigadas en este artículo. Estas incluyen el papel duradero de la violencia, la supuesta decadencia de la ideología y finalmente el reto del estado-cen-trismo frente a las diferencias geograficas. Por lo tanto, en la actual coyuntura regional, marcada por el regreso al poder de las fuerzas sociales de la derecha, yo analizo si los conceptos de Gramsci todavía son apropiados para entender la economía política de América Latina en el siglo veintiuno.
Contemporary Politics
Intellectuals and political strategy: hegemony, posthegemony, and post-Marxist theory in Latin America
2017 •
Robert Cavooris
Recent work on posthegemony has sought to displace the theory of hegemony as the primary mode of understanding politics, particularly with respect to Latin America. However, this work has yet to address the history of the theory of hegemony in Latin America itself. The present article traces the history of the theory of hegemony as a reference point for Marxists in 20th century Argentina, working through key texts from the theory’s regional introduction by Héctor Agosti, through the work of Pasado y Presente, to that of Ernesto Laclau. I argue that the theory of hegemony in the Argentine context has historically served to place intellectuals and their productions at the centre of history, and has conceived of political strategy and organisation from this perspective. Understanding this limitation and its history, I conclude, will give posthegemony theory the strategic and conceptual bearings by which to surpass the problematic of hegemony.
