Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Alex WilliamsEmail author
Chapter
  • 338 Downloads
Part of the International Political Theory book series (IPoT)

Abstract

In this chapter the author makes some conclusions about the theory of complex hegemony. In particular, it details the ways in which this theory is distinct from a number of other leading ways of understanding power: Althusserian structuralism, Latourian actor-network theory, and post-Foucauldian governmentality and metagovernance theory. Such considerations develop three conclusive ideas: the distinction between complexity and dialectics, the critical-political necessity of structural and explanatory stratification, and the interplay of coercion and consent ultimately implicit within the understanding of complex hegemony. The chapter then lays out some of the implications of complex hegemony theory as establishing a rejoinder to recent attempts to paint hegemony as an outmoded way of theorising power, as well as a new position within political and social theory with implications for political strategy and organisation.

Keywords

Hegemony Complexity Gramsci Althusser Latour Foucault 

References

  1. Althusser, Louis. 1969. For Marx. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2014. On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Althusser, Louis, and Étienne Balibar. 1971. Reading Capital. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  4. Arrighi, Giovanni. 2009. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Time. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Bang, Henrik, and Anders Esmark. 2009. Good Governance in the Network Society: Reconfiguring the Political from Politics to Policy. Administrative Theory & Praxis 31: 7–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabási, Albert-László, and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science 286: 509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beasley-Murray, Jon. 2010. Posthegemony: Political Theory and Latin America. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blond, Phillip. 2010. Red Tory: How Left and Right Have Broken Britain and How We Can Fix It. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  9. Bousquet, Antoine, and Simon Curtis. 2011. Beyond Models and Metaphors. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24: 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brassier, Ray. 2011. Concepts and Objects. In The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism, ed. Levi R. Bryant, Nick Srnicek, and Graham Harman, 47–66. Melbourne: re.press.Google Scholar
  11. Braudel, Fernand, and Richard Mayne. 1995. A History of Civilizations. New Ed edition. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Byrne, David, and Gill Callaghan. 2014. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Callinicos, Alex. 1976. Althusser’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  14. Coombs, Nathan. 2014. Politics of the Event: From Hegel to Contemporary French Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cudworth, Erika, and Steve Hobden. 2011. Posthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and Global Politics. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  16. Davies, Jonathan S. 2011. Challenging Governance Theory: From Networks to Hegemony. Bristol and Chicago, IL: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2013. Whatever Happened to Coercion? A Gramscian Critique of Metagovernance Theory presented at the Political Studies Association Conference, Cardiff.Google Scholar
  18. Finelli, Roberto. 2007. Abstraction Versus Contradiction: Observations on Chris Arthur’s The New Dialectic and Marx’s “Capital.”. Historical Materialism 15: 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finlayson, Alan. 2011. Making Sense of Maurice Glasman. London: Renewal.Google Scholar
  20. Harman, Graham. 2009. Prince of Networks. Melbourne: re.press.Google Scholar
  21. Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hindess, Barry, and Paul Hirst. 1977. Mode of Production and Social Formation: An Auto-Critique of Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Høstaker, Roar. 2005. Latour – Semiotics and Science Studies. Science Studies 18: 5–25.Google Scholar
  24. Jameson, Fredric. 1988. Cognitive Mapping. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture: 347–357.Google Scholar
  25. Lash, Scott. 2007. Power After Hegemony Cultural Studies in Mutation? Theory, Culture & Society 24: 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Latour, Bruno. 1993a. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 1993b. The Pasteurisation of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network-theory. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2011. Some Experiments in Art and Politics. E-Flux.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, Bruno, and Michel Callon. 1997. “Thou Shall Not Calculate!” or How to Symmetricalize Gift and Capital. Revue du MAUSS.Google Scholar
  31. Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Massey, Doreen B. 2005. For Space. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. Noys, Benjamin. 2011a. The Discreet Charm of Bruno Latour, or the Critique of “Anti-Critique” Nottingham.Google Scholar
  34. ———, ed. 2011b. Communization and Its Discontents. New York: Autonomedia.Google Scholar
  35. Resch, Robert. 1992. Althusser and the Renewal of Marxist Social Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sharzer, Greg. 2012. No Local: Why Small-Scale Alternatives Won’t Change The World. Winchester: Zero Books.Google Scholar
  37. Sohn-Rethel, Alfred. 1977. Intellectual and Manual Labour: A Critique of Epistemology. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  38. Srnicek, Nick, and Alex Williams. 2015. Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  39. Tainter, Joseph. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Thoburn, Nicholas. 2007. Patterns of Production: Cultural Studies After Hegemony. Theory, Culture & Society 24: 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas, Peter. 2002. Philosophical Strategies: Althusser & Spinoza. Historical Materialism 10: 71–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toscano, Alberto. 2008. The Open Secret of Real Abstraction. Rethinking Marxism 20: 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2011. Now and Never. In Communization and Its Discontents, ed. Benjamin Noys, 85–104. New York: Autonomedia.Google Scholar
  44. Walby, Sylvia. 2003. Complexity Theory, Globalisation, and Diversity presented at the Conference of the British Sociological Association, York University.Google Scholar
  45. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2011. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century v. 1. Reprint edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, Alex. 2014. The Politics of Abstraction. In Speculative Aesthetics, ed. Robin Mackay, Luke Pendrell, and James Trafford. Falmouth: Urbanomic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication StudiesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations