Talk:Neo-Gramscianism

Definition
This doesn't explain what Neo-Gramscianism actually is. 138.38.32.84 10:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha. I clicked on this talk page expecting to say just that. --Liface 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is written in International Politics speak. Neo-Gramscianism is, in a phrase, what you might know by the term "culture war." (The battle of ideas: or politics, as it's known to the rest of us.)* The "neo-" prefix means this "culture war" is being applied to International Politics. Gramsci - and the body of work known as Gramscianism without the "neo" - discussed domestic politics.* Neo-Gramscians discuss the culture war of International Politics (which at the moment, as per Marxists, shows bias toward discussion on economic ideas rather than military conflict). In order to bring about revolutionary change Gramsci said the culture war had to be won first - IR scholars like Cox and Gill believe there's a war to be won at global level between states. Any better?
 * *"Neo-"Gramscians are therefore "re-"re-inventing the proverbial object used to make transport easier. To say that what happens in the world is determined by which ideas on how to run it win is truly groundbreaking stuff! 172.213.180.69 15:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Added some new stuff, my spelling and grammer is terrible and I will modify that shortly as well as add my sources. Regards. Exwizard 01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What do Adorno, Derrida, and Foucault have to do with neogramscianism? Exwizard 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Adorno & Horkheimer obviously for their conception of "Critical Theory," which Cox doesn't really make reference to, but his disciples are aware of it; Foucault figures in Gill's newer stuff on "disciplinary liberalism"; Derrida really has nothing to do with it---I kicked him out. 146.96.81.117 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

August 2023
Looks like this article has been problematic at least since 2006, but even today, the article still doesn't give a definition of what Neo-Gramscianism actually is. The lead states: Saying what it applies doesn't equal saying what it is. Based on the current lead, it could be a political party, an ideology, a philosophical current, a religion, or even an onion or a pizza. To be serious, there are two ways from here: and we must pick what's best for the clarity of the article. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Neo-Gramscianism applies a critical theory approach to the study of international relations (IR) and the global political economy (GPE) that explores the interface of ideas, institutions and material capabilities as they shape the specific contours of the state formation. The theory is heavily influenced by the writings of Antonio Gramsci.
 * 1) Neo-Gramscianism [is] a critical theory approach to the study of …
 * 2) Neo-Gramscianism [is a political-economic doctrine that] applies a critical theory approach to the study of …

Cohen references
Is this Theodore H. Cohen, Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice, (Longman, 2000)? Itsmejudith 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Close, its the 2005 edition. I put in proper refrences, sorry I left that in such a mess! It slipped my mind. I wrote a paper on neoGramscianism and have a ton of good academic articles on the subject. I just need to remember to update this when I get back from class! Exwizard 18:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
This section is really weak. It just seems to accuse Neo-Gramscianism (along with all Marxism) of being utopian and idealistic (in the everyday sense). It needs filling in with criticisms from other Marxist schools, and other perspectives.Ad Nauseam

Agreed: it's a blatant attack on Marxist IR discourse; the author clearly has some bias. This has been flagged as an issue for over a year, and citations have not been added to this section. Given this length of time, it's reasonable to delete this section - which I have done. Of course, feel free to re-add the section with proper citations, but it shouldn't stand as is. 142.1.252.51 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism
Neo-Gramscian analysis has been criticized on a number of grounds. Some argue that neo-Gramscians, like other Marxists, put so much emphasis on the failings of capitalism (being the current hegemonic order) that they fail to see the problems with alternative systems.

—This is not a criticism if it's not saying WHY and HOW the problems with alternative systems are being overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.148 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits
I made some substantial edits to make this a bit more reader friendly, added two sources, and removed the "multiple issues" tag. BlueSalix (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo-Gramscianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041214190007/http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/atlanticrulingclass/ to http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/atlanticrulingclass/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)