Between Leninism and Radical Pluralism: Gramscian Reflections on Counter-Hegemony and the New Social Movements

Carroll, William K.; Ratner, R. S.

doi:10.1177/089692059402000201

Cited by 47 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this research, we build upon a related article (Carroll and Ratner 1996) that explores the phenomenon of collective action frames from a neo-Gramscian perspective. From this standpoint, framing can be seen as the cognitive aspect of counterhegemonic politics.…”

Section: ; Gerhards Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Master Framing and Cross-Movement Networking in Contemporary Social Movements

Carroll

Ratner²

1996

The Sociological Quarterly

Self Cite

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article maps the network of cross‐movement activism in Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, and explores the relationship between position in the network and cognitive use of different injustice frames. The study is informed by a neo‐Gramscian analysis that views social movements as (potential) agencies of counterhegemony. Viewed as a political project of mobilizing broad, diverse opposition to entrenched economic, political, and cultural power, counterhegemony entails a tendential movement toward comprehensive critiques of domination and toward comprehensive networks of activism. We find that the use of a broadly resonant master frame—the political‐economy account of injustice —is associated with the practice of cross‐movement activism. Activists whose social movement organization (SMO) memberships put them in touch with activists from other movements tend to frame injustice as materially grounded, structural, and susceptible to transformation through concerted collective action. Moreover, the movements in which political‐economy framing especially predominates–labor, peace, feminism, and the urban/antipoverty sector—tend not only to supply most of the cross‐movement ties but to be tied to each other as well, suggesting that a political‐economy framing of injustice provides a common language in which activists from different movements can communicate and perhaps find common ground.

show abstract

Section: ; Gerhards Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Master Framing and Cross-Movement Networking in Contemporary Social Movements

Carroll

Ratner²

1996

The Sociological Quarterly

Self Cite

208

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To do so, there needs to be an 'intellectual and moral reform' involving the critiquing of hegemonic ideas, and the advancement of popular ideologies. Popular 'common sense' can only gain the ability to become hegemonic through a long-term process of movement building that Gramsci termed the 'war of position' (Carrol and Ratner 1994;Meek 2011). Integral agents in this war of position are activist educators, whom Gramsci termed 'organic intellectuals' (Mayo 2008).…”

Section: Gramsci and The Question Of Organic Peasant Intellectualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning as territoriality: the political ecology of education in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement

Meek¹

2015

The Journal of Peasant Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this contribution, I explore the importance of agroecological education in the Brazilian Landless Workers' Movement (MST). I analyze how certain MST educational programs are based in a critical place-based pedagogy. This type of pedagogy can serve as a form of territoriality, influencing individuals' interactions with the land. Drawing upon a political ecology of education perspective, I conclude that MST educators can serve as Gramscian 'organic intellectuals', by using a critical pedagogy of place as a form of territoriality to: (1) create a conception of place that is not discrete, but instead relational, and (2) advocate counter-hegemonic land usage.

show abstract

“…Current space limitations do not allow more theoretical analysis of the differences between Gramscian and postmodern perspectives on contemporary social movements. See, however, the extensive discussions in Epstein (1990), Carroll and Ratner (1994) and Steinmetz (1994). Though dated somewhat by subsequent developments, Boggs's (1986) comparative study of social movements in Europe and the United States remains an instructive neo-Gramscian treatment of social movements and counter-hegemony.…”

Section: Master Frames and Counter-hegemonymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where Gramsci saw a need for emancipatory struggle against bourgeois hegemony and associated forms of domination, Foucault considered attempts to unify forces of resistance as a disingenuous and self-serving political strategy (Foucault, 1984;cf. Barrett, 1992;Carroll and Ratner, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Master Frames and Counter‐Hegemony: Political Sensibilities in Contemporary Social Movements*

Carroll

Ratner

1996

Canadian Review of Sociology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En se fondant sur l'analyse de données recueillies lors d'une série d'entrevues de 212 militants issus de divers groupes d'activistes, les auteurs examinent comment les nouveaux mouvements sociaux abordent les problèmes politiques de notre époque. Après avoir énuméré les principales façons de définir l'injustice et d'exprimer l'idéal social chez les personnes interrogées, ils tentent de déceler une pensée commune a tous les groupes, pensée fondée sur le partage d'une même idée de la justice sociale. À la lumière de cette analyse, on mesure ensuite la viabilité des mouvements luttant contre l'ordre établi; une théorie génerate sur leur influence dans la société contemporaine est ensuite esquissée. Based on an analysis of in‐depth interview data from 212 activists in a variety of social movements, this paper considers the ways in which diverse movements' discourses frame political issues. After identifying primary injustice frames and social visions articulated by sample respondents, the authors assess the plausibility of a cross‐movement unity based on shared “master frames,” i.e., common understandings of injustice and a common social vision. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of their analysis for the viability of counter‐hegemonic politics and for theorizations of contemporary social movements. “I would suggest… (i) that power is co‐extensive with the social body; there are no spaces of primal liberty between the meshes of the network; (ii) that relations of power are interwoven with other kinds of relations … for which they play at once a conditioning and a conditioned role; (iii) that these relations don't take the sole form of prohibition and punishment, but are of multiple forms; (iv) that their interconnections delineate general conditions of domination, and … one should not assume a massive and primal condition of domination, a binary structure with ‘dominators’ on one side and ‘dominated’ on the other, but rather a multiform production of relations of domination which are partially susceptible of integration into overall strategies; (v) that power relations do indeed ‘serve’, but not at all because they are “in the service of an economic interest taken as primary, rather because they are capable of being utilised in strategies; (vi) that there are no relations of power without resistances; the latter are all the more real and effective because they are formed right at the point where relations of power are exercised.” —Michel Foucault, “Power and strategies”(1980)

show abstract

Between Leninism and Radical Pluralism: Gramscian Reflections on Counter-Hegemony and the New Social Movements

Cited by 47 publications

References 21 publications

Master Framing and Cross-Movement Networking in Contemporary Social Movements

Master Framing and Cross-Movement Networking in Contemporary Social Movements

Learning as territoriality: the political ecology of education in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement

Master Frames and Counter‐Hegemony: Political Sensibilities in Contemporary Social Movements*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About