1996
DOI: 10.1177/026327696013002004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Official and the Popular in Gramsci and Bakhtin

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Metaphors are also entities that are rich in rhetorical capital and can potentially be utilized by rhetorically minded politicians (on metaphors in the study of International Relations, see, for example, Drulak, 2006; Kornprobst et al, 2008). The symbolic substance of metaphor and how it links different ideas and objects are both robust resources of persuasion, rendering metaphor a useful tool in the struggle to capture the commonsense, and, as social semiotics teaches us, symbols, signs, icons, and images that can also be very useful rhetorically in the struggle over the commonsense (see, for example, Brandist, 1996; Peoples, 2008). However, this article focuses on defining and naming, arguing that: 1) both are efficient political tools in the struggle over the commonsense; 2) of the two, defining is the more obvious arena and tool in the struggle over the commonsense as it is more formal and publicly-oriented; and 3) in unsettled, contested political events, parties can use naming as an indirect and subtle act of defining.…”
Section: Naming and Definingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Metaphors are also entities that are rich in rhetorical capital and can potentially be utilized by rhetorically minded politicians (on metaphors in the study of International Relations, see, for example, Drulak, 2006; Kornprobst et al, 2008). The symbolic substance of metaphor and how it links different ideas and objects are both robust resources of persuasion, rendering metaphor a useful tool in the struggle to capture the commonsense, and, as social semiotics teaches us, symbols, signs, icons, and images that can also be very useful rhetorically in the struggle over the commonsense (see, for example, Brandist, 1996; Peoples, 2008). However, this article focuses on defining and naming, arguing that: 1) both are efficient political tools in the struggle over the commonsense; 2) of the two, defining is the more obvious arena and tool in the struggle over the commonsense as it is more formal and publicly-oriented; and 3) in unsettled, contested political events, parties can use naming as an indirect and subtle act of defining.…”
Section: Naming and Definingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This shared agenda among the ILIaZV-GIRK scholars, and the formulations that resulted from following it, bear a striking resemblance to the Italian Communist Party leader Antonio Gramsci's attempt to restructure the work of Italian linguistic geographers according to the principles of Marxism. As Franco Lo Piparo (1979;Brandist 1996) has shown, Gramsci's writing on hegemony was deeply indebted to the`neo-linguistics' of Matteo Bartoli who, according to Gramsci, had established linguistics as an historical discipline. In fact Gramsci's attitude towards Bartoli was very similar to that of the Leningrad linguists towards Baudouin.…”
Section: Component One: Dialect Geographymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…What Bakhtin variously terms monologism, authoritative discourse and the poetic, as I have argued elsewhere (Brandist, 1996), describes an authoritarian relationship between discourses, or an authoritarian hegemonic principle rather than a type of discourse. This principle closely resembles a discursive manifestation of the process of the homogenization of the individual in the organic development of society elaborated by Mikhailovskii.…”
Section: Bakhtin and The Populistsmentioning
confidence: 99%