scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci

TL;DR: The first selection published from Gramsci's Prison Notebooks to be made available in Britain, and was originally published in the early 1970s as discussed by the authors, was the first publication of the Notebooks in the UK.
Abstract: Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks, written between 1929 and 1935, are the work of one of the most original thinkers in twentieth century Europe. Gramsci has had a profound influence on debates about the relationship between politics and culture. His complex and fruitful approach to questions of ideology, power and change remains crucial for critical theory. This volume was the first selection published from the Notebooks to be made available in Britain, and was originally published in the early 1970s. It contains the most important of Gramsci's notebooks, including the texts of The Modern Prince, and Americanism and Fordism, and extensive notes on the state and civil society, Italian history and the role of intellectuals. 'Far the best informative apparatus available to any foreign language readership of Gramsci.' Perry Anderson, New Left Review 'A model of scholarship' New Statesman
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In her essay "Neoliberalism and the end of liberal democracy" as mentioned in this paper, Wendy Brown suggests that critical political theory needs to'mourn liberal democracy' in order to develop a transformative vision of...
Abstract: In her essay ‘Neoliberalism and the end of liberal democracy’, Wendy Brown suggests that critical political theory needs to ‘mourn liberal democracy’ in order to develop a transformative vision of ...

26 citations


Cites background from "Selections from the prison notebook..."

  • ...He describes hegemony as giving the hegemonic group ‘directive’ authority (Gramsci, 1971: 408)....

    [...]

  • ...So although hegemony may always be contingent, ever changing and uncertain, it still steers the general direction of travel to which we must consent ‘either actively or passively’ (Gramsci, 1971: 12) for hegemony to be effective....

    [...]

DissertationDOI
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this article, the Table of Table 7.7 Table 1.1 is a table of the table of contents of this paper. But, the table is not complete, and
Abstract: .............................................................7 Table of

26 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that new regimes of work should be understood in relation both to longer histories of colonial resistance to proletarianization (to the racisms of the shop floor) and to colonial Fordisms, as well as to the way these two factors inform the current expansion of informal employment.
Abstract: This essay situates the problem of twenty-first-century work in the global South—specifically, in South Africa—to challenge northern theories of the crisis of work. Addressing the break between Fordism and post-Fordism peculiar to the postcolonial context, it argues that new regimes of work should be understood in relation both to longer histories of colonial resistance to proletarianization (to the racisms of the shop floor) and to colonial Fordisms, as well as to the way these two factors inform the current expansion of informal employment. What practices and forms of life emerge from the precarity of informal economies and informal settlements? How are precarious modes of life connected to and informed by the steady dematerialization of the economy through financialization? (A-MM)

26 citations

Dissertation
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: Braithwaite et al. as mentioned in this paper showed that Etruscan face beakers were most likely influenced by the Greek vessels coming into nearby ports such as at Gravisca, Pyrgi and Rome.
Abstract: over the century of their production (figure 6.9). More to the point are the little known Etruscan bucchero face beakers in production during the latter sixth century BCE (Braithwaite 2007: 21-22). These small vessels, restricted to southwest Etruria and Rome, differ from Donati‘s bucchero vessels 168 The other two groups include the ―grotesque beak nosed mask‖ (2007: 360-363), which have heavy brows and large eyes, lips and ears, and a twisted or hooked nose; and the ―comic, grinning mask‖ (2007: 363-364), with a large smiling or sometimes grimacing mouth not unlike theater masks. 169 See Braithwaite (2007: 45, IT Type 4, fig. C3.4). 170 For examples, see Braithwaite (2007: 17, fig. B7.6) 191 discussed above because the facial features are applied by hand directly onto the wall of the vessel and not as plaques. 171 The final effect is that of a highly stylized mask: the nose and brow come together to form a ―T‖ or bird‘s wing motif, the eyes and mouth are small and schematic, the chin is accentuated, and the ears, when present, are simple semicircles. The parallels to the later Roman face pots, and the fact that the earliest Roman face pots and Etruscan face beakers were found in the same region, has led Braithwaite (2007: 315) to conclude that ―though unbroken continuity into the Roman period cannot be demonstrated, it seems very likely that they are descended from the same tradition.‖ The indigenous style E-L-C votive heads descended from the same tradition; furthermore, their inclusion within the tradition now demonstrates unbroken continuity into the Roman period. Villanovan hut urns with attached facial masks demonstrate that an anthropomorphic tradition existed in Italy for quite a long time, and existed independently of some resilient outside influence. The tradition in the Etruscan period, and in particular its conspicuous development, should not, however, be interpreted as merely a continuation of earlier Italic models. Rather, the chronologic and geographic framework in which the Etruscan tradition is set must have been structured by the importation of Greek and eastern Mediterranean exemplar. Donati (1969: 452) recognized this when he noted that Etruscan craftsmen not only had access to Greek styles, but included deliberate and aware interpretations (―voluta e cosciente interpretazione‖) of them in their own repertoire. The Etruscan face beakers were most likely influenced by the Greek vessels coming into nearby ports such as at Gravisca, Pyrgi and Rome. John Beazley notes that early Attic face vases are similar enough to the 171 For examples see Braithwaite (2007: fig. B3.3-4) and Gjerstad (1960: fig. 141.7). 192 Etruscan face beakers to indicate a transmission of artistic conventions between Attic and Etruscan potters: ―[The vases,] made for the Etruscan market, are imitated from—are civilized versions of—the barbarous face-pots long cherished by the Etruscans‖ (Beazley 1929: 41). His contrast between the civilized Attic and the barbaric Etruscan productions almost anticipates the perspective of scholars concerning the indigenous style votive heads. Beazley‘s acknowledgement that the awareness of foreign styles catalyzes imitative forms is significant. Interestingly, he suggests that the influence ran from Italy to Greece where craftsmen, recognizing what was in demand in the Etruscan market, created products to meet this need (loath, however, to duplicate that unsophisticated style so de rigueur among the Etruscans). The opposite direction could just as easily be proposed, whereas Etruscan production adopts and retranslates the Attic imports, but whatever the reality the parallels nevertheless ―provide a fascinating glimpse of the close inter-reactive relationship that existed across the Mediterranean between the potters of Attic Greece and of Etruria‖ (Braithwaite 2007: 21). According to Braithwaite, an inexplicable interruption separates the Etruscan face beaker tradition and the Roman face pot tradition: What happens to these face beakers is not clear, as they disappear from the archaeological record by the fifth century. However, as the earliest identified fragments of Roman face beakers, of apparently similar size and shape, are found in very much the same area, sating to the second century BC, it seems possible that some kind of face beaker tradition may have continued here unnoticed into the Roman period. (2007: 22) I am not suggesting that the indigenous style votive heads are the missing link connecting the two traditions, but they are at this point the best archaeological evidence that the style persisted in the roughly 400 years between the earlier face beakers and the later face pots.

26 citations