But none of that makes a difference. If left antics make the left unelectable, then they've got to be criticized. The fact that we're in a new kind of politics, etc., if it's true, doesn't make any difference to the basic electoral reality.
them the organizing principle of any political engagement. The first can aim towards hegemony in the Gramscian sense (i.e., it seeks to build a single unified movement that dominates the ideological terrain). The second will inevitably flounder precisely in the relations...
-
-
of inclusion and exclusion it fosters. The second is characteristic of identity politics. Hegemonic interventions don't have to be class aligned. For example, the sociologist Stuart Hall conceptualised Thatcherism as a hegemonic project (authoritarian populism).
-
And I don't think you're ignorant, by any means. It's just identity and politics is the subject of my PhD so I think I have the advantage. Sorry, but there you go.
-
And you obviously have loads more knowledge in that area. But we’re not having an academic discussion here, neither am I questioning your expertise. Also, your expertise in a discipline is separate from the discipline’s foundations. And I have a handy example...
-
...because my own PhD is in the area of economics that models the economy as a collection of perfectly rational agents with perfect foresight. I’d say I know a lot about such models. Yet, if an intelligent layperson questions the very foundations of that theory...
-
I take your point. But Weberian ideal types are not the same sort of thing as economics models (though they appear to be superficially). There's a brief discussion Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.