Published by Crackers Books,

4 October 2024

https://crackersbooks.com/papercrunch

Research Paper Crunch\\

Critical Paper Review:

Gramscian Considerations on the Contentious Politics ​of Austere Neoliberalism: Critical Junctures after the ​Global Economic Crisis by Jonathan S. Davies

Davies, J. S. (2023). Gramscian considerations on the contentious politics of austere neoliberalism: Critical junctures ​after the global economic crisis. Social Movement Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2023.2268016

1. Introduction and Research Context

The paper authored by Jonathan S. Davies, titled "Gramscian Considerations on the Contentious Politics of Austere ​Neoliberalism: Critical Junctures after the Global Economic Crisis," provides a critical examination of the impact and ​legacy of urban resistance to austere neoliberalism through the lens of Gramsci's theoretical framework. The ​research is framed by the conceptual tools of hegemony, passive revolution, crisis, interregnum, and conjuncture, ​which are adapted to analyze the period after the Global Economic Crisis (GEC) of 2008-9. The focus on urban ​resistance in four cities—Barcelona, Dublin, Baltimore, and Montréal—offers a comparative perspective that is ​grounded in empirical case studies. The author adopts a neo-Gramscian framework to analyze how urban resistance ​movements have responded to the crisis and what legacies they have left in their wake.

The paper's theoretical engagement and case-based empirical grounding represent a robust attempt to link ​Gramscian political theory with contemporary debates in social movement studies. However, while the theoretical ​and empirical strengths of the paper are notable, there are limitations and areas where the analysis could be more ​nuanced.

2. Strengths of the Paper

One of the key strengths of the paper is its innovative application of Gramsci’s theoretical concepts, particularly the ​notions of hegemony, passive revolution, and conjuncture, to the study of urban resistance. Davies’ ability to adapt ​Della Porta’s framework of critical junctures to include an additional category of ‘dislocating’ as a way to ​contextualize urban resistance demonstrates a sophisticated engagement with theory and an effort to push the ​boundaries of existing frameworks. This addition allows for a more complex understanding of the dynamics between ​state strategies and anti-systemic forces in urban settings.

Moreover, the comparative nature of the study provides a multi-scalar perspective that highlights the heterogeneity ​of urban responses to austerity across different political, economic, and cultural contexts. By focusing on the cases ​of Barcelona, Dublin, Baltimore, and Montréal, the paper not only identifies common patterns of resistance but also ​situates these struggles within their specific local and national political economies. This empirical richness is ​further enhanced by the use of qualitative data gathered through semi-structured interviews, stakeholder focus ​groups, and observations, offering an in-depth look at the lived experiences of resistance movements and their ​interactions with state strategies.

3. Limitations and Areas for Improvement

Despite its strengths, the paper exhibits certain limitations in its analysis and theoretical framing. One area that ​could benefit from further development is the differentiation between various types of anti-systemic resistance. ​While the paper discusses the fragmentation and co-optation of movements, it does not fully address the role of ​ideological and organizational differences within these movements, which may have contributed to their inability to ​sustain momentum and achieve long-term gains.

Additionally, while the paper is grounded in Gramscian theory, it could benefit from a more critical engagement with ​the limitations of Gramsci’s framework when applied to contemporary urban politics. For example, the concept of ​passive revolution, as used in the paper, tends to conflate state strategies and internal movement dynamics without ​sufficiently unpacking how these two factors interact to produce different outcomes. A more nuanced analysis of ​how specific policies, organizational structures, and political contexts influence the success or failure of resistance ​movements would provide a clearer understanding of the pathways through which hegemonic and counter-​hegemonic forces interact.

The paper also occasionally suffers from a lack of clarity in its use of certain theoretical terms. Concepts like ​‘interregnum,’ ‘conjuncture,’ and ‘passive revolution’ are used in multiple contexts without a consistent definition, ​which may lead to confusion for readers unfamiliar with Gramscian theory. Providing more precise definitions and ​distinguishing these terms more clearly throughout the paper would enhance its theoretical coherence.

4. Methodological Considerations

Methodologically, the paper is robust in its use of qualitative data to explore the dynamics of urban resistance. ​However, the comparative analysis could be strengthened by a more systematic exploration of how the different ​contexts of each city influenced the strategies and outcomes of resistance. While the paper acknowledges these ​differences, it does not provide a clear framework for comparing how varying levels of economic distress, political ​culture, and state capacity shaped the nature of anti-austerity movements.

The focus on four cities, while providing depth, also raises questions about the generalizability of the findings. The ​selection of Barcelona, Dublin, Baltimore, and Montréal is justified in terms of their prominence as sites of ​resistance, but the paper would benefit from a discussion of why these cases were chosen over others and what ​implications this choice has for the broader applicability of the findings.

5. Conclusion and Implications for Future Research

Davies’ paper makes a significant contribution to the literature on contentious politics and neoliberal austerity by ​applying a Gramscian lens to the study of urban resistance. The insights gained from the comparative analysis of ​the four cities provide a nuanced understanding of the interplay between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces ​in the context of the GEC and its aftermath.

However, future research could build on this work by incorporating a more detailed analysis of the internal dynamics ​of resistance movements and the specific state strategies employed to co-opt or repress them. Additionally, ​expanding the study to include more diverse cases would allow for a broader understanding of the global patterns of ​resistance to neoliberal austerity.

Overall, the paper is a valuable contribution to the field and provides a foundation for further exploration of the ​politics of resistance in the context of global capitalism. Its theoretical innovations and empirical insights offer a ​starting point for scholars and practitioners interested in understanding how urban resistance movements can ​challenge and reshape the contours of neoliberal governance.