Search results
This chapter establishes a frame of inquiry through which the dialectical engagements of the anti-capitalist posturing and quasi-capitalist practices of the neo-jihadist organisations, Al Qaeda and Islamic State, are investigated in later chapters. In doing so, it provides a brief history of neoliberalism, extending from the US and UK administrations of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, beginning in 1979 and 1980 respectively. It elaborates on neo-Marxist geo-economic theory presented by David Harvey, Bob Jessop, and Jamie Peck, in preparation to apply this theory to explain Al Qaeda and Islamic State’s respective geo-economic interests. Theories of neoliberalism, the forms of capital, and dialectics in Bourdieusian theory are also outlined, as is Bourdieu’s influence on the research design of the book. The final part of the chapter explains the data collection and methods of analysis used in the chapters, as well as the key sources used and research limitations.
Few social and political phenomena have been debated as frequently or fervidly as neoliberalism and neo-jihadism. Yet, while discourse on these phenomena has been wide-ranging, they are rarely examined in relation to one another. In response, Neoliberalism and neo-jihadism examines political-economic characteristics of twentieth and early twenty-first-century neo-jihadism. Drawing on Bourdieusian and neo-Marxist ideas, it investigates how the neo-jihadist organisations, Al Qaeda and Islamic State, engage with the late modern capitalist paradigm of neoliberalism in their anti-capitalist propaganda and quasi-capitalist financial practices. An investigation of documents and discourses reveals interactions between neoliberalism and neo-jihadism characterised by surface-level contradiction, and structural connections that are dialectical and mutually reinforcing. Neoliberalism here is argued to constitute an underlying ‘status quo’, while neo-jihadism, as an evolving form of political organisation, is perpetuated as part of this situation.
Representing differentiated, unique, and exclusive examples of the (r)evolutionary phenomenon of neo-jihadism, AQ and IS are demonstrated in Neoliberalism and neo-jihadism to be characteristic of the mutually constitutive nature of ‘power and resistance’. Just as resistance movements throughout modern history have ended up resembling the forms of power they sought to overthrow, so too have AQ and IS ended up resembling and reconstituting the dominant political-economic paradigm of neoliberalism they mobilised in response to.
German philosopher Jürgen Habermas has written extensively on the European Union.
This is the only in-depth account of his project. Published now in a second
edition to coincide with the celebration of his ninetieth birthday, a new
preface considers Habermas’s writings on the eurozone and refugee crises,
populism and Brexit, and the presidency of Emmanuel Macron.
Placing an
emphasis on the conception of the EU that informs Habermas’s political
prescriptions, the book is divided into two main parts. The first considers the
unfolding of 'social modernity' at the level of the EU. Among the
subjects covered are Habermas's concept of juridification, the
latter's affinities with integration theories such as neofunctionalism, and
the application of Habermas's democratic theory to the EU. The second part
addresses 'cultural modernity' in Europe – 'Europessimism'
is argued to be a subset of the broader cultural pessimism that assailed the
project of modernity in the late twentieth century, and with renewed intensity
in the years since 9/11.
Interdisciplinary in approach, this book engages
with European/EU studies, critical theory, political theory, international
relations, intellectual history, comparative literature, and philosophy. Concise
and clearly written, it will be of interest to students, scholars and
professionals with an interest in these disciplines, as well as to a broader
readership concerned with the future of Europe
centuries landscapes. Nathaniel Gilbert interprets the scene as emphasising the relationship between humans, the built landscape and the natural world, following on the theory of landscape developed by W. J. T. Mitchell, Anne Bermingham and others.17 As Florence Boos notes, ‘Soon afterwards, however, the impossibly beautiful dream dissolves. Guest becomes aware that he has become a kind of spectral presence: his new friends at the harvest-festival no longer recognize him’.18 For Boos, Ellen actually voices some of the positions of twentieth century neo-Marxism, from
Left increasingly found itself on the back foot. The Labour governments of 1964–70 and 1974–79 introduced significant political initiatives designed to advance an egalitarian agenda, but the work of these governments was ultimately constrained by the formidable political and economic crises that engulfed them. At the same time, and partly as a result of the perceived failures of the Labour governments of the 1960s and 70s, classical social democratic ideology also entered a period of Conclusion 225 profound crisis, as it was outflanked to the left by a resurgent neo-Marxism
theory is now sedimentary; rather than explicating what globalisation is, scholars influenced by neoclassical theory concentrate on how to address the outcomes of globalisation, without considering whether their view of the process and its inherent utility is at fault (see for example Bhagwati, 2004). In contemporary social science, classical Marxism exists largely as caricature; most Marxist theorists can be more appropriately classified as neo-Marxist. Defined broadly, neo-Marxism is a densely populated intellectual territory among today’s political economists
greater degree of change. The prevalence of productivism, whether Marxist or liberal in form,8 rather than science as the complement to the aesthetic avantgarde that was the norm in the postwar era has come to be reversed. Advances in genetic9 and information technologies, in particular, have captured the popular imagination in much the way that neo-Marxism did after World War Two and the free market did in the Reagan–Thatcher era. A further development has also affected continuum ii: while the counterculture’s ethos of transgression has survived, sometimes in
: the product of many decades of ideological and cultural changes deeply rooted in Marxism and neo-Marxism endorsed by several feminist movements and the sexual revolution … According to this ideology, humans can freely determine whether they want to be men or women and freely choose their sexual orientation. This voluntary self-determination, not necessarily life-long, is to make the society accept the right to set up new types of families – for instance, families built on homosexual relations. (Shepherds of the Catholic
with continuum i, the combination of elements comprising the worldviews of those found along continuum ii has been subject to a greater degree of change. The prevalence of productivism, whether Marxist or liberal in form, 8 rather than science as the complement to the aesthetic avantgarde that was the norm in the postwar era has come to be reversed. Advances in genetic 9 and information technologies, in particular, have captured the popular imagination in much the way that neo-Marxism did after the World War Two and the free market did
, the less able he is to be a human being’. Ultimately, culture serves to denature the subject and impede collective self-realisation. When attempting to rebuild the Frankfurt School’s neo-Marxism it is essential to reconnect with Rousseau’s work, to identify the plurality of framings of cultural pathology and their impact upon the subject. Across Rousseau’s oeuvre one can