Messy Grand Narrative or Analytical Blind Spot? When Speaking of Neoliberalism

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Many thanks to Lincoln Dahlberg for his comments on an earlier draft of this article.

  2. 2.

    I say surprising because Harvey would typically be positioned as a neo-Marxist interested in poststructuralist questions, rather than a poststructuralist Marxist (see Callinicos, 2006). Yet discerning analogies between Harvey's work and post-Marxists like Laclau and Mouffe (2001) should not come as a surprise, as Harvey's (2006) interest in ‘relational’ forms of spatiality suggests points of convergence with the discourse theory of the latter.

  3. 3.

    The argument here follows John Gray's perceptive assessment of Hayek, perhaps the most subtle of neoliberalism's philosopher kings: ‘It is as a critic of socialism, not a philosopher of liberalism, that Hayek will be remembered’ (Gray, 1998, 146).

  4. 4.

    The actual formulation in the text is: ‘Sweden has moved from “embedded neoliberalism” [sic] to “embedded neoliberalism”’.

  5. 5.

    The notion that the discursive and the material are co-constitutive of each other is the position generally followed by critical realists (see Jessop, 2004). The position assumed by poststructuralist discourse theory (see Laclau and Mouffe, 2001) is even more radical, arguing that the ontological basis of a distinction between the discursive and the material is essentially redundant.

References

  1. Allen, K. (2003) ‘Neither Boston nor Berlin: Class Polarisation and Neo-Liberalism in the Irish Republic’, in C. Coulter and S. Coleman (eds.) The End of Irish History: Critical Reflections on the Celtic Tiger, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Callinicos, A. (2006) ‘David Harvey and Marxism’, in N. Castree and D. Gregory (eds.) David Harvey: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goodin, R.E. (2003) ‘Review: choose your capitalism’, Comparative European Politics 1 (1): 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gray, J. (1998) Hayek on Liberty, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harvey, D. (2006) ‘Space as a Keyword’, in N. Castree and D. Gregory (eds.) David Harvey: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 270–294.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hay, C. (2001) ‘What place for ideas in the structure-agency debate? Globalisation as a ‘process without a subject’’, Retrieved in June 2006 from http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/archive/cshay_wpisad.html.

  8. Hayek, F.A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jessop, B. (2004) ‘Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy’, Critical Discourse Studies 1 (2): 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirby, P. (2002) The Celtic Tiger in Distress: Growth with Inequality in Ireland, New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (2001) (original 1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  12. O'Hearn, D. (2003) ‘Macroeconomic policy in the Celtic Tiger: a critical reassessment’, in C. Coulter and S. Coleman (eds.) The End of Irish History: Critical Reflections on the Celtic Tiger, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Phelan, S. (2007) ‘The discourses of neoliberal hegemony: the case of the Irish Republic’, Critical Discourse Studies 4 (1): 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Phelan, S. Messy Grand Narrative or Analytical Blind Spot? When Speaking of Neoliberalism. Comp Eur Polit 5, 328–338 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110111

Download citation