บทความเตรียมจัดพิมพ์ใน “หนังสือรวมบทความฉบับพิเศษ: 10 ปี รัฐศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร
Beyond Positivism: Neo-Gramscianism and Methodological Challenges in Thai Politics1 Watcharabon Buddharaksa2
INTRODUCTION We are living in a current world of social complexities. There are massive sophisticated social-economic-political relationships those constrain individual and social actors. In this complicated social world, we are facing many challenges in order to understand any social and also political phenomena. This paper aims to challenge the dominant positivist approach to social reality by offering the critical neo-Gramscian3 approach and implications from the current application to contemporary Thai politics. The paper argues that the neo-Gramscian approach contains at least ‘three methodological challenges’4for the mainstream social sciences theoretical approaches. This challenging framework, firstly, transcends the positivist causal relation by offering the conception of the critique of economism. In the positivist approach, it only explains direct causal relationships between a given specific independent variable and its dependent variable. Secondly, the neo-Gramscian approach overcomes the empiricist idea of positivism by considering ideological and cultural elements and providing the concept of hegemony. Lastly, the neo-Gramscian approach deals with the restriction of the positivist unit of analysis by providing the concept of social forces. This paper has two major sections. The first section below begins with the summarised ideas of positivism and its important features. Then another section 1
The earlier version of this paper entitled ‘Gramscian Approach to Contemporary Politics: Experience from Thailand Political Conflict’ and was presented in the ‘Beyond the Field: Opportunities and Challenges in Contemporary Social Science Research’ Conference, Aberystwyth University, UK, 10 November 2012 2 Lecturer in Politics, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Naresuan University, Thailand and a PhD Candidate (Politics), the University of York, UK (firstname.lastname@example.org) 3
For general ideas on Gramsci, Gramscian theories and neo-Gramscianism in International Political Economy in Thai language see Watcharabon Buddharaksa. (2013). Antonio Gramsci’ Political Theory. Bangkok: Sommadhi. (Forthcoming) 4 It does not mean that the Gramscian approach only contains these three methodological/theoretical challenges. However, these three challenges are the most distinct features and crucial for the study on contemporary Thai politics.
offers three methodological challenges of the neo-Gramscian approach. Some implications for Thai politics will also be provided in each methodological challenge in the second section of this paper. I. POSITIVIST APPROACH TO SOCIAL REALITY Conducting research in social and political science can proceed in a number of methods depending on different approaches in the philosophy of social science. Positivism, one of the dominant approaches in social science, is the point of departure of this paper. This section will provides the basic meaning and characteristics of Positivism as an approach in social science, and then the next section is going to show some theoretical challenges from the neo-Gramscian approach. Positivism is a term with wide use in social science and philosophy. In general, it can be defined as an approach which applies scientific methods of natural science to study human activity using objective enquiry and thereby presupposes the unity of the sciences (Hollis, 1994: 41; Delanty, 2005: 10). Positivism entails the view that scientific knowledge can be positively verifiable and that the foundation of knowledge is built on the discovery of general laws (Delanty, 2005: 11). Moreover, Marsh and Smith (2001: 529) argue that Positivism is obviously foundationalist, which is the idea that there is a real world out there independent of the agentâ€™s knowledge of it. Therefore, the essay can offer the main features of Positivism which are,first, empiricism; second, scientific explanation; third, scientific method and the attempt to predict the case study (see Marsh and Smith, 2001: 529; Delanty; 2005: 11-12; Marsh and Furlong, 2002: 22-23). Empiricism The first feature of the Positivist approach to the study of social science is empiricism. This feature is based on observation (Hollis, 1994: 42). For Positivists the object which researchers need to observe must be verifiable and be operationalised by means of experimental methods (Delanty, 2005: 11). The Positivist approach requires objectivity rather than subjectivity in its methods of inquiry. Furthermore, in order to gain data when conducting research, the Positivist believes in a value-free or value-neutral approach which separates the researcherâ€™s bias from the object which is observed (for neutrality in social science see Hollis, 1994: 202-223; Weber, 2003: 107-120; Taylor, 1973: 139-170).
Scientific explanation Pratt(1978: 70) states that the scientific explanation of Positivism must have three types of component: it must incorporate one or more general principles or laws; there must be some statement of a particular fact(s); and there must be a statement describing whatever it is that is being explained. The crucial thing in Prattâ€™s idea is that Positivism attempts to explain social or political phenomena through the â€˜covering-lawâ€™ thesis. This means that researchers would begin their study with some theory and formulate the hypothesis to be proved from the fact or data which are derived from scientific methods. Moreover, Positivists usually consider the unit of their analysis at the agency level, especially the behaviour of human beings in a specific case. They ignore the social structure which constrains social interaction among people (see Pratt, 1978; Hay, 2002). Scientific method Positivism requires scientific inquiry to gain the facts or data in social or political research. Experimental research designsin which researchers could control each variable, similar to a laboratory of natural science research, is preferable for the Positivist. In addition, quantitative methods, for example, survey and formal models which derive mathematical and statistical calculation are important to Positivist analysis of the causal relationship of social or political objects (for quantitative methods see Silburgh, 2001: 125-152; Shiveley, 2009: Ch7-10). Moreover, one of the most distinctive features of Positivism is prediction. The approach aims to develop formal models or construct an experiment to predict the possibility and future direction of the selected object (see Dowding, 2001; King etal.,1994; Hay, 2002: 37-45). In short, Positivism has crucial functions for guiding the social and political researcher for gaining facts and data in order to test the hypothesis and predict the future possibility of the controlled case study. This approach is useful for the research that tends to find out the simple relationship between each unit of analysis, usually an individual, without counting on the influence of social structure. On the contrary, the neo-Gramscian approach to social and political phenomena has different functions and goals from Positivism, which I am going to show in the section below.
II. TRANSCENDING POSITIVISM: NEO-GRAMSCIANISM AND SOME METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES In this section, I will offer three methodological challenges of the neo-Gramscian approach which are more practical than the mainstream positivism when applying theory towards a real politics of social transformation. The three subsections below are based on the Gramscian notions of the critique of economism, ideological hegemony, and the concept of social and political actors respectively. Some implications towards contemporary Thailand are provided at the end of each subsection. Challenge I: Critique of Economism Among the various social, cultural, and political thoughts of Antonio Gramsci, the idea of the critique of‘economism’ of some orthodox Marxists is one of the most crucial ideas of Antonio Gramsci’s contributions to both Marxism and the study in comparative social science. Critique of economism is the most crucial theoretical tool to open up a proposal to solve the problems of ‘determinist social explanation’. This section deals with the main question of what economism actually is. The tern economism, in fact, was first developed by Lenin (Bottomore, 1991: 168). He defined economism as a separate trend in the social democratic movement with a vulgarisation of Marxism, which downgraded the conscious element in social life. Lenin mainly argued against economism in What is to be done? He mainly used the term economism in the context of practical politics, but economism also has a theoretical significance as elaborated in Gramsci (Bottomore, 1991: 168-169). For Gramsci, economism has been used in various terms, such as finalism, fatalistic, mechanistic, automatism, and determinism almost without distinction (see Gramsci, 1971: 410,412; Kolakowski, 1978: 231). The term economism can be defined as the interpretation of Marxism, which holds that political developments are the expression of economic development (Simon, 1999: 14). Gramsci creates this notion of economism in order to oppose, reject, and analyse the deterministic character in the theoretical error in some Marxists (Sassoon, 1987: 187), for example, the theoreticians of the Second International such as Kautsky and Bernstein, who had a passive perspective that can be argued to be a ‘wait and see’ position. In other words, this theoretical perspective about social change of this kind of Marxism just awaited the automatic evolution of the situation (Sassoon, 1987: 188). This kind of mechanical determinism tends to
promote a passive attitude toward the social agents to wait for the inevitable economic collapse (Simon, 1999: 15; Callinicos, 2007: 111-115). Rather than just waiting and seeing whether things and situations have changed automatically, Gramsci proposes the more comprehensive theoretical perspective by putting the place for other elements e.g. history, ideology, and roles of human beings in his analysis of social transformation. Gramsci's attempts to oppose economic determinism clearly appeared in his prison writings, for example, Mechanical historical materialism does not allow for the possibility of error, but assumes that every political act is determined, immediately, by the structure, and therefore as a real and permanent (in the sense of achieved) modification of the structure. (Gramsci, 1971: 408, Q7§245)
Gramsci shows that the determinist Marxists make a theoretical error in the explanation of social transformation because they concentrate entirely on the economic matter or the structure, but neglect the other elements in their consideration of social change. Gramsci argues in the passage below that, instead of the creation of the general law of social explanation, in contrast, the more important thing in his perspective is to find the deep relations of many social forces in the society. It is from these considerations that one must start in order to establish what is meant by ‘regularity’, ‘law’, ‘automatism’ in historical facts. It is not a question of ‘discovering’ a metaphysical law of ‘determinism’, or even of establishing a ‘general’ law of causality. It is a question of bringing out how in historical evolution relatively permanent forces are constituted which operate with a certain regularity and automatism. (Gramsci, 1971: 412, Q11§52)
Therefore, in order to construct a more comprehensive framework to explain the world of complex social relations, Gramsci proposes combatting economism by offering the concept of hegemony (which I will show in the next sub-section below) which relies more on complex relations of social, cultural, political, and economic elements in its explanation of social conversion. The passage below shows Gramsci’s position on economism: It is therefore necessary to combat economism not only in the theory of historiography, but also and especially in the theory and 5
I follow the quotation to the genuine Gramsci's prison notebooks from the International Gramsci Society, see the concordance table from: http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/resources/concordance_table/index.html Q=Notebook number, §= section number
6 practice of politics. In this field, the struggle can and must be carried on by developing the concept of hegemony (Gramsci, 1971: 165, Q13§18)
Implications for Thai Politics In short, deterministic approaches such as the modernisation approach contain a ‘covering-law’ explanation which is based on any general law. For the case of modernisation theory, it believes that economic development could lead to the development of democracy as well. However, this character of the covering law explanation does not enable an understanding of the politics of transformation, such as the conflict of recent decadesin Thailand. Constructing a neo-Gramscian framework is helpful because it points out that instead of considering each social phenomenon by attaching a strict law of explanation, we should comprehensively consider the complicated social, political, and economic matters together. One important argument that I employ to argue against the determinist argumentation of the Thailand conflict is that the recent conflict in the recent decade in Thailand is due to the Thaksin government and its political allies. Based on Gramsci’s critique of economism/determinism, the conflicts in Thailand should be seen as results of the complex relationship of many social and political actors after the 1997 economic crisis. The conflicts did not automatically take place just after the corruption or the abuses of power of the Thaksin government. Nevertheless, it contains a sophisticated relationship from various social groups in the country. Moreover, apart from the economic matter, the recent conflict in Thailand was obviously seen as an ideological conflict, which the next methodological challenge below can grasp. Challenge II: Ideological and Cultural Elements in Gramsci’s Hegemony Hegemony has become the most notable theoretical and political term of Antonio Gramsci’s in the last few decades. Gramsci and Hegemony become synonymous and many books have been written on this subject (Joseph, 2002: 19). This concept is the centre of several of Gramsci’s ideas in order to understand the relations of social classes in modern capitalist society. This section will begin with the definition of the term hegemony and various meanings which Gramsci mentioned in the concept. Then, I will show some experiences from the case of Thailand and their connections to the ideological hegemony concept.
Gramsci’s Hegemony The concept of hegemony is not an entirely new concept; however, it has been used in various senses before Gramsci (usually to refer to class alliances). Nevertheless, there is at least one aspect that makes Gramsci's concept of hegemony distinct to his predecessors’: the injection of cultural, moral, and intellectual emphasis in his perspective (Hoffman, 1984: 55). Gramsci’s hegemony is the developed form of the previous usage in the Russian Social Democratic movement. Although the concept of hegemony in Gramsci was most developed in his prison notebooks, Boothman (2008), Mouffe (1979: 178), Clark (1977: 225), and Santucci (2010: 103–104) argue that there has been an attempt to provide a basic idea of the concept in his pre-prison writings at Ordine Nuovo (1919–1920) and more clearly stated in the Some Aspects of the Southern Questions (1926),where Gramsci states that: The Turin communists posed concretely the question of the ‘hegemony of the proletariat’: i.e. of the social basis of the proletarian dictatorship and the worker’s state. The proletariat can become the leading (dirigente) and the dominant class to the extent that it succeeds in creating a system of alliances which allows it to mobilise the majority of the working population against capitalism and the bourgeois state. In Italy, in the real class relations which exist there, this means to the extent that it succeeds in gaining the consent of the broad peasant masses. (Gramsci, 1978: 443)
Hegemony in this sense (pre-prison) is a political alliance, but later, in his prison notebooks, hegemony becomes a complete fusion of economic, political, intellectual, and moral objectives which will be practiced by one fundamental group and groups allied to it through the intermediary of ideology (Mouffe, 1979: 178–181). Furthermore, in his prison notebooks, Gramsci discusses various topics about the concept of hegemony; the following passage provides a quite straightforward definition of hegemony: What we can do, for the moment, is to fix two major super structural ‘levels’: the one that can be called ‘civil society’, that is the ensemble of organisms commonly called ‘private’, and that of ‘political society’ or ‘the state’. These two levels correspond on the one hand to the function of ‘hegemony’ which the dominant group exercises throughout society and on the other hand to that of ‘direct domination’ or command exercised through the state and ‘juridical’ government. The functions in question are precisely organisational and connective. The intellectuals are the dominant group’s ‘deputies’ exercising the subaltern functions of social
8 hegemony and political government (Gramsci, 1971: 12,
Q12§1*). As mentioned in this passage, Gramsci shows that hegemony is not an isolated concept, but it is a concept which is always related to other concepts. As discussed earlier in this chapter about the relationship between civil and political society, hegemony will emerge in the terrain of superstructure by the leading roles of intellectuals. Intellectuals as an organiser of hegemony and historical bloc will play vital roles to articulate each social force and combine the collective will of each force as a unity in a given period. It is worth noting that, in fact, Gramsci himself never provides a systematic meaning of the term hegemony; however, in order to provide the most general meaning of Gramsci’s hegemony, we need to follow what Williams (1960) states, that hegemony seems to mean a socio-political situation, in his terminology a ‘moment’, in which the philosophy and practice of a society fuse and are in equilibrium, an order in which a certain way of life and thought is dominant, in which one concept of reality is diffused throughout society in all its institutional and private manifestations, informing with its spirit all taste, morality, customs, religious, and political principles, and all social relations, particularly in their intellectual and moral connotation (Williams, 1960: 587). Following the general definition of hegemony summarised by Williams, Gramsci’s concept of hegemony has two crucial aspects that are worth considering, that is, firstly, the unity between philosophy and practice, and second, Gramsci’s notion of common sense. Concentrating on the first important aspect of hegemony is the combination of philosophy and practice of the concept, as Gramsci states in the following passage: Critical understanding of self takes place therefore through a struggle of political ‘hegemonies’ and of opposing directions, first in the ethical field and then in that of politics proper, in order to arrive at the working out at a higher level of one’s own conception of reality. Consciousness of being part of a particular hegemonic force (that is to say, political consciousness) is the first stage towards a further progressive self-consciousness in which theory and practice will finally be one. Thus the unity of theory and practice is not just a matter of mechanical fact, but a part of historical period (Gramsci,
1971: 333, Q11§12). Gramsci means that philosophy is identical with history and politics (Nemeth, 1980: 83–86). This aspect of hegemony shows that the ultimate aim in Gramsci’s thought is to combine philosophy with the sphere of history and politics, in other
words, the sphere of human actions and social relations and practical political activities (see Joseph, 2002: 27). Gramsci’s hegemony provides the picture of the combination between ideas, ideology, thought, and consciousness on one hand, and materials and practical movement on the other. Secondly, another crucial aspect of hegemony is Gramsci’s notion of the critique of common sense. According to Gramsci, ‘common sense’ is the ‘philosophy of non-philosophers’, or in other words, the ‘conception of the world which is uncritically absorbed by the various social and cultural environments in which the moral individuality of the average man is developed’ (Gramsci, 1971: 419, Q11§13). In analysing ways of thinking and acting, Gramsci uses a variety of terms, but many of these are equivalent, for example, ‘philosophy’, ‘ideology’, ‘conception of the world’, ‘mode of thought and action’, and ‘world view’. All of these terms refer to the general way of thinking and acting that determines the specificity of a social class, social group, or historical formation (Robinson, 2005: 473; see more discussion on Gramsci's common sense in Liguori, 2009). Common sense is the conception of the world which is established by the ruling class in order to secure the class interests and control subalterns’ world view (see Bocock, 1986: 46). This process of building common sense operates through the functions of intellect in the sphere of civil society. The vital point is, according to Gramsci, that in order to become autonomous and be able to change the existing social relations, the subaltern/subordinate groups need to develop a new conception of the world that is not dependent on the ruling class’s ideas (see Robinson, 2005: 473). To overcome hegemonic common sense, the subaltern needs to replace it with what Gramsci called ‘good sense’ or a new conception of the world raised by the autonomy of subaltern class in order to raise the intellectual level of the people (Gramsci, 1971: 340, Q11§12; Greaves, 2009: 172). In conclusion, although there are a number of ways to identify Gramsci’s hegemony, I argue that there are two major senses of Gramsci’s hegemony which can be usefully employed to analyse Thai politics, including; firstly,Gramsci’s use of the concept of hegemony in the sense denoting consensus and ideology, as opposed to coercion/force, as the basis of all political systems (Bellamy and Schecter, 1993: 112; Femia, 1981: 24; Anderson, 1979: 79). Secondly, it is in the sense of ‘intellectual and moral leadership’ that concentrates on aspects of cultural and educative tasks of the party and ultimately the revolutionary state in the formation of coherent moral awareness and political will amongst the proletariat in order to ‘overcome’ the economic-corporate level of people’s consciousness (Bellamy and Schecter, 1993: 112: see also Femia, 1981: 24; Adamson, 1980: 171).
Implications for Thai Politics This theoretical challenge of the neo-Gramscian approach transcending the main character of empiricism which only considers material or phenomena that only conceive of sensory perception. Ideological, cultural, and moral factors are totally abandoned from the positivist research. However, in the case of the recent conflict in Thailand, it could be seen as a conflict over ideological issues. There are two major social forces contending to gain hegemonic status, the Yellow Shirts movement and the Red Shirts movement. The Yellows, I argue, are an actor who attach themselves to the conservative ideology, in other words, the royalist-nationalist ideology. This social force claimed that the Thaksin government challenged the royal hegemony of the Thai monarchy and should be thrown out of political power. Therefore, the Yellow Shirts movement attempted many ways to create a condition that led to the coup d’état which finally succeeded in September 2006. The emergence of the Reds was meanwhile an attempt to counter-balance the aggressive power of the military and the Democratic Party between 2006 and 2008. The Red Shirts confronted the existing political ideology by challenging the existence of the monarchy in the modern world and demandeda genuine liberal democracy. A neo-Gramscian approach transcended the rigidity of scientific observation by considering neglected ideological-cultural elements that are more suitable than a positivist tradition to understand the complexities of Thailand’s conflicts. Challenge III: Gramscian Social and Political Agencies Although Gramsci’s prison writings were presented on various topics, the main aim of Gramsci’s is to discuss the problem of capitalist society and ways to solve it. Gramsci’s unit of analysis in his focusing on social and political agencies have been provided in various terms, such as social forces, dominant class, subaltern, subordinate, or instrumental (Hoare and Nowell Smith, 1971: xiv). In his writings, he usually refers to social forces similar to social groups or classes. Gramsci focuses on the relation between each social force and his political agencies in his political analysis. The purpose of this section is to provide Gramsci’s ideas about class, social groups, and social forces. These Gramscian concepts are crucial to understand his authentic social and political agencies, which are helpful in grounding understanding in using Gramscian theories in comparative politics. Gramsci’s major concern in his political thought is the social relation of each social group and class. He concentrates on these social relations rather than focusing on individual behaviour. Therefore, his idea on social class (as political agency) consists of two main classes, including the dominant class or the ruling
class and the subaltern, subordinate, or the dominated class. It is worth noting that Gramsci rarely uses the term ‘class’ in the prison notebooks. More often he prefers to use the term ‘social group’ when he mentions each social and political agency (Nemeth, 1980: 86; see also Pozzolini, 1970: 67-75). In Gramsci’s thought, the ruling class is a group of people who can become a state (see Gramsci, 1971: 53), which is the group of people who can maintain their force and consent over the entire social dominated groups. Gramsci argues that the ruling class or the dominant class wish not only to lead other groups or classes but also to dominate people. They wanted a new force, which is independent of every compromise and condition, to become the arbiter of the nation (Gramsci, 1971: 105). On the other hand, a more important social group to which Gramsci pays attention is the subaltern or subordinate class. Gramsci’s notion of subaltern social group and the ruling group are similar to other Gramscian concepts which are unsystematic, scattered and diffused throughout his prison notebooks (Green, 2002: 2). Marcus Green (2002) explains that the Gramscian conception of the subaltern is rarely systematically presented in English because most Gramsci scholars usually refer to Gramsci’s selection from prison notebooks (1971) in which there are few essays concerning the subaltern (Green, 2002: 1). Green argues that the most systematic treatment of the subaltern in Gramsci prison notebooks was presented in notebook 25, in which Gramsci identifies slaves, peasants, religious groups, women, different races, and the proletariat as subaltern social groups (Green, 2002: 2). Moreover, in Gramsci’s last political writing prior to being sentenced, Some Aspects of the Southern Question (1926), he drew some preliminary ideas about the subaltern social groups before he proposed this again in his prison writings. In Some Aspects of the Southern Question, Gramsci argues that the subaltern includes peasants andthe proletariat in a wider sense (e.g., metal workers, joiners, building workers, priests, and intellectuals) (see Gramsci, 1978: 441-462). In short, the term subaltern/subordinate means not just the oppressed social groups but also the groups lacking autonomy, subjected to the influence or hegemony of other social groups, and not possessing their own hegemonic position (see Sassoon, 1982: 16). Later on, in his prison notebooks, Gramsci argues that the history of subaltern classes is intertwined with civil society and, thereby, with the history of the state and the group of state (Gramsci, 1971: 52). Moreover, he argues that the subaltern groups are always subject to the activity of ruling groups, even when they rebel
and rise up (Gramsci, 1971: 55). This means that in order to analyse the subaltern groups in the Gramscian sense, we need to pay attention to the Gramscian conception of ‘integral state’ with the combination of the terrain of civil and political society. In short, this section reinforces that in Gramsci’s analysis of political agency, Gramsci emphasises more the role of subaltern/subordinate social groups rather than the ruling class in order to overcome the capitalist mode of social relations. The presentation of Gramsci’s social and political agencies above is an attempt to show that this approach goes beyond the narrow unit of analysis of some mainstream theories such as behaviouralism and modernisation. Implications for Thai Politics This neo-Gramscian challenge is helpful for contemporary research because it offers a broader unit of analysis by focusing on a number of social forces rather than a given specific actor. This multi-unit of analysis is applicable to the case of contemporary Thai politics. As I mentioned earlier, the political conflict in Thailand is not an automatic result of the abuses of power by any given government, but the political conflict was rather a result of complicated connections of many social and political actors. This approach opens up a wider picture of political analysis in the study on social change in Thailand. It engages an understanding of dialectical relationships among each social and political group in Thailand which is a gap that mainstream positivist approaches could not offer. CONCLUSION This paper argues that the positivist approaches to social reality should be transcended in conducting contemporary social research because they offer inadequate features for social and political analyses. Based on my own current research on the topic of political conflict in Thailand in the recent decade, I argue that employing a neo-Gramscian framework based on Antonio Gramsci’s political theories is helpful and more suitable than some positivist mainstream theoretical approaches such as modernisation and behaviouralism. There are at least three methodological challenges whereby the neo-Gramscian framework could grasp the complexities of contemporary social affairs. First, the neo-Gramscian approach’s idea on the critique of economism/determinism opposes the covering-law explanation of positivism and argues that there are a number of factors that contribute to the end result of any given social phenomena. Second, the mainstream social science theories, especially behaviouralism and
modernisation, neglect the importance of ideological-cultural elements in their political analysis. The neo-Gramscian approach overcomes this by offering a concept of hegemony and some related concepts. For the case of Thailandâ€™s conflict, this theory provides a chance to understand the hidden ideological agendas behind the movement of both key social actors, the Yellow Shirts and the Red Shirts movements. Last, most mainstream approaches concentrate on any given specific unit of analysis. However, in order to understand the complexities of the contemporary social and political world, we need a multi-unit of analysis to cover the analysis of social change. This is what the neo-Gramscian approach offers when considering Thai politics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, P. (1979). Considerations on Western Marxism. London: Verso. Bellamy, R. and Schecter, D. (1993). Gramsci and the Italian State. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bocock, R. (1986). Hegemony. London: Tavistock Publications. Bottomore, T. (1991). “economism”, in Bottomore, T. et.al. (eds) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Boothman, D. (2008). “The Sources for Gramsci's Concept of Hegemony” Rethinking Marxism, 20(2), pp. 201–215. Callinicos, A. (2007). Social Theory A Historical Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity. Clark, M. (1977). Antonio Gramsci and The Revolution That Failed. London: Yale University Press. Delanty, G. (2005). Social Science. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Dowding, K. (2001) “There Must Be End to Confusion: Policy Networks, Intellectual Fatigue, and the Need for Political Science Methods Courses in British Universities” Political Studies, 49, pp. 89-105. Femia, J. (1981). Gramsci's political thought: Hegemony, Consciousness, and the Revolutionary Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. ed. and trans. Hoare, Q and Nowell Smith, G. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Gramsci, A. (1978). Selection from Political Writings (1921-1926). Hoare, Q. (Ed.) New York: International Publishers. Gramsci, A. (1978). “Some Aspects of the Southern Question” in Hoare, Q. (ed.) Antonio Gramsci Selection from Political Writings 1921-1926. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Green, M. (2002) “Gramsci Cannot Speak: Presentations and Interpretations of Gramsci’s concept of Subaltern” Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), pp. 1-24. Greaves, N. M. (2009). Gramsci's Marxism Reclaiming a Philosophy of History and Politics. Leicester: Matador. Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoare, Q and Nowell Smith, G. (1971). “Introduction” in Hoare, Q and Nowell Smith, G.(ed. and trans). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Hoffman, J. (1984). The Gramscian Challenge Coercion and Consent in Marxist Political Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hollis, M. (1994). The Philosophy of Social Science an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joseph, J. (2002). Hegemony A realist analysis. London: Routledge. King, G, Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Chichester: Princeton University Press. Kolakowsky, L. (1978). Main currents of Marxism Vol.3. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Liguori, G. (2009). “Common sense in Gramsci” in Francese, J. (ed.) Perspective on Gramsci Politics, culture and social theory. Oxford: Routledge. Marsh, D. and Smith, M.J. (2001). “There is More Than One Way to do Political Science: On Diifferent Ways to Study Policy Networks” Political Studies, 49, pp. 528-541. Marsh, D.and Furlong, P. (2002). “A Skin, not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science”, in Marsh, D.and Stoker, G. (eds.) Theory and Methods in Political Science. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mouffe, C. (1979). “Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci” in Mouffe, C. (ed.) Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge&Kegan Paul. Nemeth, T. (1980). Gramsci’s Philosophy A Critical Study. Sussex: Harvester Press. Pozzolini, A. (1970). Antonio Gramsci An Introduction to his thought. Sassoon, A. S. (trans.) London: Pluto Press. Pratt, V. (1978). The Philosophy of the Social Sciences. London: Methuen. Robinson, A. (2005). “Towards an Intellectual Reformation: The Critique of Common Sense and the Forgotten Revolutionary Project of Gramscian Theory” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(4), pp. 469–481. Santucci, A. A. (2010). Antonio Gramsci. Di Mauro, G. and Di Mauro, E. (tr.). New York: Monthly Review Press. Sassoon, A. S. (1982). Approaches to Gramsci. London: Writers and Readers. Sassoon, A.S. (1987). Gramsci’s Politics. 2nd ed. London: Hutchinson.
Shively, W. P. (2009). The Craft of Political Research. 7th ed. New Jersy: Pearson Prentice Hall. Silburgh, D. (2001). Doing Dissertations in Politics: A Student Guide. London: Routledge. Simon, R. (1999). Gramsci’s Political Thought An Introduction. (e-book). London: The Electric Book Company. Taylor, C. (1973) “Neutrality in Political Science”, in Ryan, A.. (ed.) The Philosophy of Social Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1904) “Objectivity in Social Science”, in Delanty, G. and Strydom, P. (eds.) Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary Readings. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Williams, G. A. (1960). “The concept of 'Egemonia' in the Thought of Antonio Gramsci: Some Notes on Interpretation” Journal of the History of Ideas, 21(4), pp. 586–599.
บทความเตรียมจัดพิมพ์ใน “หนังสือรวมบทความฉบับพิเศษ: 10 ปี รัฐศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร
Published on Sep 4, 2013
บทความเตรียมจัดพิมพ์ใน “หนังสือรวมบทความฉบับพิเศษ: 10 ปีรัฐศาสตร์มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร (2556)