Search

This paper draws from contemporary psychoanalytic theory as well as nineteenth-century crowd theory to critique Louis Althusser’s account of the ideological interpellation of the subject. I argue that rather than ideology interpellating the individual as a subject, bourgeois ideology interpellates the subject as an individual. By “bourgeois ideology” I mean the loose set of ideas and apparatuses associated with European modernity, an instrumental concept of reason, and the emergence of the capitalist mode of production. The advantage of reversing the Althusserian account is that the subject is not pre-constrained to the individual form, a form that is itself always already as failing and impossible as it is assumed and demanded. In Althusser’s version, the individuality that emerges in history is posited as universal, a given. In mine, the individual form is itself the problem; it’s a coercive and unstable product of the enclosure of the common in never-ceasing efforts to repress, deny, and foreclose collective political subjectivity. The individual is thus a form of capture. Rather than natural or given, the individual form encloses into a singular bounded body collective bodies, ideas, affects, desires, and drives. There is nothing necessary about the link between subjectivity and individuality; it is an effect contingent to the array of processes that converge into bourgeois modernity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to separate post-modernism from political radicalism. It tries to disengage polemics against the metaphysics of presence from polemics against bourgeois ideology, and criticisms of Enlightenment rationalism and universalism from criticisms of liberal, reformist political thought. It discusses various issues concerning the utility of philosophical theory for social democratic politics but avoid those that are specific to Richard Bernstein's paper "The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy."

Recent discussions on corporate citizenship (CC) highlight the new political role of corporations in society by arguing that corporations increasingly act as quasi-governmental actors and take on what hitherto had originally been governmental tasks. By examining political and sociological citizenship theories, the authors show that such a corporate engagement can be explained by a changing (self-)conception of corporate citizens from corporate bourgeois to corporate citoyen. As an intermediate actor in society, the corporate citoyen assumes co-responsibilities for social and civic affairs and actively collaborates with fellow citizens beyond governmental regulation. This change raises the question of how such corporate civic engagement can be aligned with public policy regulations and how corporate activities can be integrated into the democratic regime. To clarify the mode of CC contributions to society, the authors will apply the tenet of subsidiarity as a governing principle which allows for specifying corporations’ tasks as intermediate actors in society. By referring to the renewed European Union strategy for Corporate Social Responsibility, the authors show how such a subsidiary corporate-governmental task-sharing can be organized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay surveys a century of debate on the Marx-nature question. It seeks to expose, critique and reformulate a set of foundational assumptions which, it is argued, have informed this debate. Three main arguments are put forward. First, it is suggested that successive attempts to expound a Marxian theory of nature have see-sawed between naturalistic and social constructionist positions. Second, as such many Marxist theories of nature are shown (ironically) to have much in common with forms of bourgeois and anti-bourgeois environmentalism they otherwise oppose. Finally, as a way out of the impasse of Marxian thinking on nature, a conception of the production of nature is tentatively put forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is argued by Mannheim that conservative thought, of which he takes Romanticism as an example, is anti-bourgeois thought. However English Romantic Conservatism does not appear to fit this model. English conservative thought (for example, Burke and Disraeli) is not anti-bourgeois. Furthermore English Romantic conservatism exhibits certain parallels with Wesleyan Methodism (hereafter referred to as Methodism) which acts, via its work ethic, as an ideological support for the bourgeoisie.
The article explores the relationship of English Romantic conservatism to the bourgeosie, its similarities and differences regarding the thought of the latter, and the culture functions it performs. This throws light on the sociological determinants of Romanticism. These are complex, it is argued, but basically there is an interplay of traditional pre-capitalist and more modern influences, reflecting the interpenetration of different stages of social development.
Romantic conservatism, it is claimed, provides a rich source of symbolism for the modem bourgeoisie and traditional (mercantile and agricultural) capital, demonstrating its ambivalence regarding modern and traditional milieux. At the same time, it remains a non-bourgeois, pre-capitalist type of thought. Its major significance lies in its contribution to the elaboration of more hegemonic forms of dominant culture than would otherwise have been possible, it is concluded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of the national bourgeoisie in hampering Belizean nationalism and the political development of the country. It explains that the emergence of Belizean nationalism was constrained in the period of independence from Great Britain by the Anglo-Guatemalan dispute. It elaborates on the central internal debate that has been about the direction of Belize's national identity and its foreign allegiance. The article concludes that the nationalist movement was used to renegotiate the country's linkage within the world system, that is, whether it should be under the wing of the U.S. or Great Britain.

In this article, the author shows how complex is the interplay between ideology and material conditions in the fashioning of the Colombian bourgeois project. The author demonstrates that initial liberal-conservative differences were based on the eminently social question of how best to develop the economy without disturbing the underlying system of seignorial power and social relations. She also explores how far different elite factions were willing to court the support of other classes in their internal disputes. Finally, the author shows how increasing unity over economic policy between liberals and conservatives and increasing success in economic growth could paradoxically deepen regional disparities and help to intensify political violence, culminating in the War of a Thousand Days.

The article presents an analysis on the emergence of the national bourgeois and the role of state in the decades following the Mexican Revolution, a period believed to be of critical importance for understanding the development of capitalism in Mexico. It is mentioned that members of the prerevolutionary bourgeoisie reasserted themselves and their relation with the state, along with the new revolutionary capitalists emerged during the establishment of basic financial network in Mexico. Several types of capitalist among the prerevolutionary bourgeoisie facilitated the capital formation, prefigured Mexico's contemporary economic groups, reestablished links with foreign capitals.