American Intellectuals in the Neoliberal Hegemony in the 1980s – 2020s: A Gramscian Analysis

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52575/2687-0967-2024-51-3-767-779

Keywords:

neoliberalism, hegemony, neoconservatism, intellectuals, U.S. Democratic Party, U.S. Republican Party

Abstract

The aim of the article is to identify the key theses and socio-political pillars of “neoliberalism” as an intellectual current that serves to formalize U.S. global dominance in the period from the 1980s to the present day. We apply the theory of political power by A. Gramsci, which allows us to draw lines from intellectual phenomena to political forces and, further, to socio-economic groups. The main Gramscian scheme employed in this article is the connection between “hegemony” as a form of political dominance, which has, among other things, an intellectual dimension, and a historical bloc - an association of socio-economic groups occupying a dominant position. The emphasis is placed on the role of intellectuals, who in Gramsci's theory are given a key role in the political and ideological design of hegemony. The analysis leads to the following main conclusions. Neoliberalism is an eclectic current that combines the economic theses of the Chicago and Austrian schools, political neoconservatism and the neo-Marxist theory of social movements, but at its core lies the assertion of unlimited economic freedom. This position corresponds to the stable dominance of the neoliberal bloc by financial capital. The main line of change in the position of the intelligentsia was the transition from the bloc's reliance on intellectuals displaced from the university mainstream to the co-optation of the university community.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Artak R. Manukyan, MGIMO University

Candidate of Sciences in Politics, Associate Professor of the Department of State Management, MGIMO University,
Moscow, Russia

Daria A. Talagaeva, MGIMO University

Candidate of Sciences in Politics, Associate Professor of the Department of English No. 6, MGIMO University,
Moscow, Russia

E-mail: d.talagaeva@mail.ru
ORCID: 0000-0001-7959-0741

References

Балышев А.В., Коннов В.И. 2015. Формирование научной составляющей оборонного заказа США. Вестник МГИМО Университета, 6: 155–164.

Грамши А. 1959. Избранные произведения в трех томах. Том третий. Тюремные тетради. М., Издательство иностранной литературы. 565 с.

Грамши А. 1991. Тюремные тетради. В 3 ч. Ч. 1. М., Издательство политической литературы. 560 с.

Журавлева В.Ю. 2022. Левая дилемма Дж. Байдена и демократической партии. Мировая экономика и международные отношения, 12: 5–15.

Корощупов В.О. 2023. Оборонная промышленность Европы: актуальные вызовы и возможные пути развития. США и Канада: экономика, политика, культура, 11: 27–41.

Clarke W. 2004. Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire. New York: Public Affairs. 240 p.

Currie D. 2023. «Kremlin on the Charles» No More? The Washington Examiner. Sunday, November 19. URL: https://www.unz.com/pgottfried/kremlin-on-the-charles/ (accessed 24 August 2024)

Ebenstein L. 2015. Chicagonomics. New York, St Martin’s Press. 304 p.

Field A. 2005. Technical Change and US Economic Growth: The Interwar Period and the 1990s. Rhode P., Toniolo G. (eds.) The Global Economy in the 1990s. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 89–117.

Friedman M. 1951. Neo-Liberalism and its Prospects. Farmand. 17 February 1951, 89–93.

Friedman M. 2006. The Neoconservative Revolution. New York, Cambridge University Press. 310 p.

Gerstle G. 2022. The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order. New York, Oxford University Press. 432 p.

Giddens A. 1998. The Third Way. Cambridge, Polity Press. 166 p.

International Monetary Fund. 2005. Oil Market Developments and Issues. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 17. URL: https://www. elibrary.imf. org/view/journals/007/2005/001/article-A001-en.xml (accessed 24 August 2024)

Knudsen D. 2016. The Trilateral Commission and Global Governance. New York, Routledge. 272 p.

Mirowski P. 2002. Machine Dreams. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 672 p.

Moseley F. 2003. Marxian Crisis Theory and the Postwar US Economy. Saad-Filho A. (ed.) Anti-Capitalism: A Marxist Introduction. London, Pluto Press. 280 p.

Muench R. 2014. Academic Capitalism: Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. New York, Routledge. 298 p.

Norton T. 2022. Hunter Biden's Laptop and 'Twitter Files'–What We Do Know, What We Don't. URL: https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-laptop-twitter-files-1765395 (accessed 24 August 2024)

O’Donnovan N. 2022. Pursuing the Knowledge Economy. Newcastle, Agenda Publishing. 232 p.

Pandolfo C. 2024. 7.2M Illegals Entered the US under Biden Admin. URL: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illegal-immigrants-biden-admin-amount-greater-population-36-states (accessed 24 August 2024)

Parsons T., Platt G. 1973. The American University. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 463 p.

Pass J. 2019. American Hegemony in the 21st Century. New York, Routledge. 276 p.

Rapoza K. 2023. How Western Sanctions Blow Back, Hurting Europe, Deepening Asian Integration. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2023/06/08/the-russian-sanctions-still-burden-europes-weak-economy-and-society/ (accessed 24 August 2024)

Romer P. 1990. Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy. 5(2): 71–102.

Slaughter S., Rhoades G. 2009. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press. 384 p.

Stahl J. 2016. Right Moves. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 264 p.

Suskind R. 2004. The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill. New York, Simon and Schuster. 432 p.


Abstract views: 21

Share

Published

2024-09-30

How to Cite

Manukyan, A. R., & Talagaeva, D. A. (2024). American Intellectuals in the Neoliberal Hegemony in the 1980s – 2020s: A Gramscian Analysis. Via in Tempore. History and Political Science, 51(3), 767-779. https://doi.org/10.52575/2687-0967-2024-51-3-767-779

Issue

Section

Topical issues of political science