TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca

On Articulation, Translation, and Populism: Gillian Hart’s Postcolonial Marxism

Michael Ekers, Stefan Kipfer & Alex Loftus

Version Accepted manuscript

Citation Michael Ekers , Stefan Kipfer & Alex Loftus (2020) On Articulation, Translation, and (published Populism: Gillian Hart’s Postcolonial Marxism, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110:5, 1577-1593, DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1715198 version)

Publisher’s This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Statement Francis in Annals of the American Association of Geographers on 16 Mar 2020, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/24694452.2020.1715198.

How to cite TSpace items

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page.

This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters.

1 53 2 54 3 On Articulation, Translation, and Populism: 55 4 56 5 Gillian Hart’s Postcolonial Marxism 57 6 58 † ‡ 7 Michael Ekers,Ã Stefan Kipfer, and Alex Loftus 59 8 60 9 ÃDepartment of Human Geography, University of Toronto 61 †Environmental Studies, York University 10 ‡ 62 11 Department of Geography, King’s College London 63 12 This article reviews Gillian Hart’s unique anticolonial Marxism, which she deftly deployed to explore 64 13 questions regarding development, capitalism, and the post-apartheid trajectories of South Africa, focusing in 65 14 particular on the articulations of race, class, gender, and nationalism therein. We argue that Hart’s careful 66 15 engagement with Gramsci’s work enables her to be particularly attentive to both materiality and meaning in 67 16 particular historical and geographical conjunctures. In so doing, we focus on how Hart enrolls and furthers 68 17 understandings of articulation, language, and populism to develop a conjunctural analysis that is sensitive to 69 18 the differentiation and politics of racialized capitalism. Key Words: Antonio Gramsci, articulation, Gillian Hart, 70 19 populism, translation. 71 20 72 21 73 22 n this article, we review Gillian Hart’s postcolo- take the middle of the road, the place where one 74 23 nial Marxism, demonstrating how Hart’s discus- encounters a lot of roadkill), Hart’s work represents 75 24 Ision of articulation, translation, and populism a vital resource for those seeking to develop a post- 76 25 consistently challenges the schisms between political colonial Marxist approach that resists the repeated 77 26 economy and cultural studies, Marxism and post- binary framing of geographical debates. Although 78 27 Marxism(s) that have shaped many debates in social focusing on Hart’s work throughout this review, we 79 28 theory since the dying days of the Cold War. would note that a number of others also work at this 80 29 Whether in the debates around place and postmod- interface, one we find to be profoundly generative. 81 30 ernism of the late 1980s and early 1990s, in the Positioning Hart’s work in this way, we note both 82 31 scale debates of the 2000s, or in the recent argu- resonances and divergences with the work of Stuart 83 32 ments around the planetary, human geographers Hall. For Chari (2017), Hall is “one figure for whom 84 33 often frame their discipline as caught between Marxism and post-coloniality have been intertwined 85 34 two irreconcilable or divergent perspectives. Most in practice,” thereby offering an antidote, or a path 86 35 recently, a supposedly residual economism within through “sterile debates about Marxism as separable 87 36 Marxist approaches has been counterposed to the sit- from and in opposition to postcolonial theory, or 88 37 uated and ethnographic approaches that are said to postcoloniality as separable from Marxism and from 89 38 learn from the Global South. Marxism and postcolo- its normative hopes of a socialist and human future” 90 39 nialism are therefore said to represent “divergent (842). As we detail, Hart’s engagement with these 91 40 ways of theorizing the urban and associated political same traditions, as seen most recently in her reading 92 41 possibilities” (Derickson 2015, 648). The study of of populism, allows her to open up intellectual 93 42 political ecology, similarly, is characterized as having and political space in geographical debates. Hart is 94 43 been shaped by two distinct trajectories: historical clearly not alone in this project, as others such as 95 44 materialism, and a second approach that “attends to Gidwani (2008) and indeed Chari (2004, 2017) 96 45 diffuse forms of power, uses ethnographic approaches have advocated for a postcolonial Marxism that mar- 97 46 and postcolonial and feminist critiques of knowledge ries an analysis of broad political economic transfor- 98 47 production” (Lawhon, Ernstson, and Silver 2013, mations with the legacies of racialized colonial rule. 99 48 100 499). Such characterizations often pit an inflexible, Notably, Gramsci and Hall are also key intellectual 49 101 “structuralist” Marxism against a nuanced alternative allies in Gidwani and Chari’s respective projects. 50 102 that is sensitive to a range of different determinants. Hart’s writing, like Gidwani or Chari, works against 51 103 Firmly rejecting such polarities (but also refusing to a dualistic rendering of academic debates and in part 52 104

Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 0(0) 2020, pp. 1–16 # 2020 by American Association of Geographers Initial submission, April 2019; revised submissions, October and December 2019; final acceptance, December 2019 Published by Taylor & Francis, LLC. 2 Ekers, Kipfer, and Loftus

105 this stems from methodological sensibilities inspired articulation, we analyze how she mobilizes under- 156 106 by Gramsci and her attentiveness to historical and standings of translation and populism by grappling 157 107 geographical specificity, albeit a specificity always with the politics of South Africa. Drawing on these 158 108 produced in relation to other spaces, places, and concepts, we discuss how Hart is furthering and trans- 159 109 times. The examination of Hart’s work offered in lating her Gramscian approach to understand the vir- 160 110 this article provides a lens on a body of work that is ulent forms of right populism in the North today. In 161 111 attentive to materiality and meaning, to political this regard, this article is both an assessment of Hart’s 162 112 economy and social difference. Moreover, a sustained approach and an attempt to show why this approach 163 113 reading of Hart’s scholarship highlights the unique matters for a range of scholarly and practical concerns 164 114 analytical leverage that her postcolonial Marxism in the present moment. Crucially, we demonstrate 165 115 provides in unpacking the world-wide constellation why critical geographical scholarship needs Hart’s 166 116 of far-right political movements today. work in this present moment. 167 117 As with the best of Hall’s scholarship, Hart works 168 118 through questions of race, gender, and imperialism 169 119 on the terrain of Marxism itself and through histori- Articulation 170 120 171 cal materialist methods in their most promising, Although geographers have sometimes used artic- 121 172 open-ended, and dialectical form. At the same time, ulation conceptually, none have explored articula- 122 173 and as we go on to demonstrate, her work makes a tion in the sustained way that Hart does. For those 123 174 particularly powerful contribution to what one might engaging with the concept, including Glassman 124 175 call an ongoing political turn in critical geography (2010), Samson (2010), and McGrath (2017), Hart’s 125 176 that insists, in partial distinction to both the neo- work is of vital importance. As such, a discussion of 126 Marxist lineage inspired by Harvey and his students 177 127 her rendering of the concept is necessary for appreci- 178 and the range of postmodern critics it faced in the ating her contributions to the discipline as well as 128 1990s and early 2000s, on the importance of politics 179 129 for understanding the contours of her postcolonial 180 as an active and transformative force in the produc- 130 Marxist approach. 181 tion of time-space. Hart’s contribution is distinct 131 First appearing in Disabling Globalization, Hart 182 from others who have contributed to this turn, how- 132 (2002a) deployed the concept of articulation to ana- 183 ever, notably those who have raised concerns about 133 lyze the shifting relations of race, class, and, to a 184 postpolitical conditions by mobilizing insights from 134 lesser degree gender, that temporarily coalesce, or 185 theorists like Alain Badiou, Jacques Ranc¸iere, and 135 splinter, around particular political economic pro- 186 Slavoj Zizek (Wilson and Swyngedouw 2014). 136 cesses and struggles for hegemony. For Hart, articula- 187 Compared to these theorists, who gravitate toward 137 tion refers to the conjoining of different material 188 ontological conceptions of politics and the political 138 practices and social relations with questions of 189 139 (Bosteels 2011), Hart, along with other intellectuals, meaning and language. In her words, “in this com- 190 140 has been more adamant in her refusal to disentangle bined sense, articulation refers not just to structural 191 141 the art of politics from the inherited, limit-setting effect. The idea, rather, is that the ‘unities’ con- 192 142 forces of history, geography, and social life (Doucette structed through practices and processes of articula- 193 143 2019). Hart achieves this through critically engag- tion are almost always contradictory, and must be 194 144 ing, recasting, and developing Gramsci’s writings, continually renovated, renewed and re-enacted” 195 145 which have been crucial in her forging—and putting (Hart 2002, 28). Articulation then refers to histori- 196 146 into practice—what she called “Marxist postcolonial cal geographical processes as they continually unfold 197 147 geographies” (Hart 2018a). in uneven and contradictory ways while also dou- 198 148 Throughout the article, we therefore contemplate bling as a concept that sheds analytical light on 199 149 Hart’s philological engagement with the Gramscian these same processes. 200 150 conceptions of articulation, translation, and populism, Hart’s treatment of articulation is rooted in a 201 151 demonstrating how such an engagement provides a Gramscian mode of analysis. Unsurprisingly, perhaps 202 152 window on the coming together of two shared con- the main interlocutor for Hart (2002a, 2002b, 2007, 203 153 cerns: the development of a nuanced relational 2014) on the question of articulation is Hall (1980, 204 154 method and the excavation of Gramsci’s philosophy [1986] 1996b), who she credits for her own attention 205 155 of praxis. After developing Hart’s understanding of to both materiality and meaning. Reinforcing Chari’s 206 On Articulation, Translation, and Populism 3

207 (2017)claimquotedearlier,Hallwasabletoestablish content of nationalist and populist sentiments and 258 208 an intellectual pathway that avoided the pitfalls of movements is not uniform and can vary, this con- 259 209 previous readings of articulation, in particular tent needs to be specified in any analysis of such 260 210 Althusser’s(1969; Althusser and Balibar 1970) struc- sentiments. For this purpose, he suggested that 261 211 turalist understanding and Laclau and Mouffe’s nationalism and populism are best understood as 262 212 (1985) post-Marxist iteration. Althusser and Balibar being contingently articulated with class relations 263 213 (1970) theorized that the articulation of different through hegemonic projects in particular historical 264 214 modes of production, superstructures, and forms of contexts. Hall (1980) further developed the concept 265 215 knowledge produce particular conjunctures and social of articulation to steer a path between an econo- 266 216 formations. Articulation, in their work, refers to the mistic and a sociological or voluntarist understand- 267 217 joining together of different structures: Each struc- ing of the relationship between race and class. Hall 268 218 ture (mode of production, superstructure) is, never- (1980; see also Hall [1986] 1996a) leaned heavily on 269 219 theless, relatively autonomous from others, meaning Althusser and Gramsci, arguing that articulation 270 220 they cannot be collapsed into one another. As Hall involves “both ‘joining up’ (as in the limbs of the 271 221 (1980) suggested, however, processes of articulation body, or an anatomical structure) and ‘giving expres- 272 222 are not arbitrary: Certain structures are dominant sion to’” (Hall 1980, 328). Hall (1980) built on this 273 223 and play more of a determining role than others, approach, and departed from Althusser, to argue that 274 224 something Althusser (1969) came to understand as “one must start, then, from the concrete historical 275 225 “determination in the last instance by the (eco- ‘work’ which racism accomplishes under specific his- 276 226 nomic) mode of production” (111). torical conditions—as a set of economic, political 277 227 Althusser and Balibar (1970) were not alone in and ideological practices, of a distinctive kind, con- 278 228 deploying a structuralist reading of articulation. A cretely articulated with other practices in a social 279 229 number of scholars in the 1970s and 1980s sought to formation” (338). 280 230 understand the coexistence and relationship of mul- In many ways, Hall is also crucial to Hart’s read- 281 231 282 tiple modes of production (Hindess and Hirst 1975; ing of Gramsci’s method. In a piece reflecting on 232 283 De Janvry 1981; Goodman and Redclift 1981). For Massey’s influence on her work, Hart (2018a) sug- 233 284 Hart, South African debates, and Wolpe’s contribu- gested that “it was through Hall that [she] came to 234 285 tion to these debates, are of great relevance. Wolpe take Gramsci very seriously” (85). Indeed, Hart’s 235 286 (1975, 1980) argued that in the context of South grounding in Gramsci is intimately connected to a 236 287 Africa, the capitalist mode of production was con- series of pieces written by Hall (Hall et al. 1978; 237 288 joined to a mode of production based on subsistence Hall 1980, 1988, [1986] 1996a, [1986] 1996a) 238 289 agriculture. The persistence of subsistence production between the late 1970s and mid-1980s. In these 239 290 was not a precolonial hangover that would be slowly texts, the latter was working on a Gramscian terrain 240 291 241 eroded by the spread of capitalist social relations. while engaging with debates on race and class in 292 242 Rather, self-provisioning and petty commodity pro- South Africa, most specifically in his well-known 293 “ 243 duction had the effect of producing an artificially essay Race, Articulation and Societies Structured in 294 244 cheap labor force as capital was not responsible for Dominance” (Hall 1980). While still working with 295 245 the costs of reproducing workers. Apartheid rule Althusser, Hall mobilized Gramsci to offer critiques of 296 246 actively maintained the articulation of noncapitalist the French thinker to develop a Gramscian under- 297 247 and capitalist modes of production through deeply standing of racialized capitalism and apartheid rule. 298 248 racialized polices, practices, and forms of legitimation. Although such arguments over Gramsci or 299 249 In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Laclau (1977) Althusser are seen by some as the basis for the last 300 250 and Hall (1980) would take this work forward by great debate in Marxist philosophy (Tosel 1995; 301 251 developing an understanding of articulation that Thomas 2009b), the implications of such debates are 302 252 departed from the structuralism of Althusser and the often merely spectral within critical geographical 303 253 discursive rendering of the concept that would later scholarship. Nevertheless, we can quite clearly see 304 254 come from Laclau and Mouffe (1985), emphasizing their implications for the different trajectories taken 305 255 indeterminacy and the production of subjects by both Hart and Massey in the 1990s. Although 306 256 through discourses. In contrast to his later contribu- Hart credits her own transformation from develop- 307 257 tions, Laclau (1977) stressed that although the class ment economist to geographer to Massey and her 308 4 Ekers, Kipfer, and Loftus

309 graduate students—indeed Massey’s relational con- South Africa must be, in Gramsci’s(1971, 465) 360 310 ception of place continues to echo through Hart’s words, “earthly” and rooted in concrete spatial histo- 361 311 spatialized work—there is a crucial moment of diver- ries and experiences (Hart 2014: see also Ekers and 362 312 gence in their work, one that Hart suggests flows Loftus 2020). This has been a theme in all of her 363 313 from distinctions between the “early Hall,” repre- writings. Before coming to Gramsci, Hart’s(1986c) 364 314 sented in the “Race, Articulation and Societies early work in rural Java was deeply ethnographic and 365 315 Structured in Dominance” piece, and the poststruc- engaged in “village studies,” yet always in a way that 366 316 turalist approach offered by Laclau and Mouffe was attentive to broader political economic pro- 367 317 (1985) in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Hart cesses. Somewhat in contrast, her writings on South 368 318 (2018a) argued that “Hall’s essay pointed [her] in Africa and beyond (from Disabling Globalization in 369 319 directions quite different from the move that Massey 2002 to Rethinking the South African Crisis in 2013 370 320 made—along with Laclau, Mouffe, many other for- and her current work relating South African to 371 321 mer Althusserians, and in part Hall himself in his Indian and U.S. politics) has been more bird’s-eye, 372 322 later years—to post-structuralism/s broadly con- or macrological in approach, providing key compara- 373 323 ceived” (85). As Hart acknowledged, her commit- tive insights into broader social, cultural, and politi- 374 324 ment to a historical materialist approach—derived in cal economic relations. 375 325 part from this reading of “the early Hall”—distin- Despite the relative change in her methods, the 376 326 guished her work in important ways from Massey’s. appeal of articulation as a mode of analysis for Hart 377 327 For Hart, articulation is a concept that allows her is precisely in the historicist impulse behind the con- 378 328 to account for how different relations of class, race, cept. The ways in which material and meaningful 379 329 nationalism, and populism become linked to differ- relations cohere, or unravel, is always a historical 380 330 ent political economic and hegemonic projects. For question rooted in political struggles and political 381 331 instance, on a number of occasions she has discussed economic transformation. Although Hart (2002a, 382 332 the changing articulation of race within the African 2007) is critical of Althusser’s argument that the 383 333 384 National Congress (ANC; as an institutionalized his- economy plays a determining role in the last 334 385 toric bloc) as the party has tried to maintain its instance, some of which remains latent in Wolpe, 335 386 hegemony in the light of the racialized inequalities she is also deeply critical of the evisceration of any 336 387 that define South Africa (Hart 2002b, 2007, 2013). type of determination in Laclau and Mouffe’s work. 337 388 For instance, she discussed how Nelson Mandela Building again on Gramsci (1971), Hart highlights 338 389 relied on an ideology of the postracial Rainbow how different articulations are historically determined. 339 390 Nation to secure the support of a multiracial coali- She wrote: 340 391 tion in the post-apartheid years. From there, she 341 Rejecting economism emphatically does not mean 392 tracked how Thabo Mbeki rearticulated the relation- 342 neglecting the powerful role of economic forces and 393 343 ship of race and accumulation in the 1990s by relations, but rather recognizing that economic 394 practices and struggles over material resources and 344 championing the African Renaissance, which reso- 395 nated with black South African experiences of strug- labor are always and inseparably bound up with 345 culturally constructed meanings, definitions and 396 346 gle against apartheid rule and racism. More 397 specifically, Hart (2002b) argued that “Mbeki’s pro- identities, and with the exercise of power, all as part of 347 historical processes. (Hart 2002b, 27) 398 348 African, anti-poverty stance in international forums 399 349 reinscrib[ed] national strategies to align ‘the people’ Processes of determination require our attention, 400 350 with the power bloc” (32), even as the ANC global- Hart argues (how else would we know how hege- 401 351 ized the economy and pushed through neoliberal mony is constructed, maintained, and contested?), 402 352 reforms. As we will see in our discussion of popu- but determining processes must be seen as distributed 403 353 lism, such work begins to foreground Hart’s(2013) throughout the entire fabric of historical and geo- 404 354 more recent work on the simultaneous process of de- graphical conjunctures. Here Hart echoes Gramsci’s 405 355 and renationalization. “new concept of immanence,” which the latter uses 406 356 Hart’s attention to the changing articulation of to understand how political movements, the econ- 407 357 political economic processes with relations of race, omy, and culture represent preparatory and deter- 408 358 class, and nationalism stems from a continual insis- mining moments for one another (see Ekers and 409 359 tence that an analysis of hegemony in post-apartheid Loftus 2013a). 410 On Articulation, Translation, and Populism 5

411 Thus far we have indicated how Hart builds on interest in the role of language within Gramsci’s 462 412 the history of articulation within Marxist and antira- writing and analysis (Hart 2013). Insofar as articula- 463 413 cist traditions. We now want to highlight two ways tion as a concept is bound up with meaning and 464 414 in which Hart develops understandings of articula- expression, engaging Gramsci’s understanding of lan- 465 415 tion. The first key contribution is Hart’s attention to guage allows for greater theoretical and analytical 466 416 the contradictions created as various relations are precision in terms of processes of meaning making 467 417 historically and geographically conjoined. Insofar as and subject formation. Language for Gramsci is cru- 468 418 historically determined articulations bring together cial in the struggle over hegemony: Language is the 469 419 particular relations and processes that remain rela- bearer of various ideologies and spatial histories 470 420 tively autonomous from one another, there is always (consider linguistic differences between the city and 471 421 the potential, if not the likelihood, for what is artic- country as Gramsci does) and thus is one of the 472 422 ulated (the “differentiated unity” that both Marx vehicles through which meaning is established 473 423 [1858] [1973] and Hall [1977] discussed) to unravel through processes of articulation. Hart points to the 474 424 or for certain processes to come into conflict with role of language in linking together popular forms of 475 425 one another. For instance, in an essay accounting for nationalism with the rise of Zuma in South Africa. 476 426 the popular appeal of Jacob Zuma, Hart (2007) She explained that Zuma’s “signature song and 477 427 reflected on the “double-edged character of articula- dance ‘Awuleth’ umshini wami’ (Bring Me My 478 428 tions of nationalism as liberation” (97). She stressed, Machine Gun) … evoked the pain and euphoria of 479 429 “how they are key elements of the post-colonial heg- the struggle years, constituting ‘a discursive site 480 430 emonic project, while at the same time deeply vul- enabling publics to participate in national debates’ 481 431 nerable to charges of betrayal” (97). Hart argues that (Gunner 2008, 28)” (Hart 2013, 316). Hart’s atten- 482 432 fostering nationalist sentiments alongside advancing tion to cultural politics, language, and articulation is 483 433 regressive neoliberal policies created the space for crucial, as there is a risk of leaving this terrain to 484 434 485 the emergence of Zuma and forms of populism that those such as Laclau and Mouffe, who, despite them- 435 486 we discuss in more detail later. In making this argu- selves, miss the importance of language in Gramsci’s 436 487 ment she enrolls Gramsci, specifically his argument writings, all the while charging the latter with econ- 437 488 that hegemony is never complete or seamless, but omism. Despite her indebtedness to Hall, Hart also 438 489 rather is defined by contradictions and struggle. stresses how the former also overlooks Gramsci’s lin- 439 490 Hart’s attention to the double-edged character of guistic engagements: In his turn to Foucault and post- 440 491 articulation, worked through the politics of South structuralist approaches, it seems curious that Hall 441 492 Africa, however, represents one of the key ways in was not more attentive to the language question in 442 493 which she advances this concept from earlier uses. It Gramsci and in his own understandings of articula- 443 494 ’ 444 should also be noted that Hart has established the tion. Hart s contribution to these debates is focused 495 445 foundations for others to build on here (see Tucker on the role of language in processes of articulation, 496 446 2010; Chari 2017). Chari (2017), for instance, exca- which she suggests results in a subtler understanding 497 447 vated similar histories to those analyzed by Hart, of subject formation that occurs not only through pro- 498 448 suggesting that “the task [the Left faces] in and on cesses of interpellation but through lived experiences 499 449 South Africa today is to think about the question of that are always understood and narrated through the 500 450 the re-articulation of this particular ‘society struc- social character and meaning of languages. 501 451 tured in dominance’ in both spatial and temporal Considering Hart’s engagements with articulation, 502 452 terms, so as to arrive at a differentiated understand- it is evident that she takes forward the concept of 503 453 ing of capacities of life in relation to the visceral, articulation in a double sense: first, through using 504 454 material spatial presences of the racial past” (837). the concept to dissect particular political conjunc- 505 455 A more sustained engagement with the Black tures from Mandela through to Zuma and the his- 506 456 Radical Tradition, Chari suggested, is key to pursu- toric blocs they represent, and second, by asking 507 457 ing such a project. As we discuss later, Hart’s how the analysis of particular political moments 508 458 engagement with Fanon is vital in this respect. compels a refinement and translation of articulation 509 459 The second key contribution Hart makes to itself as a concept. Such a refinement informs her 510 460 debates on articulation lies in her emphasis on the analysis of the contradictory, double-edged, and lin- 511 461 importance of language. She picked up on a growing guistic dimensions of articulation. As we show next, 512 6 Ekers, Kipfer, and Loftus

513 Hart’s development of the concept of articulation is Gramsci translation is not just a matter of transmis- 564 514 of direct consequence for her engagement with the sion but of transformation that may well be 565 515 question of translation. “traitorous” to the original (con)text” (Kipfer and 566 516 Hard 2013, 327). Building on this practice of trans- 567 517 mission or transformation, they first developed their 568 518 Situating Translation own distinctive reading of Gramsci’s writings on 569 519 570 Rooted in her ongoing investigations of how dif- translation by emphasizing the active role of politics 520 571 ferent social relations cohere or become fractured in in transforming a range of social relations, in partic- 521 572 particular conjunctures, translation (as a concept ular through the moment of hegemony in which a 522 573 and practice) has been at the core of Hart’s work for range of different social forces come to be articu- 523 574 many years and has received more explicit attention lated. Through developing a careful reading of the 524 575 since 2013. As developed by Hart, translation relations of force, Gramsci moves against econo- 525 576 focuses attention on how concrete political analysis, mistic interpretations of social change: Translation 526 577 tied to social theory, might be rethought and chal- enables an analysis that simultaneously works across 527 578 lenged, based on the emergence of distinct historical multiple temporalities and spatialities. Having estab- 528 579 and geographical conjunctures. As with articulation, lished this claim, Kipfer and Hart (2013) then made 529 580 Hart’s engagements with Gramsci are emblematic of the suggestion that translation might be allied to 530 581 such an approach. Thus, the Sardinian’s writings relational comparison. Relational comparison is a 531 582 cannot simply be invoked to understand the turbu- method derived from a dialectical understanding of 532 583 lent politics of South Africa without simultaneously the relation between concrete and abstract, particu- 533 lar and universal in, for example, Marx, Gramsci, 584 534 asking what his work enables and forecloses within 585 very different contexts. Texts and theories become a and Fanon. On this basis, a relational approach to 535 comparison treats the social spaces to be compared 586 536 material and political force precisely when they are 587 not as bounded cases, but as part of broader pro- 537 brought to bear and challenged by the earthly world 588 cesses through which they are connected to other 538 for which they are supposed to account. 589 social spaces. Thus interconnected, particular social 539 If intimations of a practice of translation can be 590 ’ spaces help produce the relations and processes that, 540 found in a number of Hart s essays, her most explicit 591 in turn, coconstitute them (Hart 2018b). 541 engagements with a specifically Gramscian concep- 592 Although Hart has deployed relational comparison 542 tion appear in work on the languages of populism in 593 as a method that teases out the multiplicity of rela- 543 South Africa (Hart 2013) and in a coauthored piece 594 tions comprising her two most intimate South 544 with Kipfer (Kipfer and Hart 2013). Both texts need 595 African studies, Ladysmith and Newcastle, her restless 545 to be read alongside the growing body of scholarship 596 546 that now stresses the importance of linguistics to interrogation of space-time draws her into understand- 597 547 Gramsci’s writings (Ives 2004; Ives and Lacorte ings of racialized dispossession in South Africa and 598 548 2010; Carlucci 2013). Pushed to its extreme, some, how this was enabled, in part, by Taiwanese industri- 599 ’ 549 such as Lo Piparo ([1979] 2010), claim that the roots alists complicated relations to the mainland. Land, 600 550 to Gramsci’s key concepts are found not in Marxism labor, and capital remain at the heart of such an 601 551 but in his linguistic studies in Turin, hence Lo understanding. More recently, and as we demonstrate 602 552 Piparo’s provocative—and problematic—claim that in the concluding section to this article, relational 603 553 the distinctiveness of the former’s conception of comparison has been used to better understand the 604 554 hegemony is to be found within “the linguistic roots trajectories of populism in South Africa, India, and 605 555 of Gramsci’s non-Marxism.” Such a binary choice the United States. In relation to contemporary 606 556 between a Marxist Gramsci or a linguistic Gramsci is human geography, relational comparison enables the 607 557 clearly a false one and Hart instead deploys transla- refinement of Hart’s(2018b) extroverted historical 608 558 tion as a concept that can be understood linguisti- materialist understanding of space and place. 609 559 cally while drawing on and deepening Gramsci’s Translation is at the heart of such an approach and 610 560 specific reading of Marx and Marxism. can be viewed as a method for better understanding 611 561 Quoting Ives (2004), Kipfer and Hart (2013) the de- and recontextualization of theory as it travels. 612 562 stressed that the etymological roots to translation Building on this jointly political and linguistic 613 563 imply both transmission and betrayal. Thus, “for reading of translation, Kipfer and Hart put the 614 On Articulation, Translation, and Populism 7

615 concept to work as part of a larger critique of the of language as productive of meaning, as well as 666 616 speculative left’s (Bosteels 2011) abstract declarative inseparable from practice and from the constitution 667 617 readings of “the political,” or “proper,”“real” politics of the self in relation to others” (313). This shaping 668 618 (Kipfer and Hart 2013, 324). Contrasting Gramsci’s of the person can simultaneously be understood as 669 619 conception of “politics as translation” (Kipfer and a socioecological process in which the person is 670 620 Hart 2013,323)tosuchspeculativeleftismenables shaped out of a multiplicity of internal relations 671 621 the pair to put Gramsci’s philosophy of praxis to work with human and nonhuman others (Ekers and Loftus 672 622 in the current conjuncture. A crucial reference point 2013b; Loftus 2013). 673 623 for Kipfer and Hart’s development of Gramsci’s con- If such a reading of translation can be found 674 624 cept of translation is Thomas’s(2009b) wide-ranging explicitly and implicitly within Gramsci’s writings, 675 625 analysis of the philosophy of praxis. More specifically, this reading also pushes the latter up against the lim- 676 626 in a shorter piece, Thomas (2009a) countered meta- its of his own approach and thereby requires moving 677 627 physical and transcendental readings of politics with and beyond the Sardinian. Translation here is 678 628 through the twin concepts of translation and translat- necessarily an act of interpretation as well as a trai- 679 629 ability. Gramsci’s development of these twin concepts torous act that transforms the original text: It is 680 630 can be viewed as a response to Lenin’s call for a both an actualization and a redirection of Gramsci— 681 631 translation of the Bolshevik revolution into the lan- a translation—“in a properly postcolonial, explicitly 682 632 guages of the West, a task that also relates to Hart’s feminist, theoretically spatialized, and antiproducti- 683 633 own method of relational comparison, as we argue vist fashion” (Kipfer and Hart 2013, 331). Indeed, 684 634 later. Of course, as Thomas is acutely aware, transla- deploying Gramsci alongside the work of Fanon, 685 635 tion and translatability are also adapted from Lefebvre, and Bannerji, as Kipfer and Hart (2013) 686 636 Gramsci’s linguistic studies and his patient attention sought to do, has implications for political practice: 687 637 to “the always unfinished and therefore transformable Rethinking translation in this manner therefore ena- 688 689 638 nature of relations of communication between social bles one to better make sense of the possibilities for 639 690 practices” (Thomas 2009a, 29). concrete political mobilization in comparatively very 640 691 Although noting Thomas’s careful attention to distinct contexts. In so doing, an open-ended dia- 641 692 the question of translation in relation to questions of logue between a Gramscian conception of transla- 642 693 the political, Kipfer and Hart (2013) nevertheless tion (as articulated by Kipfer and Hart 2013) and 643 694 noted the former’s failure to pay sufficient attention Hart’s own method of relational comparison becomes 644 695 to the broad range of relations of force (in particular, possible. In this regard, it is perhaps no surprise that 645 696 processes relating to gender, sexuality, race, and Kipfer and Hart’s chapter sits between Hart’s first 646 697 nationalism); instead, they seek to conceptualize development of relational comparison (Hart 2006)— 647 698 translation as a decidedly spatiohistorical concept, based as it was on her more detailed analysis of rela- 648 699 working across different geographical contexts. At 649 tionally understood South African conditions (Hart 700 — 650 one level, the concept of translation provides analyt- 2002b) and her more recent revisiting of relational 701 651 ical and political leverage for understanding broad comparison (Hart 2018b). One of the characteristic 702 — ’ 652 conjunctures in Hart s own work an analysis of features of the latter work is a much deeper engage- 703 653 populism and nationalism in South Africa and ment with dialectical method. Although Gramsci 704 654 beyond. At another, but connected, level, transla- plays a relatively small role in the open-ended and 705 655 tion can be used within an analysis of la persona (the nonteleological understanding of dialectics that Hart 706 656 person) and can thereby provide a useful way into deploys, it is clear how her reading of Gramsci ani- 707 657 deepening Gramsci’s distinctive approach to the mates the relational understanding within the piece. 708 658 question of human subjectivity. Applying translation Relational comparison and translation need to be 709 659 in this manner implies a denaturalizing move, rethought in relation to one another as well as in 710 660 whereby a concept of translation can be used to relation to dialectical method. 711 661 open up the multiple relations of force out of which To briefly summarize, for Hart, translation and 712 662 different classed, raced, and gendered persons are articulation emerge as concepts that express the spa- 713 663 produced. In Hart’s(2013) words, “what Gramsci— tiohistorical character of her work and allow her to 714 664 and in related ways Volosinov and Bakhtin—con- navigate a careful path that avoids post-Marxist, 715 665 tribute to this conception of the person is a theory economistic, and speculative approaches, all of 716 8 Ekers, Kipfer, and Loftus

717 which treat the relationship between socioeconomic, the political form of populism from its complexly 768 718 cultural, and political forces in reductive or one- articulated but real social content. To develop her 769 719 sided ways. As we discuss in the following section, point, Hart offers us a twin theoretical maneuver 770 720 the conjoined political and linguistic aspects of that builds on her previous engagements with the 771 721 translation as a practice and concept help to further problematic of articulation and, in turn, develops 772 722 expand understandings of populism. the problematic of translation as a practice of recast- 773 723 ing theoretical insights in and through analyses and 774 724 engagements situated in novel contexts. In the first, 775 725 Populism she mobilizes the younger historical-materialist 776 726 777 Populism is one of the most notoriously ambigu- Laclau (1977) against his older post-Marxist self 727 778 ous terms in political analysis. This ambiguity is con- (Laclau 2005) to insist on the importance of placing 728 779 stitutive of the concept itself, which, in various the populisms of both dominant and subaltern forces 729 780 formulations, alerts us to political claims that muddy in their multiply determined historico-geographical 730 781 the waters, parading vaguely antagonistic notions of contexts. In the second, she draws on Gramsci, 731 782 the people and their enemies while also blurring Fanon, Hall, and South African sociologist Ari Sitas 732 783 class and other lines in political programs and policy to nudge the residually Althusserian emphasis on 733 784 strategies. Debates on the matter have raised a num- populism as interpellation-from-above (in Laclau 734 785 ber of key questions: Is populism an ideology, a form 1977) toward a properly dialectical conception of 735 786 or technique of political intervention, or a particular populism as a relation between dominant strategies 736 787 regime of state action? Can one identify different and popular traditions, or, with Gramsci, between 737 788 types of populism, and, if yes, are these to be under- normative and spontaneous forms of grammar (Hart 738 – – 789 stood as (right or left) variations of an overarching 2013, 2014, 193 96, 223 28). 739 The initial point of these theoretical moves was 790 740 phenomenon (populism)? Are populist claims to the 791 people expressive of the social forces invoked, or do to illuminate political developments in South Africa 741 since 2000: attempts by Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma, 792 742 they rather constitute those social forces in the first 793 place? Is populism a sign of socioeconomic underde- and Julius Malema (who was expelled from the 743 ANC and formed the Economic Freedom Fighters 794 744 velopment and an indication of political immaturity, 795 or is it, instead, a vital element in socialist strategy, party) to recast the post-apartheid conception of 745 the South African nation consolidated by the 796 746 in peripheralized or imperial zones, or both? As geo- 797 graphically minded researchers have asked, what are ANC regime under Nelson Mandela. After having 747 ’ 798 the spatial dimensions of populism? How should one properly adjusted Laclau s approach, Hart lets the 748 Argentinian disembark in South Africa to help us 799 749 analyze populism in relationship to the (inter- or 800 trans-)national, the regional, the urban, and the understand the populist moves by Zuma and 750 Malema. As she put it: 801 751 rural, as well as the environment (see Annals of the 802 752 American Association of Geographers, Vol. 109, No. 2 I draw on a revised version of Laclau’s theory of 803 753 [2019]; Vol. 45, No. 1 [2018] of the Journal of bourgeois populism to argue that Mbeki sought to 804 754 Peasant Studies; Geoforum [2017]; Collective of neutralize the revolutionary potential of popular 805 755 Anarchist Geographers 2017; McCarthy 2019)? antagonisms; Zuma sought to develop them but 806 — 756 Crucially for our concluding observations, how contain them within limits which is always a 807 dangerous experiment, as Laclau pointed out; and that 757 should one understand the relationship between pop- 808 Malema sought to capture and amplify the 758 ulist and popular political strategies? 809 In her engagement with the topic, Hart (2013) revolutionary potential of popular antagonisms, 759 generating a dynamic that, the SACP maintains, has 810 started by warning against two extreme views on 760 tended towards fascism. (Hart 2013, 197) 811 761 populism: the view of those on the left who sponta- 812 762 neously allow their “distaste … toward nationalism Hart’s point here is to say that the danger of popu- 813 763 and populism” to “authorize neglect and dismissal” of lism cannot be read off its constitutive addiction to 814 764 these phenomena (317), and the perspective of establishing an antagonistic relationship between the 815 765 those, most influentially (also in geographical people and the power bloc. This danger needs to be 816 766 research) Laclau and Mouffe, who elevate populism evaluated with respect to the capacity of populist 817 767 to a veritable political ontology, thus emancipating forces (here, capital-sponsored factions in the ANC 818 On Articulation, Translation, and Populism 9

819 leadership) to grow by joining up, in particular con- fighter and now ANC leader as well as president of 870 820 junctures and in a dialectical fashion, with “popular South Africa, was directly implicated as a director of 871 821 antagonisms in the arenas of everyday life” (Hart mining company Lonmin, this unraveling denotes a 872 822 2013, 197). Here, the blurring of distinctions shrinking capacity of dominant fractions to recom- 873 823 between “left” and “right” populisms does not derive pose ruling blocs and thus manage the fault lines of 874 824 from the essence of populism itself; it is to be under- post-apartheid racial capitalism. Hart spatializes our 875 825 stood in relationship to the balance of forces travers- sense of these multiple fault lines, arguing that we 876 826 ing the extended state. Investigating the relationship can understand them as results of a twin process of 877 827 between populist claims and fragments of popular de- and renationalization (2013). Denationalization 878 828 life is impossible without paying attention to spatial describes how South African multinational capital 879 829 matters. Here, Hart helps us avoid treating spatial escaped the constraints of apartheid South Africa, 880 830 distinctions (between the urban, the suburban, and the strategies of state restructuring and ruling class 881 831 the rural; the national and the international) as pre- recomposition that made globalization possible, and 882 832 suppositions, self-evident containers of politics and the harsh class and racialized polarizations that follow 883 833 populism. Decades after the spatial turn in social from both (Hart 2015, 48). Renationalization captures 884 834 theory, such treatments are still prevalent in some the ways in which Mandela and Bishop Tutu’s view 885 835 electoral geographical research on the right populist of South Africa as a “rainbow nation” was supplanted 886 836 vote (Kipfer and Saberi 2016; Rossi 2018; Kipfer and through a combination of “xenophobic violence” and 887 837 Dikec¸ 2019). Hart treats populism not as a product “popular vigilantism” that threatens to build “fortress 888 838 of spatially fixated demography, but as cause and South Africa” (Hart 2015, 49). In Hart’s reading, 889 839 effect of processes, strategies, and struggles that populism is thus not a simple national reaction to 890 840 interconnect social spaces. She does so thanks to global forces. It embodies, shapes, and recasts globaliz- 891 841 prior engagements. First is her long-standing work in ing and nationalizing processes in their tension-ridden 892 842 893 agrarian and development studies, which developed relationships. 843 894 as a critique of linear and dualist conceptions of As we will see, Hart’s insistence on the ongoing, 844 895 urban and rural questions in modernization theory if shifting centrality of the national question high- 845 896 (Hart 2010). This work insisted that urban and rural lights the limitations of all approaches to neoliberal- 846 Q9 897 matters be treated in relational fashion, as moments ism and globalization that have treated nationalism 847 898 in dynamics (re-) production, struggle, and political as a passive force. Of course, in the (post-) colonial 848 899 rule that also connect land and labor in capitalist South, the salience of this question is of a particular 849 900 development (Hart 1986a, 1986b, 1991, 2002; Hart kind, related as it is to the role of national liberation 850 901 and Sitas 2004). Second, Hart’s relational approach struggles in shaping the “passive revolutions” that 851 902 ’ are part of many postindependence regimes. As var- 852 to comparison heeded Goswami s(2002) advice to 903 853 stay clear of the pitfalls of methodological national- iegated as it is, the weight of national liberation in 904 854 ism. This has led her to pay special attention to the postcolonial formations underscores the need to run 905 855 comparatively uneven ways in which the national Laclau and Gramsci through another stretching exer- 906 ’ 856 and the inter- or transnational are mutually imbri- cise supervised by Fanon. For Hart, Fanon s two- 907 857 cated. This relation between the national and the sided approach to the national question retains 908 858 global, which can also be observed at a local scale— much promise in South Africa, where some on the 909 859 provided localities are considered sites of contradic- left either ignore the national question or treat it as 910 860 tions and nodal points, not bounded units (Hart a formula, as a liberal-democratic stepping stone in 911 861 2014, 95–154; 2018a)—is of particular salience in the gradual development of socialism (Hart 2013, 912 862 her treatment of populist politics as hegemonic crisis 212–15). Fanon, she reminds us, not only warned us 913 863 in South Africa and beyond. of the pitfalls of national consciousness, but the dan- 914 864 For Hart (2013), the sequence running from ger that national liberation might yield a false form 915 865 Mbeki to Zuma and Malema attests to the of decolonization. In what is effectively his answer 916 866 “unravelling of ANC hegemony” (189). Brutally to Gramsci’s national-popular outlook, Fanon also 917 867 illustrated as well as intensified by the 2012 insisted that a dynamic, internationally oriented 918 868 Marikana massacre of striking miners, in which Cyril national culture infused by ongoing popular efforts 919 869 Ramaphosa, the former union organizer and freedom for emancipation and self-determination remains 920 10 Ekers, Kipfer, and Loftus

921 crucial in the struggle against narrow, neo-colonial, European-American problems: hegemony, civil soci- 972 922 and bourgeois nationalisms (Hart 2013, 221–28). ety, and consent. In partial contrast to his earlier 973 923 The significance of Hart’s contribution can be work on passive revolution (Chatterjee 1986), as 974 924 seen clearly in comparative intellectual context. Her well as other historical materialist analyses of the 975 925 insistence on bringing Gramsci and Laclau to South Indian situation (Ahmad 1996, 2016; Bannerji 2010; 976 926 Africa in part through Fanon helps us see the differ- Vanaik 2017), Chatterjee’s(2004) more recent work 977 927 ence between her approach and those who have is not only silent on the empirical comparability of 978 928 analyzed the African state by keeping Gramsci apart Italy and India, as well as other places like Turkey 979 929 from Fanon. Someone who has done just that is and Pakistan (Riley and Desai 2007; Tugal 2009, 980 930 Bayart ([1989] 2006). His work on the state in 2016; Mallick 2017). Supplanting Gramsci’s(and 981 931 Africa represents a rich source for those interested in Fanon’s) relational method with dualist categories and 982 932 translating Gramsci’s conception of passive revolu- aculturalistpenchant,italsohideswhatisessential 983 933 tion to the Global South (Brooks and Loftus 2016). to Hart: the manifold relationships between far-right 984 934 985 In fact, Bayart’s ([1989] 2006, xii) main suggestion, populism (in this case, the BJP and Hindu fundamen- 935 Q15986 that dependency be understood as an ongoing politi- talism), the national question, social struggle, and the 936 987 cal practice, a recurrent project to fortify ruling blocs multiscalar contradictions of real-existing capitalism. 937 by economic, social, and institutional “extraversion,” 988 938 might help specify how to study various aspects of 989 939 “denationalization,” also in the radicalized form of Populism: From South to North 990 940 extraversion that is structural adjustment in sub- 991 What lessons does Hart’s work hold for those of 941 Aaharan Africa. Bayart’s decision, however, to 992 us working in and on the imperial North? Her efforts 942 dispatch Fanon as a simplistic proponent of a postco- 993 943 lonial tabula rasa rather than one of the most to develop a relational approach to comparative and 994 944 insightful analysts of the national question in (post- international political economy does, of course, 995 945 996 )colonial situations is costly (Bayart [1989] 2006, speak to politically engaged debates in the Global 946 997 56). Beyond the political stakes involved—Bayart’s South (in and beyond her native South Africa), as 947 998 remark sideswipes the problematic of liberation by well as ongoing intellectual controversies in develop- 948 999 putting analytical complexity on a pedestal sanc- ment studies. Many of Hart’s analyses, however, also 949 1000 tioned by Gramsci—this dismissal makes it difficult intervene in debates that are situated within, and 950 1001 to grasp the links between the comparative meanings centrally deal with developments in the Global 951 1002 of the national question leading up to independence, North. Shaped increasingly by a Fanon-inflected 952 1003 postcolonial strategies of extraversion (denationaliza- Marxian and Gramscian method, Hart’s contribu- 953 1004 tion), and subsequent reformulations of the national tions and her pointed interventions in geographically 954 inflected debates have made it difficult for thought- 1005 955 (renationalization). 1006 Hart’s(2015) research on populism and national- ful researchers to, for example, treat localities as any- 956 thing other than nodal points of wider geographies 1007 957 ism not only asserts, but also demonstrates, the pos- 1008 (Hart 2002), analyze neoliberal globalization projects 958 sibility of putting a Fanon-inflected Gramsci to work 1009 without attending to nationalism (Hart 2008b), 959 for relational comparisons across the South, beyond 1010 study accumulation (by dispossession or otherwise) 960 Africa. Her current move to relate her work on 1011 without reference to racial capitalism (Hart 2006), 961 South Africa to Indian debates on passive revolution 1012 and pursue urban questions while forgetting (the) 962 underscores the difference between a subtle historical 1013 ’ 963 materialism shaped by Gramsci, Laclau, and Fanon land question(s) (Hart 2018b). Clearly, Hart s con- 1014 964 and what one might call the civilizational turn in tributions do more than put European-American 1015 965 subaltern studies (and, perhaps more broadly speak- research in place; they redirect it in part on the basis 1016 966 ing, post- and decolonial theory). One Indian expo- of insights from the Global South. As we have 1017 967 nent of this turn discussed by Hart, Chatterjee, has shown, she does this always by paying close atten- 1018 968 delinked seemingly Gramscian terms (civil and polit- tion to the complex articulation of multiple eco- 1019 969 ical society) from Gramsci’s conception of the state nomic, social, cultural, and political forces that 1020 970 while reinventing a dated view of Gramsci as a shape particular conjunctures and that thus provide 1021 971 Western Marxist preoccupied with supposedly just the dynamic, contradictory, and living historical 1022 On Articulation, Translation, and Populism 11

1023 material that practices of translation must confront that posits the easy analytical and normative porta- 1074 1024 and transform. bility of populism as a concept and project. In geo- 1075 1025 To understand how Hart brings the South to bear graphical circles, too, the argument is sometimes 1076 1026 on the North, her recent decision to expand her made that authoritarian and other populisms are 1077 1027 analysis to U.S. President Trump’s populism is mere “subsets” of a broader phenomenon: populism 1078 1028 instructive (Hart 2017, 2019, forthcoming), particu- (see Scoones et al. 2018, 2), a move that blurs ana- 1079 1029 larly when compared to Fraser’s(2016, 2017b) paral- lytical distinctions from the start. In contrast, Hart’s 1080 1030 lel analysis. Fraser sees Trump as a symptom of the distinction between the early (Laclau 1977) and the 1081 1031 crisis of “progressive neoliberalism,” that fusion of late Laclau (2005) as well as Mouffe’s(2018) work 1082 1032 neoliberal distribution and meritocratic recognition in support of current left populisms brings to our 1083 1033 embodied by the Clinton–Obama lineage, which, attention a deep theoretico-methodological differ- 1084 1034 according to Fraser, defeated the “reactionary neo- ence between a discursive-idealist and a multilayered 1085 1035 liberalism” of Reagan and the Bushes. For her, the materialist approach to populism. Only the latter 1086 1036 2016 election campaign, which was dominated by allows us to parse differences between various forms 1087 1037 “reactionary populism” (Trump) and “progressive of populism by situating particular populist styles and 1088 1038 populism” (Sanders), showed that progressive neolib- ideologies in relationship to specific social and polit- 1089 1039 eralism has exhausted itself. In this context, the ical forces and examine the contradictions of left 1090 1040 alternative to Trump (who, in Fraser’s view, has populisms (Hetland 2018). As Andreucci (2018, 1091 1041 already jettisoned populism to return to an increas- 2019) recently pointed out with specific reference to 1092 1042 ingly morbid form of reactionary neoliberalism) can Hart, this allows us to ask how populism can take 1093 1043 only come from a different political project. Her on emancipatory meanings instead of treating this 1094 1044 preference is a new alliance that manages to detach capacity as an opening assumption. Hart goes beyond 1095 1045 popular constituencies from their conservative com- this point, however. As a result of her linking the 1096 1046 mitments or elite leadership strata to challenge early Laclau to Gramsci, Hall, and Fanon, and, more 1097 1047 ’ 1098 finance capital. How? Fraser proposes a “progressive recently, Fassin s(2017) critique of left populism 1048 (Hart 2019), populism ceases to be an overarching 1099 populism” capable of linking an antineoliberal poli- 1049 horizon. Instead, an old distinction reemerges, the 1100 tics of redistribution to a material, class-inflected 1050 one between populist and popular political strategies. 1101 politics of gender, sexuality, and antiracism. 1051 In this view, developed above all through Gramsci’s 1102 Notwithstanding Fraser’s parallel contributions to 1052 conception of the national-popular and Fanon’s cri- 1103 debates about racialized capitalism (Fraser 2018) and 1053 tique of national consciousness, claims to “the people” 1104 a powerful call for a “feminism for the 99%” 1054 must not all be populist. Whereas populist projects 1105 (Arruzza, Bhattacharya, and Fraser 2018), her analy- 1055 treat the people as a mystified abstraction unified 1106 sis of Trump shrinks political alternatives to varia- 1056 artificially from above or from without, popular- 1107 tions of the same: populism. Her discursive 1057 democratic orientations treat the popular as the 1108 1058 unification of anti-Trump forces under one populist always differentiated and incomplete product of politi- 1109 1059 umbrella has not gone unchallenged (Brenner 2017). cal projects emerging from subaltern grounds, or, to 1110 1060 It is based on empirically dubious starting assump- put it differently, constellations of multiple political 1111 1061 tions: that right and left populisms share a critique forces rooted in differentially structured social rela- 1112 1062 of finance capitalism, that they draw on similar vot- tions of (super-) exploitation and domination. 1113 1063 ing pools, and that their supposed common enemy, Second, and in contrast to Fraser, Hart approaches 1114 1064 “progressive neoliberalism,” had in fact managed to Trump with analyses honed in the global South. Like 1115 1065 incorporate new social movements (Fraser 2017a, others (Wahby 2017), she draws lessons for Northern 1116 1066 2017b, 2017c; Fraser and Mehta 2018). cases from Southern examples, but she does so in 1117 1067 Broadly speaking, Hart shares Fraser’s(2017b) a particular manner, by placing the former in a 1118 1068 interest in a Gramscian analysis of Trump as well as determined set of relationship to the latter. As 1119 1069 Fraser’s refusal to separate class from race and gender she indicates: 1120 1070 in counterstrategies. Hart’s approach, though, allows 1121 My current efforts to bring resurgent nationalisms and 1071 us to distinguish the weaknesses in Fraser’s approach. 1122 First, Hart’s analyses run counter to Fraser, and, with populist politics in South Africa, India and the United 1072 States into the same spatio-historical frame of analysis 1123 1073 her, a current of the European-American scholarship 1124 12 Ekers, Kipfer, and Loftus

1125 … [focus] on how nationalisms and neoliberal forms Whereas Fraser opens her article with the claim 1176 1126 of capitalism have worked in and through one another that Trump is part of a global political crisis of hege- 1177 1127 to generate populist politics in specific but always mony but never develops this claim through her oth- 1178 1128 interconnected settings, through processes that erwise nationally focused analysis, Hart’s rendering 1179 1129 intensified in the post-Cold War period. (Hart of Trump is consistently preoccupied with the natio- 1180 1130 2019, 321) nal–global relation, albeit in a qualitatively distinct 1181 1131 Hart’s relationally comparative approach wants us to fashion. At one level, Trump’s protectionist forays 1182 1132 avoid methodologically nationalist approaches to and far right nationalist adventures are part of a 1183 1133 international comparison by seeing national historic sequence of (typically, but not exclusively neolib- 1184 1134 blocs not as distinct cases (see Bello 2018), but as eral) authoritarian populist projects that helped 1185 1135 coproduced by and through inter- and transnational institute (instead of merely reacting to) neoliberal- 1186 1136 (as well as subnational) relations. This also means ism. At another level, the new round of capitalist 1187 1137 relating the rise of Trump to the specifically imperial globalization that has been underway since the 1188 1138 dimensions of the post-2008 economic and political 1970s (and that made Trump possible in the first 1189 1139 1190 Q10 crises (Hart 2009, 2010) as well as the specifically place) carried very different meanings in the United 1140 imperial elements in the national-global relations States than in India or South Africa, despite the 1191 1141 that produce and are shaped by right populist and fact that the latter two also went through the con- 1192 1142 neofascist projects. vulsions of the crises of the postwar era and the neo- 1193 1143 Recasting her earlier critique of “impact models” liberal projects that emerged from these. As Hart 1194 1144 of globalization (Hart 2002a) and mobilizing her (2017) said, it was “vastly different from that associ- 1195 1145 analysis of right populism in South Africa and India, ated with the dismantling of both apartheid and 1196 1146 Hart underscores that the phenomenon of Trump Nehruvian Development” (18). Why? First because, 1197 1147 1198 (and his one-time organizer Stephen Bannon) makes following Gowan’s (1998) analysis, the “Dollar Wall 1148 1199 it impossible to uphold the idea that globalism and Street regime” that emerged in response to the crisis 1149 1200 nationalism are external to each other. As in South of the Bretton Woods system was built on the backs 1150 1201 Africa and India, the tensions between the national of the Southern debt crisis of the 1980s while also 1151 1202 and the international run straight through Trump extending U.S. working-class consumerism through 1152 1203 and the broader universe of the U.S. (far) right. As subsequent rounds of credit expansion, at least until 1153 1204 Hart shows, they do so in the unpredictable ways of the collapse of mortgage-backed debt in 2008. 1154 1205 political struggle, through a dizzying dance of frac- Second, the globalist dimensions of the so-called war 1155 1206 tional conflicts, tactical shifts, and interpersonal on terror following 11 September 2001 further 1156 1207 transformations that barely registers in Fraser’s more undermined Buchananian tendencies, those nativist 1157 1208 1158 schematic discussion of battles between set blocs and isolationist elements that would be reinvented 1209 ’ – 1159 (neoliberal or populist). Hart s fine-grained analysis by the Trump Bannon project (Hart forthcoming, 1210 – 1160 allows us to see not only how Trump defeated the 22 28). Hart makes it clear that the long-muted 1211 1161 Obama regime. It also highlights the ways in which contradictions Trump inherits, expresses, and inten- 1212 1162 Trump and Bannon redirected, via tension-ridden sifies are thus significantly imperial in scope as well 1213 1163 linkages to Christian fundamentalism and the as character. 1214 1164 Koch–Tea Party nexus, their reactionary populist Hart’s emphasis on the imperial dimensions of 1215 1165 predecessors (Reagan, Bush, and, most directly, as U.S. politics helps answer her main question: Why 1216 1166 Hart argued with Davis [2017], Patrick Buchanan did it take so long for a pair like Trump and Bannon 1217 1167 and his nativist and isolationist project). Rather to break through in Washington? Her answer raises 1218 1168 than being defeated for good by the Clinton–Obama an additional question for Fraser: How will 1219 1169 lineage, these predecessors had already shaped and “progressive populism” deal with empire? Certainly, 1220 1170 then alternated with the latter to shape U.S. politics this second question concerns anyone who is inter- 1221 1171 since the 1980s, and this is similar to the ways in ested in strategies against the far right that take the 1222 1172 which Thatcherism and the BJP have interacted in national question seriously, even those who do not 1223 1173 dynamic fashion with New Labor and Congress, share Fraser’s all-too-easy embrace of the language of 1224 1174 respectively, to forge the post–Cold War era (see populism. In the imperial core, responses to right 1225 1175 also Hall 2011; Vanaik 2017). populism or neofascism cannot appropriate the 1226 On Articulation, Translation, and Populism 13

1227 national the same way as they might in the (post-) and political value of holding these threads together, 1278 1228 colonial periphery, in semiperipheral or subimperial as becomes so clear in her recent and insightful writ- 1279 1229 contexts, or, indeed, reperipheralized edges of the ings on the rise of the populist right. 1280 1230 core like Greece. At the core, national political and If Hart’s postcolonial Marxism provides an 1281 1231 economic projects are never just national; they build approach that cannot be distilled into the caricatures 1282 1232 on imperial or settler colonial divisions of labor that sometimes circulate of Marxism and postcolonial 1283 1233 unless these are questioned and challenged. Even scholarship, some questions remain regarding how her 1284 1234 where the national question can in some, but not all work might be taken forward, especially in light of 1285 1235 cases, be articulated without catering to ethnicized the current state of her work (Hart forthcoming). 1286 1236 nationalism, it cannot draw at will from the most Does the relational approach to comparison evident 1287 1237 promising strands in the history of national libera- in her most recent work, and pitched at an almost 1288 1238 tion against imperial rule, colonial or otherwise. global level, still leave room for nuanced forms of 1289 1239 This is another reason why in the metropole in par- incorporated comparison that highlight enduring pat- 1290 1240 ticular, “national-popular” and left strategies inspired terns and institutions at the level of world order? In 1291 1241 by Gramsci and Fanon must proceed with special this context, how do we best combine microlevel 1292 1242 care, in organic relationship with internationalist research (ethnographic or otherwise) with macrolevel 1293 1243 horizons and practices (Sotiris 2017). Fraser herself research that traces broad historical-geographical pat- 1294 1244 is, of course, not against internationalism (Fraser and terns of (dis)continuity and comparative (non)con- 1295 1245 Llaguno 2017), but Hart’s emphasis on the imperial temporaneity? What methodological lessons can we 1296 1246 causes and characteristics of U.S. right populism draw from Hart’s (and Hall’s) approach to articulation 1297 1247 shows us much more clearly why internationalism for current treatments of racial capitalism, which 1298 1248 matters analytically and politically. have yet to revisit the full range of historical debates 1299 1249 about the relationship between race, class, and capi- 1300 1250 talism, including those that were vital for Hart’sown 1301 1251 Conclusion intellectual development? Given that Hart’s work 1302 1252 1303 In this article we have suggested that Hart’s writ- has slowly put more weight on the couplet of race 1253 and class, rather than gender, how do we bring cross- 1304 1254 ings are a key resource in navigating some of the 1305 schisms that have repeatedly animated debates in cutting considerations of gender, sexuality, and repro- 1255 duction back into these articulatory analytical frames? 1306 1256 human geography. Far from a pluralist seeking to 1307 humor writers working across an intellectual and Finally given the importance of the work on populism 1257 we have discussed in this article, how should we 1308 1258 political spectrum, Hart rejects binary framings of 1309 geographical debates as a starting point for critical think comparatively about the relationship between 1259 right populism and neofascism in the current con- 1310 1260 scholarship. Her project provides a rendering of post- 1311 colonial Marxism that is deeply attentive to the juncture and what resources does Hart provide for 1261 such a comparative project? 1312 1262 racialized dynamics of capitalism, analyzed in her 1313 1263 work through a relational framework that is con- 1314 1264 cerned with transnational and political economic Acknowledgments 1315 1265 transformations as well as the concreteness of social 1316 1266 life and difference, as unpacked through an ethno- Thank you to Nik Heynen and James McCarthy 1317 1267 graphic practice. Next to her engagements with at the journal for their interest and comments on 1318 1268 Fanon, Massey, Coronil, and Lefevre, it is Hart’s this article. Along with two referees, they helped us 1319 1269 engagement with Hall and Gramsci, woven through extend and sharpen the argument considerably. 1320 1270 her treatments of articulation, translation, and popu- Mark Hunter initially encouraged us to write this 1321 1271 lism, that enables her work to be so attentive to the article and provided generous feedback on an earlier 1322 1272 meaning and materiality of historical geographical iteration. The article would not have been possible 1323 1273 conjunctures. Further, in this respect, her writing without our collaborations with Gill Hart, whose 1324 1274 never consigns political economic processes and social intellectual generosity has shaped its form and con- 1325 1275 relations of difference to separate spheres to be stud- tent in a number of ways. We accept responsibility 1326 1276 ied through purportedly irreconcilable approaches. for the final product, including any remaining 1327 1277 Rather, her body of work demonstrates the analytical shortcomings. 1328 14 Ekers, Kipfer, and Loftus

1329 References Ekers, M., and A. Loftus. 2013a. Gramsci: Space, nature 1380 1330 and politics. In Gramsci, space, nature, politics, ed. M. 1381 – 1331Q1 Ahmad, A. 1996. Lineages of the present. New Delhi, Ekers, G. Hart, S. Kipfer, and A. Loftus, 15 43. 1382 Q2 India: Tulika. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. 1332 Ahmad, A. 2016. Liberal democracy and the extreme Ekers, M., and A. Loftus. 2013b. Revitalizing the produc- 1383 1333 right. Socialist Register 2016:170–92. tion of nature thesis: A Gramscian turn. Progress in 1384 1334 Althusser, L. 1969. For Marx. London: New Left Books. Human Geography 37 (2):234–52. doi: 10.1177/ 1385 1335 Althusser, L., and B. Etienne. 1970. Reading capital. 0309132512448831. 1386 Ekers, M., and A. Loftus. 2019. On “the concrete”: 1336 London: New Left Books. 1387 Andreucci, D. 2018.Populism,hegemony,andthepolitics Labour, difference and method. Antipode. doi: 10. 1337 of natural resources, extraction in Evo Morales’sBolivia. 1111/anti.12586. Q61388 1338 Antipode 50 (4):825–45. doi: 10.1111/anti.12373. Fassin, E. 2017. Populisme: Le grand ressentiment. Paris: 1389 1339 Andreucci, D. 2019. Populism, emancipation, and envi- Textuel. Q121390 1340 ronmental governance: Insights from Bolivia. Annals Fraser, N. 2016. Progressive neoliberalism versus reaction- 1391 ary populism: A choice that feminists should refuse. 1341 of the American Association of Geographers 109 1392 (2):624–33. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2018.1506696. Nora: Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 1342 Arruzza, C., T. Bhattacharya, and N. Fraser. 2019. 24 (4):281–84. doi: 10.1080/08038740.2016.1278263. 1393 1343 Feminism for the 99%. London: Verso. Fraser, N. 2017a. Against progressive neoliberalism, a new 1394 1344 Bannerji, H. 2010. Demography and democracy: Essays on progressive populism. Dissent Magazine, January 28. 1395 Fraser, N. 2017b. From progressive neoliberalism to 1345 nationalism, gender and ideology. Toronto: Canadian’s 1396 Trump—and beyond. American Affairs Journal 1 (4). Q13 1346 Scholars Press. 1397 Bayart, J.-F. [1989] 2006. L’Etat en Afrique: La politique du Fraser, N. 2017c. The end of progressive neoliberalism. 1347 ventre. Paris: Fayard. Dissent Magazine, January 2. 1398 Q11 — 1348 Bosteels, B. 2011. The actuality of communism. London: Fraser, N. 2018. Roepke lecture in economic geography 1399 1349 Verso. From exploitation to expropriation: Historic geogra- 1400 Brenner, J. 2017. There was no such thing as a phies of racialized capitalism. Economic Geography 94 1350 – 1401 “progressive neoliberalism.” Dissent Magazine, January (1):1 17. doi: 10.1080/00130095.2017.1398045. 1351 Fraser, N., and T. Llaguno. 2017. Emancipatory move- 1402 14. doi: 10.1353/dss.2017.0051. ments must have a populist dimension: An interview 1352 Brooks, A., and A. Loftus. 2016. Africa’s passive revolu- 1403 with Nancy Fraser. Political Critique, September 7. 1353 tion: Crisis in Malawi. Transactions of the Institute of 1404 Accessed January 2, 2020. http://politicalcritique.org/ British Geographers – 1354 41 (3):258 72. doi: 10.1111/tran. opinion/2017/emancipatory-movements-must-have-a- 1405 1355 12120. populistdimension-an-interview-with-nancy-fraser/. 1406 1356 Carlucci, A. 2013. Gramsci and languages. Leiden, The Fraser, N., and S. Mehta. 2018. Can we understand popu- 1407 Netherlands: Brill. lism without calling it fascist? A conversation with 1357 Chari, S. 2004. Fraternal capitalism: Peasant-workers, self- 1408 1358 Nancy Fraser. Economic and Political Weekly 53(22). 1409 made men, and globalization in provincial India. Accessed January 2, 2020. https://www.epw.in/engage/ 1359 Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. article/populism-contemporary-historical-moment-con- 1410 1360 Chari, S. 2017. Three moments of Stuart Hall in South versation-nancy-fraser. 1411 – Q7 1361 Africa. Critical Sociology 43 (6):831 45. doi: 10.1177/ Gidwani, V. 2000. Capital interrupted: Agrarian development 1412 0896920515620475. 1362 and the politics of work in India. Minneapolis: 1413 Chatterjee, P. 1986. Nationalist thought and the colonial University of Minnesota Press. 1363 world: A derivative discourse. London: Zed Books. Glassman, J. 2010. Critical geography II: Articulating race 1414 1364 Chatterjee, P. 2004. The politics of the governed: Reflections and radical politics. Progress in Human Geography 34 1415 1365 on popular politics in most of the world. New York: (4):506–12. doi: 10.1177/0309132509351766. 1416 Columbia University Press. Goodman, M., and M. Redclift. 1981. From peasant to pro- 1366 A Collective of Anarchist Geographers. 2017. Beyond 1417 1367 letarian: Capitalist development and agrarian transitions. 1418 electoralism: Reflections on anarchy, populism, and Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. 1368 the crisis of electoral politics. ACME Journal Goswami, M. 2002. Rethinking the modular nation form: 1419 1369Q4 December:607–92. Towards a sociohistorical conception of nationalism. 1420 1370 Davis, M. 2017. The great god Trump and the white Comparative Studies in Society and History 44 1421 working class. Catalyst 1 (1):151–71. 1371 (4):770–99. doi: 10.1017/S001041750200035X. 1422 De Janvry, A. 1981. The agrarian question and reformism in Gowan, P. 1999. The global gamble: Washington’s Faustian 1372 Latin America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University bid for world dominance. London: Verso. 1423 1373 Press. Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. 1424 1374 Derickson, K. 2015.UrbangeographyI:Locatingurbanthe- New York: International Publishers. 1425 1375 ory in the “urban age.” Progress in Human Geography 39 Gunner, L. 2008. Jacob Zuma, the social body and the 1426 (5):647–57. doi: 10.1177/0309132514560961. 1376 unruly power of song. African Affairs 108 1427 Doucette, J. 2019.Politicalwillandhumangeography:Non- (430):27–48. doi: 10.1093/afraf/adn064. 1377 representational, post-political, and Gramscian geogra- Hall, S. 1977. Pluralism, race and class in Caribbean soci- 1428 1378 phies. Progress in Human Geography OnlineFirst:1–18. ety. In Race and class in post colonial society: A 1429 1379Q5 doi: 10.1177/0309132518824645. study of ethnic group relations in the English- 1430 On Articulation, Translation, and Populism 15

1431 speaking Caribbean, Bolivia, Chile and Mexico, ed. Hart, G. 2010a.Developmentsafterthemeltdown.Antipode 1482 1432 UNESCO, 150–92. Paris: UNESCO. 41 (5):117–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00719.x. 1483 1433 Hall, S. 1980. Race articulation and societies structured Hart, G. 2010b. Redrawing the map of the world? 1484 in dominance. In Sociological theories: Race and colo- Reflections on the World Development Report 2009. 1434 nialism, ed. UNESCO, 305–45. Paris: UNESCO. Economic Geography 86 (4):341–50. doi: 10.1111/j. 1485 1435 Hall, S. 1988. The hard road to renewal: Thatcherism and 1944-8287.2010.01091.x. 1486 1436 the crisis of the left. London: Verso. Hart, G. 2013. Gramsci, geography and the languages of 1487 1437 Hall, S. [1986] 1996a. Gramsci’s relevance for the study populism. In Gramsci, space, nature, politics, ed. M. 1488 of race and ethnicity. In Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues Ekers, G. Hart, S. Kipfer, and A, Loftus, 301–20. 1438 in cultural studies, ed. D. Morley and K. Chen, Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. 1489 1439 411–46. London and New York: Routledge. Hart, G. 2014. Rethinking the South African crisis: 1490 1440 Hall, S. [1986] 1996b. On postmodernism and articula- Nationalism, populism, hegemony. Athens: University 1491 1441 tion: An interview with Stuart Hall. In Stuart Hall: of Georgia Press. 1492 1442 Critical dialogues in cultural studies, ed. D. Morley and Hart, G. 2015.Politicalsocietyanditsdiscontents: 1493 K. Chen, 131–51. London and New York: Routledge. Translating passive revolution in India and South Africa 1443 Hall, S. 2011. The neoliberal revolution. Cultural Studies today. Economic and Political Weekly 50 (43):43–51. 1494 1444 25 (6):705–28. doi: 10.1080/09502386.2011.619886. Hart, G. 2017. Why did it take so long? Trump-Bannonism 1495 1445 Hall, S., C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J. Clarke, and B. through southern lenses. Unpublished manuscript. Q81496 1446 Roberts. 1978. Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, Hart, G. 2018a.Becomingageographer:Masseymomentsin 1497 and law and order. London: Holmes and Meier. aspatialeducation.InDoreen Massey: Critical dialogues, 1447 Hart, G. 1986a. Exclusionary labour arrangements: ed. M. Werner, J. Peck, R. Lave, and B. Christophers, 1498 1448 Interpreting evidence on employment trends in rural 75–89. New York: Columbia University Press. 1499 1449 Java. Journal of Development Studies 22 (4):681–96. Hart, G. 2018b. Relational comparison revisited: Marxist 1500 1450 doi: 10.1080/00220388608422005. postcolonial geographies in practice. Progress in 1501 – 1451 Hart, G. 1986b. Interlocking transactions: Obstacles, pre- Human Geography 42 (3):371 94. doi: 10.1177/ 1502 cursors or instruments of agrarian capitalism. Journal 0309132516681388. 1452 of Development Economics 23 (1):177–203. doi: 10. Hart, G. 2019. From authoritarian to left populism? 1503 1453 1016/0304-3878(86)90087-8. Reframing debates. South Atlantic Quarterly 118 1504 1454 Hart, G. 1986c. Power, labour, and livelihood: Processes of (2):307–23. doi: 10.1215/00382876-7381158. 1505 1455 change in rural Java. Berkeley: University of California Hart, G. Forthcoming. Resurgent nationalism and populist 1506 Press. politics: A global conjunctural frame. Revised and 1456 Hart, G. 1991. Engendering everyday resistance: Gender, expanded version of the Vega lecture, Swedish Academy 1507 1457 patronage and production politics in rural Malaysia. of Sciences, 2018. Geografiska Annaler. Q161508 1458 Journal of Peasant Studies 19 (1):93–121. doi: 10. Hart, G., and A. Sitas. 2004. Beyond the urban–rural 1509 1459 1080/03066159108438472. divide: Linking land, labour and livelihoods. 1510 1460 Hart, G. 2002a. Disabling globalization: Places of power in Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 1511 post-apartheid South Africa. Berkeley: University of 56 (1):31–58. 1461 California Press. Hetland, G. 2018. The promise and perils of radical left 1512 1462 Hart, G. 2002b. Geography and development: populism: The case of Venezuela. Journal of World- 1513 1463 Development/s beyond neoliberalism? Power, culture, Systems Research 24 (2):277–92. doi: 10.5195/JWSR. 1514 1464 political economy. Progress in Human Geography 26 2018.868. 1515 (6):812–22. doi: 10.1191/0309132502ph405pr. Hindess, B., and P. Hirst. 1975. Pre-capitalist modes of produc- 1465 Hart, G. 2004. Geography and development: Critical eth- tion.LondonandNewYork:RoutledgeandKeganPaul. 1516 1466 nographies. Progress in Human Geography 25 Ives, P. 2004. Language and hegemony in Gramsci. London: 1517 1467 (1):91–100. Pluto. 1518 1468 Hart, G. 2006. Denaturalizing dispossession: Critical eth- Ives, P., and R. Lacorte. 2010. Gramsci, language and 1519 1469 nography in the age of resurgent imperialism. translation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 1520 Antipode 38 (5):977–1004. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330. Kipfer, S., and M. Dikec¸. 2019. Peripheries against periph- 1470 2006.00489.x. eries? Against spatial reification. In Massive suburbani- 1521 1471 Hart, G. 2007. Changing concepts of articulation: zation: (Re-)building the global periphery, ed. M. Guney,€ 1522 1472 Political stakes in South Africa today. Review of R. Keil, and M. Uc€ ¸oglu, 35–55. Toronto: University 1523 1473 African Political Economy 34 (111):85–101. doi: 10. of Toronto Press. 1524 1080/03056240701340415. Kipfer, S., and G. Hart. 2013. Translating Gramsci in the 1474 Hart, G. 2008. The provocations of neoliberalism: current conjuncture. In Gramsci, space, nature, politics, 1525 1475 Contesting the nation and liberation. Antipode 40 ed. M. Ekers, G. Hart, S. Kipfer, and A. Loftus, 1526 1476 (4):678–705. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00629.x. 325–43. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell. 1527 1477 Hart, G. 2009. Forging connections: Giovanni Arrighi’s Kipfer, S., and P. Saberi. 2016. Times and spaces of right 1528 1478 conception of the world. Paper presented at populism: Notes from Paris and Toronto. Socialist 1529 Dynamics of the Global Crisis, Antisystemic Register 2016:312–32. 1479 Movements and New Models of Hegemony, Museo Laclau, E. 1977. Politics and ideology in Marxist theory: 1530 1480 Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofıa, Madrid, Spain, Capitalism, fascism, populism. London: Verso. 1531 1481 May 25–29. Laclau, E. 2005. On populist reason. London: Verso. 1532 16 Ekers, Kipfer, and Loftus

1533 Laclau, E., and C. Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony & socialist strat- Social & Cultural Geography 11 (5):433–49. doi: 10. 1584 1534 egy: Towards a radical democratic politics.London:Verso. 1080/14649365.2010.488747. 1585 1535 Lawhon, M., H. Ernstson, and J. Silver. 2014. Tugal, C. 2009. Passive revolution: Absorbing the Islamic 1586 Provincializing urban political ecology: Towards a sit- challenge to capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford 1536 uated UPE through African urbanism. Antipode 46 University Press. 1587 1537 (2):497–516. doi: 10.1111/anti.12051. Tugal, C. 2016. The fall of the Turkish model: How the 1588 1538 Loftus, A. 2013. Gramsci, nature and the philosophy of Arab uprisings brought down Islamic liberalism. London: 1589 1539 praxis. In Gramsci, space, nature, politics, ed. M. Ekers, Verso. 1590 G. Hart, S. Kipfer, and A. Loftus, 178–96. Oxford, Vanaik, A. 2017. The rise of Hindu authoritarianism: 1540 UK: Wiley Blackwell. Secular claims, communal realities. London: Verso. 1591 1541 Lo Piparo, F. [1979] 2010. The linguistic roots of Wahby, N. 2017. Institutions and populism in the global 1592 1542 Gramsci’s non-marxism. In Gramsci, language and south—Lessons for the Brexit–Trump era. City and 1593 1543 translation, ed. P. Ives and R. Lacorte, 19–28. Community 16 (2):139–44. doi: 10.1111/cico.12234. 1594 ’ 1544 Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. What s left? The role of critical scholarship in a 1595 Mallick, A. 2017. Beyond “domination without hegem- Trumpian age. 2016. Geoforum 85 (October):316–17. 1545 ony”: Passive revolution(s) in Pakistan. Studies in Wilson, J., and E. Swyngedouw. 2014. The post-political and 1596 1546 Political Economy 98 (3):239–62. doi: 10.1080/ its discontents: Spaces of depoliticisation, spectres of radical 1597 1547 07078552.2017.1393912. politics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. 1598 1548 Marx, K. [1858] 1973. Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique Wolpe, H. 1975.Thetheoryofinternalcolonialism:The 1599 of political economy (rough draft). Harmondsworth, UK: South African case. In Beyond the sociology of develop- 1549 Penguin. ment,ed.I.Oxhaal,T.Barnett,andD.Booth,229–52. 1600 1550 McCarthy, J. 2019. Authoritarianism, populism and the London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1601 1551 environment: Comparative experiences, insights, and Wolpe, H. 1980. Introduction. In The articulation of modes 1602 1552 perspectives. Annals of the American Association of of production: Essays from economy and society, ed. H. 1603 Geographers 109 (2):301–13. doi: 10.1080/24694452. – 1553 Wolpe, 1 43. London and New York: Routledge and 1604 2018.1554393. Kegan Paul. 1554 McGrath, S. 2018. Dis/articulations and the interroga- 1605 1555 tion of development in GPN research. Progress in MICHAEL EKERS is an Assistant Professor in the 1606 1556 Human Geography 42 (4):509–28. doi: 10.1177/ Department of Human Geography at the University 1607 1557 0309132517700981. 1608 Mouffe, C. 2018. For a left populism. London: Verso. of Toronto, Scarborough, Toronto, ON M1C 1A4, 1558 Riley, D., and D. Manali. 2007.Thepassiverevolutionary Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. His 1609 1559 route to the modern world: Italy and India in compara- writing draws on the work of Antonio Gramsci and 1610 1560 tive perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History his current research engages with debates on the 1611 1561 49 (4):815–47. doi: 10.1017/S0010417507000771. 1612 Rossi, U. 2018. The populist eruption and the urban ques- political economy of nature, settler-colonialism, and 1562 tion. Urban Geography 39 (9):1425–30. doi: 10.1080/ Indigenous resurgence to understand the colonial 1613 1563 02723638.2018.1448135. enclosure and financialization of forestlands in 1614 1564 Samson, M. 2010. Producing privatization: Re-articulating British Columbia, Canada. 1615 1565 race, gender, class and space. Antipode 42 (2):404–32. 1616 1566 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00752.x. STEFAN KIPFER is Associate Professor in the Faculty 1617 Scoones, I., M. Edelman, S. Borras, R. Hall, W. Wolford, and 1567 of Environmental Studies at York University, Toronto, 1618 B. White. 2018.Emancipatoryruralpoliticsconfront ON M3J 1P3, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. 1568 authoritarian populism. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45 1619 1569 (1):1–20. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2017.1339693. Drawing on Marxist and anticolonial theoretical cur- 1620 1570 Sotiris, P. 2017. From the nation to the people of a rents, including the works of Gramsci, Lefebvre, and 1621 potential new historical bloc: Rethinking popular sov- 1571 Fanon, he has published widely on issues ranging from 1622 ereignty through Gramsci. International Gramsci urban-regional restructuring and urban ecology to public 1572 Journal 2 (2):52–88. 1623 1573 Thomas, P. 2009a. Gramsci and the political: From the housing redevelopment, public transit, far-right popu- 1624 1574 state as “metaphysical event” to hegemony as lism, and social movements. 1625 “philosophical fact.” Radical Philosophy 153 1575 (January–February):27–36. ALEX LOFTUS is Reader in Political Ecology in the 1626 1576 Thomas, P. 2009b. The Gramscian moment: Philosophy, hege- Department of Geography at King’s College London 1627 1577 mony and Marxism. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. WC2B 4BG, UK. E-mail: [email protected] 1628 1578 Tosel, A. 1995. In Francia. In Gramsci in Europa and in seeking to develop a philosophy of praxis, he has pub- 1629 1579Q14 America, ed. A. A. Santucci. Rome, Italy: Laterza. 1630 Tucker, A. 2010. The “rights” (and “wrongs”) of articulat- lished widely on political ecology, the right to water, 1580 ing race with sexuality: The conflicting nature of heg- and, more recently on the financialization of water 1631 1581 emonic legitimization in South African queer politics. infrastructure. 1632 1582 1633 1583 1634