Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hima Article p137 - 9
Hima Article p137 - 9
Hima Article p137 - 9
4 (2022) 137–173
brill.com/hima
Abstract
This paper establishes a theoretical linkage between Antonio Gramsci and Frantz
Fanon. Gramsci’s critical-historicist method and its relationship to humanism, his
integral understanding of Marxism, and emphasis on the moment of political practice
resonate with Fanon’s articulation of the subjective and political-economic aspects of
the colonial question, his activistic materialism, and his dialectically humanist uni-
versalism forged through anti-colonial struggle. Establishing this linkage presupposes
engaging distinct currents of postcolonial Gramscianism in relation to each other
and to the philological turn in Gramsci scholarship. In turn, a Gramsci–Fanon con-
vergence helps elucidate the specificities of (post-)colonial contexts without elevating
these into a civilisational-ontological difference. Emphasising their geographical sen-
sitivity as a meeting point, pushing Gramsci towards Fanon helps us treat the global
South and imperial heartlands relationally, in historico-geographical and specifically
political terms. A Fanonian Gramsci (or Gramscian Fanon) thus allows us to tackle
Eurocentrism without closing doors to a counter- or postcolonial Marxism.
Keywords
1 Authors’ note: Sections of this paper have been developed from Kipfer 2018.
a ‘West’ preoccupied with matters of culture and civil society (with the Soviet
East presumably more attuned to political economy and political society).
Indeed, Gramsci developed crucial concepts, including ‘hegemony’ and the
‘national-popular’, in part through ‘Eastern’ debates he encountered while in
the Soviet Union.2 There the distinction between East and West also referred
to the relationship between Russian and Central Asian parts of the former
Russian empire and concomitant debates about national self-determination.3
Into the 1930s, debates about Soviet hegemony were as much concerned with
language and subaltern culture as they were with political strategy and eco-
nomic development.
Gramsci’s indebtedness to Southern and Western European intellectual
life does not render his work irrelevant elsewhere. Insights from Gramsci
and strongly resonant but parallel ideas have been developed in various
non-European contexts – from Latin America and the Caribbean to South Asia
and South Africa already in the 1920s (by José Carlos Mariátegui) and then more
forcefully from the 1950s to the 1980s (for example by Carlos Nelson Coutinho,
Héctor Agosti, José Maria Aricó, Juan Carlos Portantiero, Asok Sen, Susobhan
Sarkar, Ernesto Laclau and Stuart Hall). Gramsci’s uses for analyses of colo-
nialism, imperialism and racism are similarly no secret. In the Anglophone
world, intellectuals have long mobilised Gramsci for counter-colonial and
anti-imperial projects.4 Some have drawn inspiration from Gramsci’s foci:
the peasantry, city and country, Italy’s Southern question, linkages between
the national and the international, Italian imperialism, Gandhi and political
strategy. Others, including Stuart Hall, Himani Bannerji, Edward Said, and
Harry Harootunian have also been inspired by Gramsci’s method and political
engagement.
However , there is no agreement on how to approach Gramsci. As we can see
from two recent books, The Postcolonial Gramsci5 and The Political Philosophies
of Antonio Gramsci and B.R. Ambedkar,6 there are multiple counter-, post- or
decolonial Gramscis. While the second book links Ambedkar and Gramsci to
the philological turn in Gramscian scholarship, the first distances itself from
this turn to focus on Edward Said’s work and the subaltern studies collective.
Closer to the Zene volume, our paper expands on Gramscian engagements in
the global South, and, in particular, South Asia, by bringing into focus other
historicist mobilisations of the Sardinian that were also in tune with questions
of political strategy. This will allow us to prepare the ground upon which to
link Gramsci to anti-colonial and anti-capitalist thinkers in the global South
such as Frantz Fanon. Indeed, the latter’s contributions to Panafrican and tri-
continental liberation connect to debates that were formative for Gramsci too:
those over national self-determination in the early Communist International.
We pick up on earlier work,7 some in association with Gillian Hart,8 to con-
centrate on three translations of Gramsci. The first, subaltern studies, initially
pursued Gramscian questions but ended up in a philosophical anti-historicism
gravitating around civilisational categories. The second approach is the phil-
ological turn in Gramsci scholarship, which has also emphasised Gramsci’s
peculiarly historicist method. This second approach was preceded by still other
readings of Gramsci in the South, notably South Asia. Through careful atten-
tion to Gramsci’s situated and relational development of concepts and their
links to political strategy, these mobilisations prefigured the philological turn.
While others have pointed this out with reference to Latin America,9 China,10
and the Arabic-speaking world,11 we make reference to the contributions of
Aijaz Ahmad and Himani Bannerji. We suggest that these latter readings serve
as a mediatory moment between the Subalternists and the critical historicism
of the philological turn.
Moving beyond the Subalternist/anti-historicist deployments, the philolog-
ical as well as strategic register of Gramsci will help in elaborating the the-
oretical and political conditions of possibility for connecting Gramsci with
other anti-colonial thinkers, especially Frantz Fanon. This paper thus radi-
ates from Gramsci to meet Fanon (and thus to push beyond Gramsci). Here,
Gramsci’s spatially inflected historicist method and its relationship to human-
ism, his integral understanding of Marxism, and his emphasis on the moment
of political practice resonates with Fanon’s ambition to articulate the sub-
jective and political-economic aspects of the colonial question, his activistic
historical-geographical materialism, and his call to forge a dialectically humanist
‘partisan universalism’ from the crucible of anti-colonial struggle. We high-
light that Gramsci’s reflections on racism and comparative civilisations were
crucial for the development of his method. Thus, linking Gramsci to Fanon
provides an alternative to those approaches that think the world in terms of
civilisational or geocultural categories (tradition/modernity, or West/East). It
provides openings to sublate the abiding concern of Subalternist readings – i.e.
12 The door to such a counter-colonial Marxism is closed also by Marxist responses such as
Vivek Chibber’s critique of Subaltern Studies (Chibber 2013; also see Boggio Ewanjé-Epée
and Renault 2013; Hart 2018).
13 See footnote 8, and Kipfer 2011, 2021a; Mallick 2020b, 2021.
14 Sekyi-Otu 2021, pp. 242–3; Sekyi-Otu 2011, p. 48.
15 Srivastava 2017, p. 25.
16 Guha 1982, 1983.
17 Chatterjee 1986.
18 Zachariah 2020.
19 Green 2011.
20 Spivak 2014, 2012.
21 Thomas 2020a.
22 Gramsci Q25 §5 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 52].
23 Thomas 2020a.
24 Guha 1997, 2011.
25 Chatterjee 1993.
26 Chatterjee 2008.
27 Chakrabarty 2000, p. 11.
scholarship, in its combination with the philological turn, avoids the unhelpful
theoretical dualisms that mar many Subalternist theorisations.35
Indeed, in the very India where Subaltern Studies was born, Gramsci has
also emerged in a very different register, deployed for situated, relational and
strategic readings of social formations in the global South. These approaches
often developed through a trenchant critique of subalternist texts. Parallel to
Latin American and South African interventions,36 a long-standing Indian
scholarship has mobilised Gramscian concepts to, for example, deline-
ate the post-Independence historical bloc37 and analyse local government
and subaltern common sense.38 Here, Aijaz Ahmad and Himani Bannerji’s
Marxist-Gramscian analyses of fascism and exclusivist national cultures are
notable.39 Both situate Gramsci’s concepts such as ‘national-popular’ and
‘common sense’ within the unevenly developed and weakly hegemonic real-
ities of post-Risorgimento Italy. Ahmad, for example, establishes explicit par-
allels between Latinised Catholic high culture in Italy and Sanskritised high
Brahminism in India.40 He connects the ‘cosmopolitanism’ of traditional intel-
lectuals to the uneven development of capitalism in India and Italy to provide
a powerful comparative diagnosis of Hindutva fascism.
Similarly, Bannerji elaborates on Gramsci’s integral conceptualisation
of state–civil society, culture, and popular common sense to develop her
trenchant analyses of the ways in which Hindutva nationalists have embed-
ded a masculinist-ethnicised conception of the nation in everyday practices,
thus refashioning Hinduism ‘to shape a sword out of a cross’.41 Crucially for
our project, Bannerji has also mobilised Gramsci and Fanon in her critique
of the subalternists’ de-socialised conceptualisation of nationalism. She
sees the subalternists’ selective reading of the (anti-)colonial archive and
their cultural-ontological critique of modernity as a ‘patriarchal Brahminical
description’, an ‘ideological strategy … [whereby] the story of women’s con-
tainment and betrayal by cultural nationalism becomes the story of their con-
tentment and valorisation’.42
This relational and strategic mobilisation of Gramsci has also recently been
taken up on the other side of the Radcliffe line in Pakistan. For example, Aasim
Sajjad Akhtar has productively deployed Gramscian concepts of ‘hegemony’,
‘common sense’, and ‘historical bloc’ to trace the shifting modes of coercion,
consent, and patronage politics instituted in post-1970s Pakistan as a response
to the height of the subaltern ‘politics of resistance’ in the 1960s and ’70s.43
Signalling his distinction from the Subalternists’ (ultimately narrow) cultur-
alist and dualist conceptions, Akhtar grounds Pakistan’s changing histori-
cal bloc and its modes of rule within the ‘articulation of historically rooted
[i.e. colonially-inflected] practice with evolving logics of the market, instru-
mentalization of “democratic” exercises such as elections, and the forging of
ideational innovations [around “Islam”] congruent with regional and global
geo-politics’.44
Relatedly, Majed Akhter has analysed the 1960s anti-Communist ‘hydropo-
litical Cold War’ in Pakistan through the role of state-bureaucratic elites and
water engineers as ‘traditional intellectuals’.45 Such ‘traditional intellectuals’
acted as conduits of technical-financial assistance and ideological discourses
(from the metropolitan core to the periphery) regarding the ‘necessity’ of
high-modernist infrastructure (such as massive dams) as part of a ‘develop-
mentalist passive revolution’, even as this exacerbated socio-spatial inequal-
ities within the country. More recently, we have brought together Gramscian
conceptualisations of ‘subalternity’, ‘passive revolution’, ‘integral state’, and
‘the conjuncture’ to delineate the working class’ socio-spatial pacification
and fragmentation in post-1970s Karachi.46 Here, returning (via Marx, Fanon,
and Hall) to Gramsci’s differentiated understanding of subalternity and the
conjuncture, along with a multi-level mobilisation of ‘passive revolution’ (mov-
ing through the terrain of everyday life, the urban, to the state and world impe-
rialism), lends insight into the varied contradictions that crystallised through
the rhythms of ‘the urban question’ and produced ‘ethnicity’ as a salient (often
violent) node of socio-political mobilisation.
This alternative stream of Gramscianism, therefore, has maintained fidel-
ity to the Sardinian’s vision and method, including the problem of political
strategy and the weight of fascist lineages so often forgotten in the subalternist
tradition.47 In doing so, they have both critiqued the subalternists’ divorce of
Gramsci from his relational concerns and conducted carefully situated trans
lations of Gramsci to post-colonial contexts. Along with Said, Morton, Salem,
Shapiro, Lazarus and Thomas, we understand ‘translation’ as the travelling-
transposition of theory as politically constructed in ‘a differential rather than
43 Akhtar 2018.
44 Akhtar 2018, pp. 133–4.
45 Akhter 2015a, 2015b.
46 Mallick 2020a.
47 Zachariah 2020.
2 Gramsci’s Historicism
48 Thomas 2020b, pp. 24, 16; see also: Said 2000a; Morton 2013; Shapiro and Lazarus 2018;
Salem 2020.
49 Gramsci Q15 §62 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 114ff.].
50 Green 2011, 2013; Green and Ives 2009; Thomas 2020a.
51 Gramsci Q3 §90 [Gramsci 2011, p. 91]; Q3 §18 [Gramsci 2011, pp. 24–5].
52 Gramsci Q25 §2 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 54–5]; Q3 §48 [Gramsci 2011, pp. 48–52].
53 Gramsci Q25 §5 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 52ff.]; Thomas 2020a, pp. 190–1.
54 Gramsci Q16 §23 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 1829–32]; Q17 §43 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 1885–6]; Q7 §50
[Gramsci 2012, p. 901].
55 Gramsci Q7 §51 [Gramsci 2012, p. 902].
56 Gramsci 1978, pp. 444ff.; Gramsci Q1 §44 [Gramsci 2012, p. 108]; Q2 §45 [Gramsci 2012, pp.
256–7]; Q7 §30 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 884–6]; Q17 §24 [Gramsci 2012, p. 1957].
57 Gramsci Q19 §24 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 1954–5]; Q8 §80 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 986–7]; Q13 §34
[Gramsci 2012, pp. 1603–4].
58 Gramsci Q1 §25 [Gramsci 1992, pp. 114–16]; Q4 §38 [Gramsci 1996, pp. 184–5]; Q11 §29
[Gramsci 2012, pp. 1432–4]; Q13 §18 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 1569–75]; Q28 §18 [Gramsci 2012,
pp. 2223–37]; see also: Green 2013; Buttigieg 1992, pp. 43–56.
59 Gramsci Q9 §77 [Gramsci 2012, p. 1131].
60 Gramsci Q25 §1 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 2187–8]; Q25 §5 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 2194–6]; Q11 §12
[Gramsci 2012, pp. 1386–7]; Buttigieg 1992, p. 48.
By highlighting these issues, the philological turn helps us grasp the polit-
ically charged methodological procedures in Gramsci’s writing.61 Based on
Italian scholarship on Gramsci’s conception of language,62 intellectuals associ-
ated with this turn have clarified, as did Stuart Hall,63 the close link between
Gramsci’s understanding of philology and his (re-)conceptualisation of Marxism
as a philosophy of praxis. Extending Marx’s own dialectical understanding of
the relationship between abstract and concrete,64 philology denotes a method
(of thinking, writing and acting) that develops through analyses of concrete
situations to arrive at conclusions: ‘the importance of ascertaining and precis-
ing particular facts in their unique and unrepeatable individuality … for isolat-
ing certain more general “laws of tendency”’.65 For Gramsci, philology becomes
‘living’ insofar as it rejoins daily organising efforts to act against subaltern
passivity; it is knowledge that is not simply a ‘translat[ion] into ideas and
words-as-force.… Rather it is acquired by the collective organism … through
experience of immediate particulars, through a system which one could call
“living philology”’.66 Understood thus, philology opens the door to a histori-
cism that links time and space through an open-ended method and develops
abstractions not by deductive reasoning but by working through concrete sit-
uations. Turned back on Gramsci, the philological turn suggests that Gramsci’s
philosophy of praxis must be related to the movement of his texts. In the fol-
lowing, constraints of space and scope compel us to focus on the results of
Gramsci’s writing more than the ‘pathways’ and ‘rhythms’ of its production.67
The same will be true for Fanon’s work.
Far from being ‘generic’, therefore, Gramsci’s is a particular kind of
historicism,68 different from teleology, developmentalism, and historical
relativism.69 In his oeuvre, Gramsci’s historicism is also closely related to
his secularism and his humanism,70 and thus includes a number of aspects.
First, Gramsci’s historicism is not relativist even though he himself called it
71 Morton 2007.
72 Gramsci Q11 §25 [Gramsci 1971, p. 427].
73 Gramsci Q11 §17 [Gramsci 1971, p. 445].
74 Gramsci Q11 §17 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 445–56, emphasis added].
75 Thomas 2009, pp. 308ff.
76 Gramsci Q13 §18 [Gramsci 1971, p. 167]; Q13, §17 [Gramsci 1971, p. 185]; Q7 §24 [Gramsci
1971, p. 407]; Hall 1996d, p. 42.
77 Gramsci Q7 §24 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 407ff.].
78 Gramsci Q7 §24 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 407ff.]; Morera 1990.
79 Morera 1990; Thomas 2009.
80 Gramsci Q11 §28 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 450ff.].
81 Morfino and Thomas (eds.) 2017.
82 Althusser 1969, pp. 203–4; Thomas 2017.
83 Chakrabarty 2000, p. 66.
84 Thomas 2017, pp. 290–1.
94 Gramsci Q11 §28 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 449ff.]; Frosini 2013, 2016; Boothman 2013.
95 Gramsci Q7, §21 [Gramsci 1971, p. 377]; Q11, §12 [Gramsci 1971, pp. 324–6, 333].
96 Tosel 2009, pp. 147–74.
97 Gramsci Q11 §47 [Gramsci 2012, p. 1457]; Q11 §48 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 1458–9].
98 Gramsci Q1 §134 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 178–9]; Q2 §86 [Gramsci 2012, p. 296]; Q2 §90
[Gramsci 2012, pp. 298–9]; Q5 §90 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 648–50]; Q4 §92 [Gramsci 2012, p.
570]; Q6 §32 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 734–5] ; Q6 §78 [Gramsci 2012, p. 769].
qualities) but to emphasise the contradictions, myths and lies of Europe and
the world-wide forces that helped build it. On the terrain of textual engage-
ment, Gramsci’s way of exploring the possibility of translating – and thus trans-
forming meaning from context to context – encourages us to read Gramsci in
the context of a wide web of intellectual life. His own relational vision pushes
to us look for transnational links with intellectuals who may share elements
of his historicist approach, albeit this time in a determinedly counter-colonial
vein.105 One of these intellectuals was Frantz Fanon.
At first sight, it may seem counterintuitive to connect the Martinican to
the Sardinian. Certain nationalist and Marxist traditions have converged in
declaring Fanon’s concerns with colonial violence, peasantry and the lumpen-
proletariat as antagonistic to Marxian (including Gramscian) preoccupations
with hegemony and urban-proletarian leadership.106 In turn, postmodern-
postcolonial interpreters have adopted Fanon as a precursor of poststructural-
ism while divesting his work of its links to national and tricontinental liberation
struggles.107 In these perspectives, which dominated 1990s English-language
Fanon scholarship, the Fanon–Gramsci connection is only possible provided
Gramsci, too, is read along post-Marxist and post-revolutionary lines.108 More
recently, those searching for a Nietzschean Fanon have erected new road-
blocks against a Gramsci–Fanon rapprochement by locating them on oppo-
site sides of an ontological divide separating Marxism and Blackness, or by
arguing that Fanon’s psychiatric work is incompatible with his historical-
materialist analyses (and commitments).109 Here, an insistence on the inter-
mittently Nietzschean elements in Fanon militates against acknowledging the
decisive Marxian–Hegelian and phenomenological currents in his work that
offer us the very lines of connection between Black, tricontinental and Marxist
traditions through which Fanon can be connected to Gramsci.
Our engagement with Gramsci-inspired currents centred in South Asia has
already indicated that separating Gramsci and Fanon from each other or from
revolutionary anti-imperial and Marxist connections is not necessary. Himani
Bannerji’s project to tie Fanon to Gramsci (along with Marx and Dorothy Smith)
for the purpose of understanding ideology and unearthing the roots of fascism
is a powerful counterpoint to those wanting to tear Gramsci apart from Fanon.
The problems with anti-dialectical, anti-Marxist and anti-Gramscian readings
of Fanon are also clearly highlighted by English-language Fanon scholarship
developed and organised by Ato Sekyi-Otu, Nigel Gibson and Lewis Gordon.110
The Hegelian-Marxist and existentialist poles of this scholarship pointed out
that postcolonial readings of Fanon were difficult to sustain. Their philosoph-
ical anti-humanism had to treat Fanon’s undeniable dialectical humanism as
an embarrassment. And their tendency to read the Fanon of Black Skin, White
Masks against the Fanon of The Wretched of the Earth missed the ways in which
Fanon’s work, while characterised by important shifts, articulates micrologi-
cal concerns with everyday racism and subjective suffering with macrologi-
cal considerations of historical geography and revolutionary politics due to
its steadfast commitment to liberating human possibilities from racialised
and colonial brutalities.111 Hegelian-Marxist and existentialist forms of Fanon
scholarship remain pertinent because they furnish the best counterarguments
against Nietzschean Fanonisms. They remind us that Fanon’s critique of rac-
ism as an ontologising project cannot accept the ontology of a racist world
(even if merely negatively), that the fissures in Fanon’s work are not unsur-
mountable obstacles for dialectical, neo-humanist, historical-materialist and
eminently political interpretations, and that Fanon’s clinical psychiatric work
was an inspiration and complex complement, not a counterpoint, to his polit-
ical and strategic insights.112
Fanon’s advice to always ‘slightly stretch’ ‘Marxist analysis … when it comes
to addressing the colonial issue’ is not a minor point.113 It forces historical mate-
rialists to come to terms with the role of racism and colonialism in shaping cap-
italism and class relations. Fanon signals his intent to translate Marx properly,
not merely to extend him to different contexts but to adapt his work by betray-
ing him if necessary.114 In this stretching, Fanon transformed Marxian, Hegelian
110 For Fanon’s presence in other languages, see, most recently, Batchelor and Harding (eds.)
2017; Gibson (ed.) 2021; Mallick 2021; Kipfer 2021a.
111 Sekyi-Otu 1996; Gibson 2003; Gordon 2015; Rabaka 2010.
112 On the first and second points: Sekyi-Otu 2018, 2021; Abdel-Shehid and Noori (eds.) 2021;
Mallick 2020b; Kipfer 2021b; Gibson (ed.) 2021; On the last point: Gibson and Beneduce
2017. For more on the peculiarities of Fanon’s dialectic, see Bernasconi 1996; Gibson 1999;
Turner 1996, 1999; Cicciarello-Maher 2017; Hudis 2017.
113 Fanon 2001, p. 5; Fanon 1968, p. 9.
114 Arnall 2020, p. 10, briefly references Gramsci. In his book, however, this dialectical point
is neutralised by the Nietzschean Fanonism he borrows in part from Marriott.
115 For recent discussions, see: Zeilig 2016; Hudis 2015, pp. 92–139; Turner and Kelley 2021.
116 Sekyi-Otu 1996, pp. 29–30, 129–30, 148–50, 180, 204.
117 Sekyi-Otu 1996, p. 118. We say this given the lack of evidence of an explicit connection
between Gramsci and Fanon. Jean-Paul Sartre’s project to publish Gramsci in French in
the mid-1950s provides a possible source of evidence, to be explored further (Crézégut
2020, pp. 434–5).
118 To paraphrase Cospito 2016.
119 See also Kipfer and Hart 2013.
120 Sekyi-Otu 2011, p. 48.
176 Gramsci Q6 §84 [Gramsci 2012, pp. 777–8]; Q10 §59 [Gramsci 2012 1356]; Q22 §2 [Gramsci
2012, 2064]; Fanon 1968; Fanon 2006, pp. 39–52.
177 Mallick 2017, 2020a, 2020b, 2021; Akhtar 2018.
178 Hall et al.1978.
us the means by which to grasp (not just denounce) the salience of civilisa-
tional ideologies. Rejecting the deductive reasoning of authoritarian cultur-
alism, Gramsci and Fanon want us to begin with (before returning to) lived
historico-geographical situations, the relations of rule and subordination that
govern them, the many mediations that shape ideological projects, and the
slippages and contradictions that may yet prove to be their Achilles’ heel.
References
Abdel-Shehid, Gamal and Sofia Noori (eds.) 2021, Partisan Universalism, Cantley, qc:
Daraja Press.
Ahmad, Aijaz 1996a, Lineages of the Present, New Delhi: Tulika Books.
Ahmad, Aijaz 1996b, ‘Fascism and National Culture’, in Ahmad 1996a.
Ahmad, Aijaz 1996c, ‘Culture, Community, Nation’, in Ahmad 1996a.
Akhtar, Aasim Sajjad 2018, The Politics of Common Sense, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Akhter, Majed 2015a, ‘The Hydropolitical Cold War’, Political Geography, 46: 65–75.
Akhter, Majed 2015b, ‘Infrastructure Nation’, Antipode, 47, 4: 849–70.
Althusser, Louis 1969 [1965], For Marx, translated by Ben Brewster, Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Amin, Samir 1989, Eurocentrism, London: Zed Books.
Antonini, Francesca, Aaron Bernstein, Lorenzo Fusaro and Robert Jackson (eds.) 2020,
Revisiting Gramsci’s Notebooks, Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden: Brill.
Arnall, Gavin 2020, Subterranean Fanon, New York: Columbia University Press.
Bannerji, Himani 2001a, Inventing Subjects, New Delhi: Tulika Books.
Bannerji, Himani 2001b, ‘Pygmalion Nation’, in Of Property and Propriety, edited by
Himani Bannerji, Shahrzad Mojab and Judith Whitehead, Toronto, on: University
of Toronto Press.
Bannerji, Himani 2011, Demography and Democracy, Toronto, on: Canadian Scholars’
Press.
Batchelor, Kathryn and Sue-Ann Harding (eds.) 2017, Translating Frantz Fanon across
Continents and Languages, London: Routledge.
Bentouhami, Hourya 2014, ‘De Gramsci à Fanon’, Actuel Marx, 55, 1: 99–118.
Bernasconi, Robert 1996, ‘Casting the Slough’, in Fanon: A Critical Reader, edited
by Lewis R. Gordon, T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting and Renée T. White, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Bhabha, Homi 1999, ‘Remembering Fanon’, in Gibson (ed.) 1999.
Boggio Ewanjé-Epée, Félix and Matthieu Renault 2013, ‘Que faire des Postcolonial
Studies?’, Revue des Livres, 13: 35–43.
Boothman, Derek 2012, ‘Islam in Gramsci’s Journalism and Prison Notebooks: The
Shifting Patterns of Hegemony’, Historical Materialism, 20, 4: 125–40.
Boothman, Derek 2013, ‘Intellectuals and Subalterns in the Context of Religions’, in
Zene (ed.) 2013.
Bosteels, Bruno 2014, ‘Towards a Theory of the Integral State’, Historical Materialism,
22, 2: 44–62.
Brandist, Craig 2016, The Dimensions of Hegemony: Language, Culture and Politics in
Revolutionary Russia, Historical Materialism Book Series, Chicago, IL: Haymarket
Books.
Brennan, Timothy 2006, Wars of Position, New York: Columbia University Press.
Buttigieg, Joseph 1990, ‘Gramsci’s Method’, boundary 2, 17, 2: 60–81.
Buttigieg, Joseph 1992, ‘Introduction’, in Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, New York:
Columbia University Press.
Callinicos, Alex 2010, ‘The Limits of Passive Revolution’, Capital & Class, 34, 3: 491–507.
Caterina, Daniela 2021, ‘Gramsci in China’, Antipode, 53, 5: 1357–76.
Césaire, Aimé 1955, Discours sur le Colonialisme, Paris and Dakar: Présence Africaine.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh 2000, Provincializing Europe, Princeton, CA: Princeton University
Press.
Chatterjee, Partha 1986, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World, Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Chatterjee, Partha 1993, The Nation and its Fragments, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha 2008, ‘Democracy and Economic Transformation in India’, Economic
and Political Weekly, 19 April: 53–62.
Chaudhary, Zahid 2012, ‘Subjects in Difference’, differences, 23, 1: 151–83.
Chibber, Vivek 2013, Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital, London: Verso.
Cicciarello-Maher, George 2017, Decolonizing Dialectics, Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Cospito, Giuseppe 2016, The Rhythm of Thought in Gramsci: A Diachronic Interpretation
of Prison Notebooks, Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden: Brill.
Coutinho, Carlos Nelson 2013, Gramsci’s Political Thought, Historical Materialism Book
Series, Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Crézégut, Anthony 2020, ‘An Imaginary Gramscianism?’, in Antonini, Bernstein, Fusaro
and Jackson (eds.) 2020.
Dainotto, Roberto 2013, ‘Notes on Q6 §32: Gramsci and the Dalits’, in Zene (ed.) 2013.
Ekers, Michael, Gillian Hart, Stefan Kipfer and Alex Loftus (eds.) 2013, Gramsci: Space,
Nature, Politics, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fanon, Frantz 1952a, Black Skin, White Masks, translated by Richard Philcox, New York:
Grove Press.
Fanon, Frantz 1952b, Peau noire, masques blancs, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Fanon, Frantz 1965, ‘This Is the Voice of Algeria’, in A Dying Colonialism, translated by
Haakon Chevalier, New York: Grove Press.
Fanon, Frantz 1968 [1961], Les damnés de la terre, Paris: François Maspéro.
Fanon, Frantz 2001, The Wretched of the Earth, translated by Constance Farrington,
London: Penguin Classics.
Fanon, Frantz 2006 [1964], Pour la révolution africaine, Paris: La Découverte.
Fanon, Frantz 2011 [1959], L’an V de la révolution algérienne, Paris: La Découverte.
Fanon, Frantz 2015, Écrits sur l’aliénation et la liberté, Paris: La Découverte.
Fanon, Frantz 2018 [1961], ‘Letter to Ali Shariati’, in Alienation and Freedom, edited
by Jean Khalfa and Robert J.C. Young, translated by Steven Corcoran, London:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Frosini, Fabio 2013, ‘Why Does Religion Matter to Politics?’, in Zene (ed.) 2013.
Frosini, Fabio 2016, ‘Subalterns, Religion, and the Philosophy of Praxis in Gramsci’s
Prison Notebooks’, Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society,
28, 3–4: 523–39.
Frosini, Fabio 2018, ‘Nation-peuple rhétorique, les dilemmes du fascisme et la question
de la démocratie dans les Cahiers du Prison d’Antonio Gramsci’, in Rosa Luxemburg,
Antonio Gramsci actuels, edited by Marie-Claire Caloz-Tschopp, Romain Felli and
Antoine Chollet, Paris: Kimé.
Gates, Henry Louis 1999, ‘Critical Fanonism’, in Gibson (ed.) 1999.
Gherib, Baccar 2021, ‘Revolution and Transition in Tunisia as Crises of Hegemony’,
Journal of North African Studies, 26, 6: 1144–65.
Gibson, Nigel 1999, ‘Radical Mutations’, in Gibson (ed.) 1999.
Gibson, Nigel 2003, Fanon: The Postcolonial Imagination, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gibson, Nigel (ed.) 1999, Rethinking Fanon, Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
Gibson, Nigel (ed.) 2021, Fanon Today, Cantley, qc: Daraja Press.
Gibson, Nigel and Roberto Beneduce 2017, Frantz Fanon: Psychiatry and Politics,
London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Gordon, Lewis R. 2015, What Fanon Said: A Philosophical Introduction to His Life and
Thought, New York: Fordham University Press.
Goswami, Manu 2004, Producing India, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Gramsci, Antonio 1971, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited and translated by
Quinton Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Gramsci, Antonio 1978 [1926], ‘On Some Aspects of the Southern Question’, in Selections
from Political Writings, 1921–1926, translated and edited by Quintin Hoare, London:
Lawrence and Wishart.
Gramsci, Antonio 1992, The Prison Notebooks, Volume 1, edited and translated by Joseph
Buttigieg, New York: Columbia University Press.
Gramsci, Antonio 1996, The Prison Notebooks, Volume 2, edited and translated by Joseph
Buttigieg, New York: Columbia University Press.
Gramsci, Antonio 2011, The Prison Notebooks, Volume 3, edited and translated by Joseph
Buttigieg, New York: Columbia University Press.
Gramsci, Antonio 2012, Gefängnishefte, ten volumes, edited by Klaus Bochman, Wolfgang
Fritz Haug, Peter Jehle, Ruedi Graf and Gerhard Kuck, Hamburg: Argument Verlag.
Green, Marcus 2011, ‘Rethinking the Subaltern and the Question of Censorship in
Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks’, Postcolonial Studies, 14, 4: 387–404.
Green, Marcus 2013, ‘Race, Class, and Religion’, in Zene (ed.) 2013.
Green, Marcus and Peter Ives 2009, ‘Subalternity and Language’, Historical Materialism,
17, 1: 3–30.
Guha, Ranajit 1982, ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India’, in
Subaltern Studies i, edited by Ranajit Guha, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Guha, Ranajit 1983, Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Guha, Ranajit 1997, Dominance without Hegemony, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Guha, Ranajit 2011, ‘Gramsci in India’, Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 16, 2: 288–95.
Hall, Stuart 1980, ‘Race Articulation and Societies Structured in Dominance’, in Socio
logical Theories: Race and Colonialism, edited by unesco, Paris: unesco.
Hall, Stuart 1988, ‘Gramsci and Us’, in The Hard Road to Renewal, London: Verso.
Hall, Stuart 1996a, ‘Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity’, in Hall
1996e.
Hall, Stuart 1996b, ‘The Afterlife of Frantz Fanon’, in The Fact of Blackness, edited by
Alan Read, London: Bay Press.
Hall, Stuart 1996c, ‘New Ethnicities’, in Hall 1996e.
Hall, Stuart 1996d, ‘The Problem of Ideology’, in Hall 1996e.
Hall, Stuart 1996e, Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, edited by David
Morley and Kuan-Hsing Chen, London: Routledge.
Hall, Stuart 2003, ‘Marx’s Notes on Method’, Cultural Studies, 17, 2: 113–49.
Hall, Stuart et al. 1978, Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order,
London: MacMillan.
Harootunian, Harry 2015, Marx after Marx: History and Time in the Expansion of
Capitalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
Hart, Gillian 2013, Rethinking the South African Crisis, Scottsville: University of Kwazulu-
Natal Press.
Hart, Gillian 2015, ‘Political Society and its Discontents’, Economic and Political Weekly,
50, 43: 43–51.
Hart, Gillian 2018, ‘Relational Comparison Revisited’, Progress in Human Geography,
42, 3: 371–94.
Haug, Wolfgang Fritz 1987, Pluraler Marxismus, Berlin: Argument Verlag.
Haug, Wolfgang Fritz 2000, ‘Gramsci’s “Philosophy of Praxis”’, Socialism and Democracy,
14, 1: 1–20.
Haug, Wolfgang Fritz 2001, ‘From Marx to Gramsci, from Gramsci to Marx’, Rethinking
Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, 13, 1: 69–82.
Hesketh, Chris 2019, ‘A Gramscian Conjuncture in Latin America?’, Antipode, 51, 5:
1474–94.
Hudis, Peter 2015, Frantz Fanon: Philosopher of the Barricades, London: Pluto Press.
Hudis, Peter 2017, ‘Frantz Fanon’s Contribution to Hegelian Marxism’, Critical Sociology,
43, 6: 865–73.
Ives, Peter and Rocco Lacorte (eds.) 2010, Gramsci, Language, and Translation, Boulder,
NY: Lexington Books.
Jessop, Bob 2006, ‘Gramsci as a Spatial Theorist’, in Images of Gramsci, edited by
Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton, London: Routledge.
Kaiwar, Vasant 2013, L’Orient postcolonial, Paris: Éditions Syllepse.
Kaviraj, Sudipta 1988, ‘A Critique of the Passive Revolution’, Economic and Political
Weekly, 23, 45/47: 2429–33; 2436–41; 2443–4.
Kiernan, Victor Gordon 1995, ‘Gramsci and the Other Continents’, in Imperialism and
its Contradictions, London: Routledge.
Kipfer, Stefan 2004, Urbanization, Everyday Life and Difference: Lefebvre, Gramsci,
Fanon and the Problematic of Hegemony; Doctoral Dissertation, Political Science,
York University, Toronto.
Kipfer, Stefan 2011, ‘The Times and Spaces of (De-)colonization’, in Living Fanon, edited
by Nigel Gibson, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kipfer, Stefan 2013, ‘City, Country, Hegemony’, in Ekers, Hart, Kipfer and Loftus (eds.)
2013.
Kipfer, Stefan 2018, ‘Quel Gramsci décolonial? Plaidoyer pour une piste Fanon-Gramsci’,
in Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci actuels, edited by Marie-Claire Caloz-Tschopp,
Romain Felli and Antoine Chollet, Paris: Kimé.
Kipfer, Stefan 2021a, ‘Comparison and Political Strategy: Internationalism, Colonial
Rule and Urban Research after Fanon’, Urban Geography, 59, 8: 1636–54, <doi:10
.1177/00420980211049346>.
Kipfer, Stefan 2021b, ‘Fanon for a Post-imperial World’, in Abdel-Shehid and Noori
(eds.) 2021.
Kipfer, Stefan and Gillian Hart 2013, ‘Translating Gramsci in the Current Conjuncture’,
in Ekers, Hart, Kipfer and Loftus (eds.) 2013.
Laclau, Ernesto 1977, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism,
Populism, London: Verso.
Liguori, Guido 2015, Gramsci’s Pathways, Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden:
Brill.
Wang, Pu 2020, ‘Gramsci and the Chinese Left’, in Gramsci in the World, edited by
Fredric Jameson and Roberto Dainotto, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Wilderson, Frank 2003, ‘Gramsci’s Black Marx’, Social Identities, 9, 2: 225–40.
Worsley, Peter 1972, ‘Fanon and the Lumpenproletariat’, Socialist Register, 9: 193–230.
Wynter, Sylvia 2000, ‘The Re-enchantment of Humanism’, interview by David Scott,
Small Axe, 8: 119–207.
Zachariah, Benjamin 2020, ‘Antonio Gramsci’s Moment of Arrival in India’, in What’s
Left of Marxism: Historiography and the Possibilities of Thinking with Marxian
Themes and Concepts: 2, edited by Benjamin Zachariah, Lutz Raphael and Brigitta
Bernet, Munich/Vienna: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.
Zeilig, Leo 2016, Frantz Fanon, London: I.B. Tauris.
Zene, Cosimo (ed.) 2013, The Political Philosophies of Antonio Gramsci and B.R. Ambedkar,
New York: Routledge.