• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.56 no.2
• /
• pp.255-276
• /
• 2010

Despite some critics' efforts to highlight Shelley's political fruitfulness, they tend to disregard meaningful differences that Shelley has from other Jacobin radicals of his times. Accordingly, the critics tackle his apparent incoherence revealed in A Philosophical View of Reform; the first two sections contain a keen insight into the socio-political injustice prevalent in Britain and the reasons behind it, while the third section withdraws from the previous radical position and settles with a moderate electorate reform. This paper argues that recent developments in post-structuralist and post-Marxist theory help to clearly assess Shelley's political position. Emphasizing that the Jacobin concept of revolution is incompatible with the plurality and opening which a radical democracy requires, post-marxists such as Ernest Laclau and Chantal Mouffee claim that a more viable form of political resistance is to expose repression and force involved in hegemonic articulations. For them, dislocation, a distabilization of a discourse that results from the emergence of events which cannot be domesticated, symbolized, or integrated within the discourse, opens up the possibility of freedom for agents. A Philosophical View of Reform is an attempt to dislocate the discourses of monarchy and paper money by exposing their social and historical constructiveness and their repressive exclusion of alternative discourses. The political goal of this essay is to awaken subjects within a hegemonic structure by decentering the structure and to make them act by stimulating new discoursive constructions.

• Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.111-125
• /
• 2010

For a shift to a new paradigm that allows restoring solidarity among class, gender, and race, it is necessary to closely investigate the differences between Marxist view and poststructuralist view which provide theoretical basis for labor movement and for feminist movement, respectively. However, little effort has been devoted to this task. This paper critically compares two best wellknown geographers; Harvey's class-centered theory and Gibson-Graham's post-structuralist feminist approach by focusing on their understandings of "difference". David Harvey argues that racial/gender discrimination is another form of class-exploitation and puts priority on the solidarity based on the commonality of labor. On the contrary Gibson-Graham argues that the privileging of class above all else marginalizes other political dimension, and proposes the deconstruction of hegemonic discourse of capitalism and the construction of "community economies", Based on the critical survey of both theories, I propose that understanding the role that spatiality plays in capital accumulation process is the key to compromise two different approaches.