Simon Choat’s research while affiliated with Kingston University and other places

This article explores initiatives to decolonise the curriculum via two specific disciplines, namely Economics and Politics, both of which have tended to marginalise the study of race, empire, and colonialism and whose canonical thinkers are overwhelming white. By providing the first comparative analysis of decolonising initiatives in these disciplines, this article: investigates the extent to which Economics and Politics curricula in UK universities have been ‘decolonised’; explores the factors which affect support for or resistance to decolonisation; and analyses the extent to which these factors share common roots in both disciplines. Our comparative method allows us to shed light on drivers of resistance that affect all disciplines alike and those that are rooted within specific disciplines. Using an audit of UK undergraduate courses and a survey of academics, we show that neither Politics nor Economics can plausibly claim to have made much progress in decolonising curricula. However, more progress has been made in Politics, and Politics staff are more informed about and less hostile to decolonising initiatives than Economics staff. We locate one of the reasons for this difference in the epistemological and ideological idiosyncrasies of the dominant neoclassical paradigm in Economics. We therefore argue that initiatives to decolonise the curriculum must take into account potential discipline-specific obstacles.

Recent calls to ‘decolonise the curriculum’ are especially pertinent to the teaching of political theory, which has traditionally been dominated by a canon made up overwhelmingly of White (and male) thinkers. This article explores why and how political theory curricula might be decolonised. By mapping core political theory modules provided at UK universities, and examining associated textbooks, the article shows that non-White thinkers and discussions of colonialism and race are marginalised and neglected. It then argues that there are intellectual, political, and pedagogical reasons why this neglect is problematic and should be reversed. Finally, the article reflects on the experience of rewriting and delivering a core second-year undergraduate modern political thought module at a post-92 London university, including assessing the impact of the changes on the attainment gap between White students and Black and minority ethnic students.

Recent Foucauldian critiques of neoliberalism – especially those by Wendy Brown, Béatrice Hibou, and Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval – have argued that the Marxist interpretation of neoliberalism as a class project is reductive and economistic, and have instead conceptualised neoliberalism as a form of governmental rationality. This article compares these two influential approaches to understanding neoliberalism. It will outline the central features of the Foucauldian and Marxist approaches, assess the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, and argue that a synthesis of the two approaches is both possible and desirable. While the Foucauldian approach enables a microphysics of everyday neoliberalism and its modes of subjectivity, it is argued that such an analysis must be placed within the broader, macrostructural approach of Marxism. The article thus defends Marxism against its Foucauldian critique, while nonetheless encouraging Marxists to engage with Foucauldian accounts of neoliberalism which they have so far tended to ignore.

Contesting the central tenets of mainstream economic theory, Michael Sandel’s work on markets argues that the marketization of certain goods risks corrupting the value of those goods, and that a reinvigorated public discourse is needed to establish the appropriate use of markets. This article assesses Sandel’s work on markets, arguing that although it provides a convincing critique of liberal defenses of the market, it does not do enough to challenge marketization itself. To illuminate the flaws of Sandel’s argument, the article contrasts it with Marxist critiques of neoliberalism, arguing that the latter oppose the expansion of markets and market thinking in more comprehensive and productive ways. Specifically, it is argued that Sandel ignores the one market that underpins all other markets, namely the labor market; erroneously suggests that marketization is caused by the dominance of market thinking; and fails to appreciate the class interests that are served by growing marketization.

In recent years, the work of a diverse range of thinkers has been grouped together under the label ‘new materialism’. This article offers a critical introduction to new materialism that challenges its understanding of historical materialism. It aims to demonstrate not that historical materialism is superior to new materialism, but rather that the latter would benefit from engaging with rather than ignoring or dismissing the former. It begins by defining new materialism in relation to its reappraisal of science, its concept of agency and its underlying ontology. Second, it locates new materialism by demonstrating how and why many new materialists are hostile to historical materialism. Finally, it responds to new materialist criticisms of historical materialism, arguing both that there are potential areas of agreement between the two materialisms and that historical materialism offers valuable resources for analysing historically specific and asymmetric power relations.

This article is a review essay of Gareth Stedman Jones’s biography Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion. It begins by situating the book in relation to existing biographies before outlining Stedman Jones’s approach, which is to conceive of Marx’s works as interventions within contexts which the historian of ideas must reconstruct. I argue that although the book provides an excellent account of the political contexts within which Marx lived and worked, its interpretations of his writings are frequently ungenerous, unbalanced, and misleading. I defend Marx against charges that his work was economically confused, politically naïve, and overly abstract, using the Grundrisse in particular for illustrative purposes. I also take issue with Stedman Jones’s methodology, questioning whether it is desirable or possible to separate Marx from Marxism and return him to his nineteenth-century context. I end by suggesting that Stedman Jones’s attempt to return Marx to his context brings into focus the contexts of Stedman Jones’s own intellectual development.

Challenging claims of a recent ‘anarchist turn’, this article argues that calls for a ‘left convergence’ between anarchism and Marxism should be treated with caution. It sets out to establish what distinguishes Marxism from anarchism today, and argues that the former contains superior resources with which to challenge the current dominance of neoliberalism. In order to elucidate the strengths of Marxism, it addresses three common anarchist criticisms of Marxism, concerning its authoritarian strategies; its economic reductionism; and its lack of moral or ethical perspective. It argues that each of these criticisms inadvertently highlights the advantages of Marxism over anarchism.

Recent years have seen the development of a new form of anarchism. Under the label ‘postanarchism’, writers such as Todd May, Saul Newman and Lewis Call have sought to combine the insights of anarchism with those of recent Continental philosophy, in particular post-structuralism. A central but neglected element of postanarchist thought is its critique of Marxism. The main aim of this article is to counter the postanarchist dismissal of Marxism. It will: introduce the key ideas and arguments of postanarchism; locate its critique of Marxism, demonstrating its importance to the postanarchist project; and highlight weaknesses in the postanarchist critique of Marxism. It argues that the postanarchist portrayal of Marxism is reductive and misleading. Contrary to postanarchist claims, many post-structuralists have drawn inspiration from Marxism rather than rejecting it: as such, Marxism anticipates many of the post-structuralist-inflected ideas of postanarchism, in particular their approach to the state, power, subjectivity and politics. In addition, some Marxist criticisms of classical anarchism apply equally to postanarchism, thus raising questions to which postanarchists should respond.