SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4297799295> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±103 with 100 items per page.

W4297799295 abstract "Any approach to the legacy of Antonio Gramsci represents a substantial challenge. Today, the thinking of this Italian intellectual is not only acknowledged as one of the most significant contributions to 20th century social theory, but has also been one of the most frequently employed frameworks for different disciplines and approaches. His categories, and especially his further development of the concept of hegemony, have provided the basis for new approaches in fields that include international relations, political theory, critical geography, literary criticism, media studies, and feminism, and for entirely new fields such as cultural and postcolonial studies.1 The international success of Gramsci's work, now considered essential reading in political theory, derived from the political and cultural atmosphere of Cold War Europe as well as from its very favorable reception within the emancipation movements in the United States. While this first phase of the international spread of Gramsci's thinking was characterized by the explicitly political use of his writing within the context of Marxist internationalism (Liguori, 2012), a second phase, coinciding with the new century and reaching almost all corners of the globe, has been characterized by a shift in the application of Gramscian theoretical instruments which has sometimes resulted in the detachment, often unintentional, of his concepts from the Marxist spheres in which they were forged (Filippini, 2017; Frosini, 2008). The “globalization” of Gramsci, or, to paraphrase Dipesh Chakrabarty (2000), the provincialization of Gramsci (meaning the fragmentation and weakening of Gramsci's concepts as a way of giving them new life in different contexts; see also Harootunian, 2020) is not incompatible with a philological reading of his work, as Joseph Buttigieg (1990) and Italian scholarship have abundantly demonstrated (Baratta, 2000; Cospito, 2016; Di Meo, 2020; Frosini & Liguori, 2004; Francioni & Giasi, 2020). However, the propensity to distance the central and most prolifically applied concept, “hegemony,” from the “rhythm of his thought” (Cospito, 2016) has clearly been fraught with potential danger (Baker, 2016). The wide dissemination and application of Gramscian concepts and thinking has also been given impetus by the recent “global rise of populism,” seen as further confirmation of Gramsci's theoretical modernity (Mouffe, 2018). While these developments have emphasized the emancipatory and critical spirit of Gramsci's reflections, they have also given rise to new interpretations in varying contexts, and have prevented a full appreciation and further operationalization of Gramsci's theoretical apparatus in fields such as historiography and intellectual history (Denning, 2020; Harker, 2021; Lacy, 2014; Kaye, 1992). In this article, I tease out the different aspects of the appropriation of Gramsci's thinking by Anglo-Marxism, from the 1960s onward, in the context of the British debate, in the field of political theory, regarding the “crisis of democracy.” Building on a methodological platform located at the intersection of transnational intellectual history and hegemony theory, I offer a more theoretically nuanced articulation of “Gramscianism,” restoring the importance that Gramsci gave to a historical perspective, by critically evaluating three of the British appropriations: the application by Perry Anderson, the uses made by Stuart Hall, and the displacement into the area of populism by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Although overlooked more recently in favor of other frameworks of investigation (Pensky, 2019), research into the Anglo-Marxist school of thought, and especially into the “New Left,” was a discrete area of interest in the 1990s (see Dworkin, 1997; Roberts, 1997); nevertheless, the isolation of a distinct “British case” might appear to be an artificial heuristic operation in light of the porous borders of the well-documented international reception of Gramsci's thought (see Boothman et al., 2015; Descendre et al., 2020; Manduchi et al., 2017; Schirru, 2009). However, the first publication outside Italy of any of Gramsci's writing was the English translation of some shorter extracts, in, 1957, followed in, 1971 by Selections From the Prison Notebooks (hereafter SPN) (Gramsci, 1971), which triggered the emergence of Gramsci as a global phenomenon.2 The history of his reception, application, adaptation, and further circulation in the English-speaking context was therefore of central importance (Buttigieg, 2018). While most scholarship on Gramsci does accept his historical approach as central (especially Burgio, 2014), this article's critical investigation into the appropriation and transmutation of Gramsci's concept of hegemony in the anglophone context reveals that Gramsci's “historicity”—the historical perspective and awareness that was an inherent element of his thinking—has been increasingly set aside, and in consequence the theoretical novelty of his reflections has not been fully captured. Gramsci's interest in the “production of the past within the present” (Q 10 II § 41: 1310; Q 11 § 12: 1376, SPN: 323) provides him with a basis for developing the theoretical matrix of “conceptions of the world” (Q 4 § 1: 419; Q 101 § 5: 1217; Q 1.1 § 10: 1231) as a particular understanding of politics as temporal “displacements,” and as a “reconfiguration” of different layers of history (Q 11 § 12: 1375−79, SPN: 323−325; Q 13 § 17: 1585, SPN: 182).3 Drawing on recent trends in the studies into Gramsci's plural temporalities (Morfino, 2020; Thomas, 2017), my argument is based on the idea that Gramsci's thought is constantly situated: always driven by the necessity “of seeing things historically” (Q 10 II § 28: 1266, SPN: 369) and motivated by thinking in historical and contextual, but never absolute, terms. Gramsci's reflections on politics as a plurality of temporalities informs most of his themes, including the formation of the modern state and the role of intellectuals (Q 7 § 16: 865−867, SPN: 236−238; Q 12 § 1: 1513−1540, SPN: 5−14), the hierarchy between philosophy and ideology (Q 7 § 35: 883−886, SPN: 351−357; Q 11 § 12: 1379, SPN: 325; Q 11 § 62; 1487, SPN: 404), and in particular his innovative reflections on language and dialects (see Ives, 2004). Moreover, Gramsci's consideration of the “Southern Question” (see Urbinati, 1998) and, in particular, his engagement with Bukharin's teleological conception of linear historical time (Q 11 § 26: 1431−1434; extract in SPN: 425−427; see Frosini, 2003) are intrinsically connected to his conception of the coexistence of multiple temporalities. The history of the alleged “abuse and misuses” of Gramsci's thinking is as long as the history of his reception, and has unfolded in step with Gramsci's continuing success (see Davidson, 2008; Diggins, 1988). To avoid the exaggerations that either limit its application to his specific historical time or, in diametrical opposition, generate new formulations that risk breaking the connection between events and their historical context, which for Gramsci was an essential relationship, I approach ideas, and the texts and intellectual networks that are their channels, as mobile by nature (Baring, 2016). Framing my argument in such a way assumes a methodological approach to the connection between theory and history that remains better captured by the term “praxis” and by what Gramsci understood as the relationship between ideology and philosophy: an integral and nonreductive conception of the world (Cospito, 2019; Thomas, 2009). My intention here is not to establish a full set of new norms for the interpretation of Gramsci, but, more in keeping with the stage of my research, to emphasize the importance of understanding the concept of hegemony as both a political practice and at the same time a historical process: to use Gramscian terms, a dynamic relationship between different layers of “displaced pasts” that have been “reconfiguring” in the ongoing process of “translating” history and theory (see Boothman, 2008; Thomas, 2019). This approach has implications for further research, which I will introduce in the final section. I propose that the issue of hegemony should be seen as a complex intertwining of temporalities that cuts across individuals, social groups, and institutions, and is—according to Gramsci—multiple, stratified, and also affected by spatiality. This plural temporality is a process in which the ongoing results are not by accumulation but, on the contrary, by cross-negotiation with hegemonic apparatuses and intellectuals playing a pivotal role, and in which a “situated praxis” (Tosel, 2016) displays the dialectical drive toward “unity of the society,” a critical and practical human activity (described by Gramsci as “the historical bloc”; see Sotiris, 2018). According to Anne Showstack Sassoon (2000), one of Gramsci's major contributions is the recognition of the importance of historical reflection as a precondition for expanding democracy and as the foundation for construction of a theoretical and political agenda, rather than using history merely to denounce the past. While acknowledging the weight of history, Gramsci derived “a theoretical and political agenda from the problems and possibilities of the present and future rather than from a programme of the past” (p. 4). Within this conceptual boundary, hegemony can therefore be regarded as a form of articulation and intertwining of different times and temporal experiences simultaneously present at a particular historical conjuncture, which provides the basis for progressive and transformative political action. In line with Gramsci's innovative notion of “translatability”—close to the concept of “transposability,” which involves finding matches or differences between “idioms”—I would suggest that the history-theory nexus can be understood as the ability to transpose—finding correspondences or differentiations—between temporally and spatially different political and cultural ways of thinking and acting in a country at a given moment.4 From this angle, Gramsci's historicity resumes its crucial importance as the method for reformulating Marxism as a “philosophy of praxis” and “living philology” (Thomas, 2020). It is evident that the temporal dimension of hegemony, although generally marginalized by the authors examined in this article, is conceptually related to Gramsci's theory of subalternity (see Chakrabarty, 1998; Ekers et al., 2012; Spivak, 2007). In this regard, Gramsci's changing paradigm of inquiry, from focusing on strategies of inclusion to questioning the social and cultural conditions of subordination and exclusion, represents a crucial shift not only for political theory but also for historical analysis. The outbreak of “history from below” in the 1960s and the distinctive British Marxist historiography, for which the study of class formation was linked with the cycles of hegemony, can be parallel to the process investigated in this article. The British Marxist understanding of historical development led to the establishment of a distinctive approach to democratic and socialist strategies in which the recovery of the past was also a project that would assist a theoretical and political understanding of the present (see Kaye, 1992). My account of Gramsci's undertaking remains epistemologically limited to a historical reconstruction of British Marxist political and intellectual discourse. Reclaiming Gramsci's historicity and “his” hegemony as historical categories proves valuable for my approach to a transnational discourse that was reconsidering the dyad of materialism and democracy, and had been welcoming the “linguistic turn.” In this regard, exploring the sphere of the main Anglophone appropriations of Gramsci's thinking may offer us an interdisciplinary resource that can help us to understand the current crisis of democracy and give us the opportunity for political action and renewal. Gramsci's thinking arrived in Britain across a broad spatial, historical, and cultural gap. The Notebooks had for a long time been principally an Italian concern, closely connected to the history of the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and the way in which its post-WWII leader Palmiro Togliatti had tried to foster a link between Marxism and the national intellectual tradition. The first printing (Gramsci, 1948–1951), edited by Togliatti himself in collaboration with Felice Platone, created a sort of double register for the study of Gramsci in which historical reconstruction and critical evaluation ran in parallel with applications of his thought to contemporary politics. This is the background for the particular impact of the Italian thinker in Britain. It is generally thought that his ideas contributed to freeing British Marxism from “economism” and helped the Left to interpret Thatcherism and the process of globalization. This translation into the British context involved the overdevelopment of one aspect of Gramsci's work at the expense of others; the explanation for this imbalance lies in the political needs that his texts have served to fulfil (Forgacs, 2002; see also Eley, 1984; Williams, 1960, in which the author keeps “egemonia” in Italian; Williams, 1975). The turning point in British awareness of Gramsci came in 1971, with publication of the first extensive selection of his writings in English. Although SPN reflected the Italian version, edited by Platone and Togliatti and published by Einaudi (Gramsci, 1948–1951), the two translators Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith had access to Gramsci's original manuscripts and the first draft of Valentino Gerratana's critical Italian edition, which was to be published in 1975. The “Introduction,” largely written by Hoare, presented a strong “leftist” Gramsci, in harmony with the radical interpretation favored by the British readership and in explicit opposition to the “inter-class” version endorsed by the PCI. In order to provide a better translation of Gramsci's language, Hoare and Nowell Smith adopted neologisms and created a completely new English vocabulary; this both refreshed British political discourse and influenced the global reception and reworking of Gramsci's thinking (Boothman, 2013; Boothman et al., 2015). The earlier arrival in the Anglophone world of translations of some of Gramsci's (1957a, 1957b) writing had exerted some influence, especially in relation to the formation of the British Marxist school of historiography. Eric Hobsbawm's (1959) book on archaic forms of social movement in Italy and Spain, for example, used Gramsci's conceptualization of the “Southern Question” and an embryonic formulation of hegemony. However, Perry Anderson's engagement in the pages of the New Left Review with Gramsci's concepts, especially that of “hegemony,” opened the way for their wider exposure in British intellectual circles. Before he published “The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci” (1976a)—an essay that is still much quoted in the Anglo-American theoretical debate notwithstanding its inconsistencies and distortions have been abundantly demonstrated (Buttigieg, 1994; Dal Maso, 2021; Francioni, 1984; Thomas, 2009)—Anderson employed Gramsci's theoretical framework in his article “Origins of the present crisis” (Anderson, 1964), in which he offered a structural analysis of British historical development through the prism of Gramsci's “passive revolution.” Much influenced by Tom Nairn (1964a, 1964b, 1964c, 1964d), who had come into contact with Gramsci's oeuvre during his time in Italy at Pisa's Scuola Normale Superiore, Anderson was particularly inspired by Gramsci's endeavor to view Italian history as diverging from what had been seen as the normal pattern of bourgeois historical development. Anderson argued that the particular character of England's modern history was as exceptional as Italy's failed national and bourgeois revolutions (examples of what Anderson called “historical pathology”). In the Italian case, the Risorgimento, understood as a failed revolution, had relegated the progress of Italian society to a premodern stage; in the English case, by contrast, construction of a “historical bloc” from the landowning class, representing aristocratic capitalism, and a “supine bourgeoisie,” the social class of mercantile capitalism, created a traditional hegemonic culture and ultimately prevented the formation of a radical proletariat. “Passive revolution,” like other terms used by Gramsci, has different meanings in the Notebooks and underwent a process of transformation from a concept developed to indicate the absence of revolutionary politics—the Jacobin moment—in the process of nation-building in Italy, to, in the third and final phase of Gramsci's reflections, a theoretical and historical term emphasizing the logic of the process of modernization and the social displacement of capitalism (see Thomas, 2015; Voza, 2004). Explicitly drawing on Gramsci's analysis of Italian history, and also inspired by his observations on the French, German, and British bourgeois revolutions (Q 1, § 41: 53; SPN: 77), Anderson's application of this thinking failed to understand that the main purpose of Gramsci's historical reflections had been to explain the rise of Italian Fascism in the context of the inherent and insuperable tension between democracy and the state.5 The development of the Gramscian Nairn–Anderson thesis might be better understood in the light of its first appearance, in the Italian journal Il Contemporaneo (Nairn, 1963), and when placed in the context of the debate within Italian Marxism, which from the 1960s onward expressed increasing hostility toward the approved version of Italian Gramscianism (Liguori, 2012). However, Gramsci's thinking, filtered by the lens of Nairn and Anderson, won over a new British audience: portraying a highbrow Gramscianism, which became very popular in academic circles, their thesis represented a powerful alternative to the cultural Marxism of E. P. Thompson, Raphael Samuel, and Stuart Hall (Davis, 2006, 2013). Furthermore, as a concrete political project, Anderson's Gramscianism provided an appealing first theoretical attempt at a critique of Laborism and the stagnant corporatism of the British Labor Party in the 1960s and 1970s (see Campsie, 2021; Wickham-Jones, 2003). It is therefore clear that this particular assimilation of Gramsci's ideas enjoyed extensive popularity, and it continues to attract interest and support, especially within post-New Labor discourse (see the reissue of Nairn's essay of 1977 in Nairn, 2019). Anderson's particular interpretive perspective found fuller articulation in his essay “The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci” (1976a) and book Considerations on Western Marxism (1976b); both texts had a major influence on almost everyone who subsequently engaged with Gramsci's thinking. The purpose of Anderson's analysis was to focus on “the precise forms and functions of Gramsci's concept of hegemony in his Prison Notebooks, and to assess their internal coherence as a unified discourse; to consider their validity as an account of the typical structures of class power in the bourgeois democracies of the West; and finally, to weigh their strategic consequences for the struggle of the working class to achieve emancipation and socialism” (1976a, p. 7). Anderson focused his attention on Gramsci's theory regarding the different political structures of the East and West and the correspondingly different revolutionary strategies appropriate to each, which determined the contrasting practices of the “war of maneuver,” for the former case, and the “war of position,” for the latter. His main theoretical objectives were, first, to emphasize the idea that Gramsci's concept of hegemony both had continuity with and was a distortion of Lenin's notion, and, second, to argue that Gramsci had inaccurately separated the theory of hegemony from its original basis in class structure and, above all, by the importance he awarded to the autonomous dimension of culture. Anderson argued that “against [Gramsci's] own intention, formal conclusions can be drawn from his work that lead away from revolutionary socialism” (p. 58). Drawing on Gianni Francioni's (1984) extensive examination, Peter Thomas (2009) has presented a very thorough critique of the theoretical and philological limits of Anderson's analysis, whose conceptual slippage in regard to Gramsci's thinking about hegemony was due to his lack of attention to the chronology of passages in the Notebooks. A criticism that had been already raised by Buttigieg (1994, 2018) and reproposed by Juan Dal Maso (2021). Anderson (2017) has recently presented a more nuanced version of his argument. It is noteworthy, however, that his interpretation keeps circulating in the British cultural Marxist debate, mainly thanks to Anderson's ability to offer a totalizing picture of Gramsci's political thought, and his assumptions regarding this represented a fresh impetus for all Anglophone Marxists (Pensky, 2019; see also Blackledge, 2004). The attraction of Anderson's analysis of Gramsci's concept of hegemony was boosted by its shared ground with the well-known critique by Louis Althusser in Lire le Capital (Althusser et al., 1965): both approaches agree on the need to unveil the “false” revolutionary nature of Gramsci's political thought (Matthews, 2013). Althusser had started reading Gramsci in the 1950s in the Italian left-wing press and thanks to the circulation in France of a number of unauthorized translations, and made some positive comments in his article “Contradiction et surdétermination” (Althusser, 1965). In the turmoil leading up to 1968, however, he developed an increasingly harsh critique of Gramsci alongside his condemnation of Sartre's existentialism. While Jacques Texier's very successful but incomplete translation of the Notebooks appeared in, 1966, a fuller French version was not published until the late 1970s and early 1980s. Although Althusser was extremely critical of Gramsci's approach, he was in fact also the principal conduit for the arrival of Gramsci's thinking in French theoretical debate (Marasco, 2019); this followed a course that ran broadly parallel to Gramsci's theoretical fortunes in the Anglophone world. These parallel trajectories have provided the background for all further developments in British Gramscianism and Gramscian studies including, most recently, the “postmodern post-Marxist Gramsci” offered by political theory (Thomas, 2019). Having made its forceful entry into the British environment, the concept of hegemony started to emerge in the 1970s as an explanation for the way that popular and shared ideas could overdetermine social reality at a particular political conjuncture. Gramsci's theory of hegemony could be described as a response to the monolithic notion of ideology, involving introduction of the idea of processes of transaction and negotiation between a complex web of different hegemonies (ideological, economic, political, linguistic, and cultural). However, the danger of an unwarranted extension of this understanding is that Gramsci's hegemony will principally be seen as a “field” of lived social relationships in a given social formation disconnected from historical sedimentation. From this perspective, hegemonic politics becomes the process of securing the consent of a newly formed collective political subject in opposition to an already existing one, and hegemony emerges as a process of linear temporalities which culminates in a contemporaneous unity (see Thomas, 2020). Given the criticism directed at Perry Anderson, it is ironic that he argued that Stuart Hall's application of Gramsci's thinking was responsible for further “misuses” of the concept of hegemony. Reiterating his unchanged and particular understanding of Gramsci, he observed that in the years of consensus under Thatcherism “the accent fell too persistently on ideological capture at the expense of material inducements, and ideological motifs themselves became—never explicitly, but with insufficient precaution—too liable to disconnexion from any social anchorage, as if they could float free in any political direction […]. Hall could and would never have taken this step. But the door was left ajar for it” (Anderson, 2017, p. 92).6 Hall discovered Gramsci in 1964 when he met the cultural theorist Lidia Curti, who brought with her a copy of the Italian edition of Gramsci's Letters when she first enrolled at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham.7 Starting his activity there and initiating a distinct field of British cultural studies (Morley & Chen, 1996), Hall made prominent use of the concept of hegemony in his analysis of areas of cultural struggle such as race, identity, and gender (Matthews, 2013). More importantly for the focus of my analysis, he was at the same time employing the concept to deconstruct the consensus enjoyed by Margaret Thatcher: he argued that her success resulted from the establishment of a new conservative “historical bloc,” whose primary feature had been the capacity to “seize” the apparatus of popular culture and, in consequence, the consent of the working class. He saw this development as a new British form of what Gramsci had called “trasformismo” (transformism): “the neutralization of some elements in an ideological formation and their absorption and passive appropriation into a new political configuration” (Hall, 1983, p. 31). Gramsci had introduced his own particular version of trasformismo in his discussion of the Moderates of Italy's liberal era (Q 1, § 44: 40−54; revised in Q 19 § 24: 2010−2034; extract in SPN: 57−59). While Hall used various core concepts from Gramsci's lexicon to address Thatcher's political revolution, including “organic crisis” and “regressive modernization,” “hegemony” constituted the main theoretical pillar for his analysis of Thatcherism (Shock, 2020). Hall had delineated the concept of, “Thatcherism” in an article in the magazine Marxism Today some months before the Conservative Party's victory in the British general election of, 1979, and developed his formulation in later articles; here, he described it as a political phenomenon because it was a cultural one. In phrases such as “the Thatcherites know that they must ‘win’ in civil society” and “they understand […] the consequences of the generalization of the social struggle to new arenas and the need to have a strategy” (Hall, 1983, p. 31), abundant use was made of Gramsci's lexicon and conceptual constructs; the new course of British politics was depicted as a distinctive and hegemonic narrative whose political nature could best be understood by employing the perspective of cultural analysis. For Hall, then, a Gramscian approach was crucial not only because he “refuses any idea of a pregiven unified ideological subject,” which frees the realm of culture and ideas from the cage of materiality, but, above all, because he awarded a central importance to “the ‘plurality’ of selves or identities of which the so-called ‘subject’ of thought and ideas is composed” (Hall, 1986, p. 22). Hall never laid out a properly developed theory around his adopted concept of “hegemony,” but its great evocative power gave the word an enduring status.8 In a further analytical development, he linked it to his use of the concept of “authoritarian populism” (Hall, 1982). Building on Nicos Poulantzas’ (1978) notion of “authoritarian statism”, which referred to the outcome of a shift away from a political culture of consent and toward a system based on explicit coercion, Hall put forward “authoritarian populism” as a better description of the hegemonic project of Thatcherism by developing Gramsci's conception of hegemony to mean “ruling by consensus,” in the context of the crisis of the social democratic model. While Poulantzas’ characterization of authoritarian statism as a response to the crisis of Western capitalism was strongly influenced by the experience of the Greek dictatorship of the 1970s, Hall introduced the more nuanced concept of “populism” to address the phenomenon of Thatcherism. He sought to understand the simultaneous presence in post-Fordist British society of both the process of traditional political legitimation and the discursive resemioticization of national identity, the latter induced by a premodern nostalgia for empire and the “moral panic” over immigration (1978), which he described as the main feature of Thatcherite authoritarian populism. The zenith of this hegemonic project was the emotional engagement of the public over the Falklands–Malvinas war, colorfully analyzed by Hall (1982) in his article “The empire strikes back.” Undoubtedly, the notion of “authoritarian populism” nets some of the crucial features of the distinction between the “political” and the “economic” that Gramsci had advanced by developing his concept of hegemony. Although Gramsci's conception is to be understood as an ensemble of social relations in which there is no separation, but correlation, between political and economic aspects of hegemony, drawing from Gramsci's elaboration, Hall (1980) yet furthered a clear distinction between Thatcherism as a populist project—acknowledged as “a remarkable and intensive ideological struggle”—and fascism, to which the former had been equated in some superficial left-wing analyses.9 An important aspect of Hall's argument condemned this tempting simplification, emphasizing the fact that “unlike classical fascism, [Thatcherism] has retained most (though not all) of the formal representative institution in place” (Hall, 1979, p. 15). He also condemned another “temptation,” the simplistic application of a clichéd “Marxism as a theory of the obvious” in an attempt to portray the new phenomenon as an expression of capital and the bourgeoisie; Hall argued that t" @default.
W4297799295 created "2022-10-01" @default.
W4297799295 creator A5067247651 @default.
W4297799295 date "2022-03-29" @default.
W4297799295 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
W4297799295 title "Reclaiming Gramsci's “historicity”: A critical analysis of the British appropriation in light of the “crisis of democracy”" @default.
W4297799295 cites W1976415452 @default.
W4297799295 cites W1998087881 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2018880610 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2028962881 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2042312723 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2044487449 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2046329569 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2060258798 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2066770890 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2090106662 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2094376527 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2107935612 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2133469581 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2139448318 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2319020414 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2329125665 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2334062466 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2346645485 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2554986286 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2606711481 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2635750850 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2736551281 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2768390060 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2777449484 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2790802515 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2912908824 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2967887764 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2971966000 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2985286080 @default.
W4297799295 cites W2993997251 @default.
W4297799295 cites W3017480279 @default.
W4297799295 cites W3019803877 @default.
W4297799295 cites W3119157271 @default.
W4297799295 cites W406608735 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4213207562 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4229711925 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4229713718 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4233047401 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4233557712 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4233614647 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4237587217 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4240196096 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4246094213 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4246575225 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4248420358 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4251184431 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4253010523 @default.
W4297799295 cites W4253289596 @default.
W4297799295 cites W63972737 @default.
W4297799295 cites W880455727 @default.
W4297799295 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12614" @default.
W4297799295 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
W4297799295 type Work @default.
W4297799295 citedByCount "0" @default.
W4297799295 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W4297799295 hasAuthorship W4297799295A5067247651 @default.
W4297799295 hasBestOaLocation W42977992951 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C113706210 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C136968873 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C138921699 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C2776931063 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
W4297799295 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C111472728 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C113706210 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C136968873 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C138885662 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C138921699 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C144024400 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C17744445 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C199539241 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C2776931063 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C29595303 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C555826173 @default.
W4297799295 hasConceptScore W4297799295C94625758 @default.
W4297799295 hasLocation W42977992951 @default.
W4297799295 hasOpenAccess W4297799295 @default.
W4297799295 hasPrimaryLocation W42977992951 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W1515469579 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W2365699519 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W2790916334 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W2808520553 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W2896271898 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W3048818947 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W3106506428 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W3184426879 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W4377019184 @default.
W4297799295 hasRelatedWork W4381193450 @default.