Resultado de la entrevista semiestructurada; dirigida a trabajadores de ARTex,

As the previous sections have shown, both Gramsci’s and Barthes’ approaches to political analysis can be reconciled at various levels. While Gramsci’s and Barthes’ work is used to explain iRobot’s narrative, Cox is used to develop a broader framework, that situates the firm within the broader historical context in which the branding strategy was adopted. The framework allows to understand both why iRobot has developed the branding strategy along specific lines and the implications linked to its narrative.

In one of his seminal writings, Cox (1981) spells out his approach to political analysis. First, he draws the distinction between problem-solving and critical theory; while the first theoretical approach aims at achieving the smooth running of a given system, the latter adopts a critical stance toward the system and places emphasis on questioning its most fundamental aspects. Critical theory, he argues, ‘is critical in the sense that it stands apart from the prevailing order of the world and asks how that order came about. [It] does not take institutions and social power relations for granted but calls them into question’ (1981: 129).

Essentially, what critical theory does is take an aspect of human activity and construct the broader picture around it, in order to factor in the various forces at play in the situation examined, with the aim to understand both the initial aspect considered and the larger whole.

The picture of the configuration of forces is what Cox refers to as ‘historical structure’ (1981: 97). The forces he identifies are ideas, material capabilities and institutions and while these do not determine action in any mechanical sense, they do have an impact on both individuals and groups, as they define the parameters within

which these operate. The ways in which these forces interact is specific to every historical situation; thus, the configuration of forces must be derived from the study of particular cases. Cox also specifies that ‘the method of historical structures is one of representing […] limited totalities. The historical structure does not represent the whole world but rather a particular sphere of human activity in its historically located totality’ (1981: 100).

Cox identifies three levels to which he applies the historical structure method: social forces, forms of state and world orders (1981: 138). Each one of them, he argues, can be represented as specific configurations of the abovementioned forces; at the same time, the three spheres of activity are interrelated and all influence each other. When these are considered in relation to each other, it is possible to attain a ‘fuller representation of historical process’ (Cox, 1981: 138), which is key for political analysis. Cox explains,

In reaching for a political-economy perspective, we move from identifying the structural characteristics of world orders as configurations of material capabilities, ideas, and institutions […] to explaining their origins, growth, and demise in terms of the interrelationships of the three levels of structure (1981: 141).

In short, Cox’s method allows for an appreciation of the specific situation examined, as the various forces at play are mapped out and as connections between the various levels are drawn.

In line with Cox’s method, this section specifies the forces that have shaped the post 9/11 context. The historical structure should be considered keeping in mind that similarly to ideal types, historical structures ‘provide, in a logically coherent form, a simplified representation of a complex reality and an expression of tendencies, limited in their applicability to time and space, rather than fully realised developments’ (Cox, 1981:

137). For clarity purposes, a graphic illustration representing the historicised triangles is provided (Figure 4.1. – see below).

The forces identified in the historical structure are the following: widespread military ideas, including militaristic approaches to conflict (ideas), the military institution and DoD agencies, such as DARPA (institutions), and the military industry and technologies (material capabilities); in turn, these forces interact with each other. The widespread military ideas derived from the influence of the military institution; these ideas were spread at the societal level as a result of policies adopted by various US administrations that granted the military access to the civilian realm. The military institutions as a whole affected material capabilities, as they played a role in determining which military technologies were developed. The latter were also affected by the ideas present in society, as widespread military ideas tended to justify increased levels of spending to devote to the development of military technologies.

The historical structure is then applied to the three levels identified by Cox; social forces, forms of state and world orders. The structure impacted the social forces as people from lower social strata were increasingly recruited by the military, in order to meet the demands of the military institution in the context of the War on Terror. It also impacted the elites, as political elites devised policies aimed at confronting the terrorist threat, but also business managers, who attempted to make profits by capitalising on the situation, e.g. businesses establishing links with the military. iRobot can be thought in these terms: while it was already producing for the military, it developed its brand and narrative in line with hegemonic ideas present at the societal level.

Figure 4.1. Framework inspired by Cox (1981)

The historical structure also had effects on the state, as it became increasingly focused on security concerns, leading to higher levels of surveillance in the homeland.

Finally, the historical structure impacted the world order due to the adoption of an aggressive foreign policy on the part of the US, in line with the military ideas present

By considering iRobot within the broader picture, it can be seen that iRobot’s narrative has important implications, as it contributes to diffusing ideas that have important consequences at the three levels of activity.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a more detailed insight into both Gramsci's and Barthes's theoretical elaborations than the one provided in the chapter detailing the research design underpinning the investigation. By explaining how Gramsci's and Barthes's theoretical elaborations are compatible at various levels, the chapter has contributed to providing a more solid theoretical foundation for the investigation.

The various sections of the chapters have demonstrated that both Gramsci's and Barthes's approaches are inspired by the Marxist tradition of political analysis; that they both attribute great relevance to the study of cultural phenomena in the study of politics, such as language and visual means, at least for Barthes; and they share a similar aim, as they both attempt to expose how common sense and myth contribute to the reproduction of the capitalist system, as ideology is circulated in society through various channels.

Chapter 5

Blurring the Lines between the Civilian and the Military Spheres: