ideas of the author are taken up by appropriators and used by them for purposes of their own. Such readings reflect the interests and concerns of the appropriator and not necessarily those of the author. The import of these conceptual distinctions to Gramsci studies could be highly significant. After all, when approaching his texts readers should be clear in their own minds which of these activities they are performing -- interpreting, appropriating, or negotiating -- in developing a reading of Gramsci. In my earlier work, Unravelling Gramsci , such interpretative groundwork was attempted, specifically in heeding Gramsci's own method of absolute historicism when reading texts germane to the past and present. In recently surveying a "new phase" in the use of Gramsci's ideas and writings, it has been astutely remarked by Marcus Green and Peter Ives in Rethinking Marxism that one might hope for 'a turn away from the all-too-common invocation of Gramsci in vague repetitions of compelling but general motifs'. In my view, one result may be the prevalence elsewhere of devout but errant students producing vague repetitions and invocations of Gramsci's thought that are reliant on an unreflexive appropriation of, rather than negotiation with, Gramsci (see here my post 'Turkey: what kind of passive revolution?' ). Now might be an apposite moment to provide greater clarity and self-reflexiveness on what method or hermeneutic approach one actually adopts when reading Gramsci. Share this: One Response to "Reading Gramsci" I am delighted that Adam Morton has found my new theoretical