Merely calling neoliberals fractured fails to define neoliberalism.

Evidence

This practice was first advocated in Plehwe and Walpen (2006). One should compare this device to other attempts to define neoliberalism, such as those found in Soederberg, Menz, and Cerny (2005); Cerny (2008); Robison (2006); Boas and Gans-Morse (2006); and Castree (2008) to see how it is necessary to go beyond the ineffectual observation that the neoliberals are “fractured” or otherwise diverse. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 2173

Categorization

• XREF: This echoes the methodological debate in recent historiography of ideas about whether internal diversity invalidates intellectual labels — parallels the ‘network vs. faction’ framing seen elsewhere in the book. — connects to: Neoliberalism lacks a stable meaning or historically specific constituency — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 17; Neoliberalism’s contested definition does not make the term analytically useless — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 15; Neoliberalism lacks unified theory and is riven by real internal conflict — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 45

Broader Connections

• Neoliberalism’s contested definition does not make the term analytically useless #expands (0.82) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 15