Abstract Institutional fields are not static, they undergo times of fragmentation and times of settlement. Neo-institutional research has long explained the settlement of fields as either the effect of political manoeuvring of actors, or of discursive activity influencing cultural codes, narratives and symbols. But can these processes really be considered in isolation? In this paper, we propose to adopt a comprehensive view on fields’ dynamics, one that embraces the interaction of political and discursive manoeuvring to explain how fragmented fields manage to settle. To do so, we build on the Gramscian concept of hegemonic practices as discursive and political processes that integrate cultural equivalence among actors with political alliances based on aligned interests. Hegemonic practices align actors in a new historical bloc (a new settlement). Through this lens, we interpret the case of the Italian State steel privatization (1984–1995) and propose a process model explaining what yields fields’ dynamics from fragmentation to settlement. The model highlights the action of diffused agency in field dynamics, thus overcoming the obsolete challenger/incumbent view, and the need of becoming a historical bloc for alliances to stabilize a field.

中文翻译：

---

关于场动力学的克西恩观点。意大利钢铁工业私有化案例

摘要 制度领域不是一成不变的，它们经历着碎片化时代和沉淀时代。新制度研究长期以来一直将场域的聚落解释为行动者政治操纵的结果，或者影响文化代码、叙事和符号的话语活动。但是这些过程真的可以孤立地考虑吗？在本文中，我们建议对领域动态采取一种全面的观点，这种观点包含政治和话语策略的相互作用，以解释碎片化的领域如何设法解决。为此，我们将葛兰西的霸权实践概念作为话语和政治过程，将行为者之间的文化对等与基于一致利益的政治联盟相结合。霸权实践使行动者在一个新的历史集团（一个新的定居点）中结盟。通过这个镜头，我们解释了意大利国家钢铁私有化（1984-1995）的案例，并提出了一个过程模型，解释了是什么产生了从破碎到定居的油田动态。该模型突出了分散机构在领域动态中的作用，从而克服了过时的挑战者/现任观点，以及成为联盟稳定领域的历史集团的需要。