Hegemony discursive theory Laclau-Mouffe

Hegemony discursive theory Laclau-Mouffe is a political and philosophical concept developed by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. It was originally presented in the book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985), and then it was developed in a number of publications and the new edition of the book of 2001. The theory is on a joint of post-Marxism and post-structuralism. The concept is considered as serious criticism of post-structuralist positions of opportunities of metatheories use in social science.[1]

Sources of the concept and methodology

In the conditions of a general crisis in alternative thought in 1970's, crash of orthodox Marxism and distribution of a concept of "identity policy"[2] authors committed to plan theoretical justification of left policy in the conditions of the right turn.[3]

A concept of cultural hegemony of Antonio Gramsci which is going back to works of the 1920s is a centre of the theory. An important source is the concept of ideology in Louis Althusser's interpretation.[4] In the Laclau-Mouffe theory an original concept of hegemony gets rid of class aspect and is synthesized with other directions. Authors address for the methodical principles to post-structuralism (first of all to a deconstruction of Derrida), and also to Lacan's concept of the subject. The policy of identity is a target for criticism. The concept of the political is built according to this. The formula of Derrida "everything is a discourse" is taken as a basis. The discourse in rendering Laclau-Mouffe is a way of formation and the organization of social life, actually is a set of any social practices. All practices are a priori discursive and displayed through values in language. This post-structuralist concept of a discourse goes back to the work of Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.[5] The impossibility of a direct explanation of the phenomenon, that is a direct access to a phenomenon (phenomenology), a referent (analytic philosophy) and a sign (structuralism) is the cornerstone of concept.

Fundamental regulations

The term political represents a fundamental measurement preceding public.[6] The policy is a part of discursive practice and way of formation and change of the social world. Society doesn't exist as the objective phenomenon, it is in continuous formation[7] (for example, formation of the united nation). A contradiction between utility and partial is essentially unsoluble, and, so objective existence of society is impossible. Universalistic rationality of the Enlightenment is denied (in the form of Habermas and Rawls theories). The Postmodern particularism (Lyotard and Baudrillard)[8][9] and objective existence of class interests are also denied.[10] The universal (whole) is necessary, but it is understood as constant political process in the formation.

The theory is built round the following basic concepts:[11] articulation, antagonism, subject, hegemony.

An articulation is a formation of the structured discourses. The articulation connects the elements, but this process is essentially not complete. This process happens in open field of a discourse. The discourse seeks for fixing, centering,[12] however as meanings always keep a certain fluidity, accurate fixing of a discourse as "essence" is impossible. Moreover, there is a tendency to dispersion of meanings, and, so to blasting the discursive practices and social systems.

The concept of antagonism is a key element of the theory.[13] The antagonism means constant negativity and lack of positivity of participants of antagonism that attracts impossibility of objectivity formation. The negativism and objectivity are incompatible. The antagonism is limit of any objectivity[14] and is understood not as fight or opposition, and more likely as continuous denial of other discourse and definition negatively. The antagonism attracts impossibility of final appearance of society.

An individual is understood in tradition of Lacan as initially defective.[15] A subject is not the person, and a position in a discourse. Taking a position, the individual becomes a subject. In the modern world the subject seeks to become the radical subject, in fact the intermediary between reality and myth. The modern reality is inclined to constant gaps which should be filled artificially, and these holes are filled with the myth. Thus, the radical subject is the myth. As the myth is alternative of reality, a metaphor, so the radical subject is a metaphor. The myth is constantly updated, and, so the radical subject can infinitely be updated. At infinite is updating, the social imagined joins. Thus metaphors of "Containing a thousand", "Enlightenment", "future communism" and so on are so formed.[16]

Among the discursive practices (all practices are a priori discursive) at different stages the centers of hegemony that arise from private are allocated and take place of universal for a certain time.[17] Hegemony formation always has political character.[18] Any universal (whole) initially doesn't exist. Hegemony doesn't always arise. Emergence of hegemony requires existence of the issued antagonistic forces and ability of elements of these forces to move from one force to another. For lack of the second condition hegemony won't arise. No hegemony is eternal. Thus, social systems replace each other incidentally, chaotically. Social systems in fact are casual, but it means not absence of any logic in social systems (as the individual always is in concrete situations), and postulation of impossibility of exact justification of any social system existence.[19]

Radical democracy

On the basis of the theory Laclau and Mouffe offered the project of radical democracy according to which the concept of political "enemy" (in Carl Schmitt's tradition) should be replaced with concept of "rival". The radical democracy means saving of the basic democratic rules, but thus rivals differently interpret them for implementation of social changes.[20] In such political struggle there are antagonistic processes in a gender, ethnic, national discourse.[21]

Influence

The concept had a great influence on the theory of social movements and post-colonial research[22] and actually marked emergence of post-Marxism as a direction in social sciences.[23]

Appreciation

According to Slavoj Žižek, Laclau-Mouffe's concept is something bigger, than application of post-structuralism to political measurement. Novelty of the theory, by Žižek, consists in conceptual similarity of Real idea by Jacques Lacan with idea of antagonism by Laclau-Mouffe and in possibility of its use for studying of society and ideology. Žižek treats the political project of Laclau-Mouffe as based on "ethics of Real" — a collision ethics of the subject with own inferiority which can't be changed in principle.[24]

See also

Bibliography

References

  1. ↑ International encyclopedia of the social sciences. Vol. 6 / William A. Darity, Jr., editor in chief. — Detroit: Macmillan Reference, USA, 2008. — P. 396
  2. ↑ The Encyclopedia of Political Science / George T. Kurian, editor in chief. — Washington: CQ Press, 2011. — P. 251. ISBN 978-1-933116-44-0
  3. ↑ Furse V. Social and critical philosophy after "the subject death". – Vilnius, 2012. - 434 p. ISBN 978-9955-773-54-2
  4. ↑ The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology / (Ed.) George Ritzer. — Oxford, etc: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009. ISBN 978-1-4051-2433-1
  5. ↑ Furse V. Social and critical philosophy after "the subject death". – Vilnius, 2012. - 434 p. ISBN 978-9955-773-54-2
  6. ↑ Encyclopedia of Power / (Ed.) Keith Dowding. — SAGE Publications, Inc, 2001. ISBN 978-1-4129-2748-2
  7. ↑ Encyclopedia of Social Theory / Austin Harrington (ed.), Barbara L. Marshall (ed.), Hans-Peter Müller (ed.) — Routledge, 2006. — Pp. 454—455. ISBN 978-0-415-29046-3
  8. ↑ Handbook of sociological theory / (Ed.) Jonathan H. Turner. — N.Y.: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2006. P. 161. ISBN 0-387-32458-5
  9. ↑ Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought / Paul Barry Clarke (ed.), Joe Foweraker (ed.) — L.,N.Y.: Routledge,2001; Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
  10. ↑ The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology. (Ed.) Bryan S. Turner. — Cambridge University Press, 2006. — P.564.
  11. ↑ Furse V. Social and critical philosophy after "the subject death". – Vilnius, 2012. - 434 p. ISBN 978-9955-773-54-2
  12. ↑ Handbook of sociological theory / (Ed.) Jonathan H. Turner. — N.Y.: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2006. P. 161. ISBN 0-387-32458-5
  13. ↑ Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought / Paul Barry Clarke (ed.), Joe Foweraker (ed.) — L.,N.Y.: Routledge,2001; Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
  14. ↑ Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought / Paul Barry Clarke (ed.), Joe Foweraker (ed.) — L.,N.Y.: Routledge,2001; Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
  15. ↑ Handbook of sociological theory / (Ed.) Jonathan H. Turner. — N.Y.: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2006. P. 161. ISBN 0-387-32458-5
  16. ↑ Handbook of sociological theory / (Ed.) Jonathan H. Turner. — N.Y.: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2006. P. 161. ISBN 0-387-32458-5
  17. ↑ Handbook of sociological theory / (Ed.) Jonathan H. Turner. — N.Y.: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2006. P. 161. ISBN 0-387-32458-5
  18. ↑ Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought / Paul Barry Clarke (ed.), Joe Foweraker (ed.) — L.,N.Y.: Routledge,2001; Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
  19. ↑ Furse V. Social and critical philosophy after "the subject death". – Vilnius, 2012. - 434 p. ISBN 978-9955-773-54-2
  20. ↑ Encyclopedia of Power / (Ed.) Keith Dowding. — SAGE Publications, Inc, 2001. ISBN 978-1-4129-2748-2
  21. ↑ International encyclopedia of the social sciences. Vol. 4 / William A. Darity, Jr., editor in chief. — Detroit: Macmillan Reference, USA, 2008. — P. 636.
  22. ↑ International encyclopedia of the social sciences. Vol. 6 / William A. Darity, Jr., editor in chief. — Detroit: Macmillan Reference, USA, 2008. — P. 396
  23. ↑ The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology / (Ed.) George Ritzer. — Oxford, etc: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009. ISBN 978-1-4051-2433-1
  24. ↑ Žižek S. Beyond Discourse-Analysis // New Reflections on The Revolution of Our Times / E. Laclau. — L., N.Y., 1990. — Pp. 249, 259
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Saturday, October 17, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.