sosie
sosie
Post rating:
~
post-marxists like laclau and mouffe spilled a lot of ink deconstructing essentialist forms of marxism and laying the foundation for a radical "plural democracy," with the aim of allowing socialists to not only come to terms with the ultimate contingency and openness of society but also to recognize in it the very condition of possibility of their struggle.
the concept of hegemony is introduced. while in the case of the bourgeois revolutions or those of the colonized we are witness to an explicit antagonism, in our modern liberal democracies the space of struggle is structured in a much more complex way. leaving behind the reference to some ontologically privileged segment of society(the working class), we are faced with the impossible task of creating, in the face of the static difference of defined entities(ranciere's police order), equivalences between heterogenous and contingent social identities engaged in political struggle.
what makes this idea totally anathema to any puerile advocacy of triumphal liberal democracy is its recognition of the primary place accorded to struggle: democracy is not the neutral form of the rational deliberation of already existing social agents, but the very field upon which social identities are formed - democracy is like lacan's symbolic order: instead of the dyadic narcissistic unity of the imaginary(totalitarianism), we have the differential and diacritical field of language(democracy) through which the antagonism which was before disavowed can be expressed through the infinite chain of signification(struggle for hegemony.)
so what help is this to actual socialists doing concrete work in their communities? why, over 20 years after it's conception, haven't we seen any progress towards something resembling the kind of democracy they have envisioned?
and how does the problematic of power, coercion and violence fit into their mad web of what may very well be lies?
and why is the left's conundrum concerning the disjunction between class and the other(sexual, race etc) struggles as operative today as ever?
the concept of hegemony is introduced. while in the case of the bourgeois revolutions or those of the colonized we are witness to an explicit antagonism, in our modern liberal democracies the space of struggle is structured in a much more complex way. leaving behind the reference to some ontologically privileged segment of society(the working class), we are faced with the impossible task of creating, in the face of the static difference of defined entities(ranciere's police order), equivalences between heterogenous and contingent social identities engaged in political struggle.
what makes this idea totally anathema to any puerile advocacy of triumphal liberal democracy is its recognition of the primary place accorded to struggle: democracy is not the neutral form of the rational deliberation of already existing social agents, but the very field upon which social identities are formed - democracy is like lacan's symbolic order: instead of the dyadic narcissistic unity of the imaginary(totalitarianism), we have the differential and diacritical field of language(democracy) through which the antagonism which was before disavowed can be expressed through the infinite chain of signification(struggle for hegemony.)
so what help is this to actual socialists doing concrete work in their communities? why, over 20 years after it's conception, haven't we seen any progress towards something resembling the kind of democracy they have envisioned?
and how does the problematic of power, coercion and violence fit into their mad web of what may very well be lies?
and why is the left's conundrum concerning the disjunction between class and the other(sexual, race etc) struggles as operative today as ever?
Edited by sosie ()
getfiscal
getfiscal
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating:
~
big ziz talks about how we have to histrocize historicism itself again. like, some supporters of laclau/mouffe seem to imply that everyone was just being dumb for most of history and ignoring the obvious logic of "hegemony"-oriented liberal socialism. but "hegemony" emerged in a specific historical context. zizek says this is late capitalism with its associated rise of the postmodern. he doesn't think we can simply reassert modernism unchanged, although he does think we need to appeal to the building of universals beyond the liberal-democratic system in order to interrupt it and open possibilities for new things. and he excitedly has pointed to various eruptions of popular power ever since i guess.
if hegemony has an origin in a specific situation that can be traced then it suggests that the conditions had influence on the ideas in such a way that wasn't just the working out of logic (since this is over thousands of years) but rather whatever is different (economic and political conditions).
but laclau yelled pretty hard against that because he's like uhh that's just base-superstructure nonsense you re-hashed without even explaining yourself. like what does it specifically *mean* for class to be a causal factor in history. but then laclau said something which tweaks me: he said class isn't even a very important (in a normative sense) part of identity anymore, and if it is just a matter of class being "important" then it doesn't mean that determinism is correct just that class constructed in a certain way happens to be perceived to be important.
the test of success that most postmarxists seem to have for themselves is very limited: blocking the far right. that's why laclau/mouffe talk mostly about people like milton friedman rather than sharpening the lines between them and social-democrats. given that this is sort of a defensive action, they might see themselves as successful in that the left has almost completely gone over to liberal-democracy and for fighting the worst of austerity. but, as mao and zizek say: do not fear "bigness."
if hegemony has an origin in a specific situation that can be traced then it suggests that the conditions had influence on the ideas in such a way that wasn't just the working out of logic (since this is over thousands of years) but rather whatever is different (economic and political conditions).
but laclau yelled pretty hard against that because he's like uhh that's just base-superstructure nonsense you re-hashed without even explaining yourself. like what does it specifically *mean* for class to be a causal factor in history. but then laclau said something which tweaks me: he said class isn't even a very important (in a normative sense) part of identity anymore, and if it is just a matter of class being "important" then it doesn't mean that determinism is correct just that class constructed in a certain way happens to be perceived to be important.
the test of success that most postmarxists seem to have for themselves is very limited: blocking the far right. that's why laclau/mouffe talk mostly about people like milton friedman rather than sharpening the lines between them and social-democrats. given that this is sort of a defensive action, they might see themselves as successful in that the left has almost completely gone over to liberal-democracy and for fighting the worst of austerity. but, as mao and zizek say: do not fear "bigness."
sosie
sosie
Post rating:
~
now, getfiscal, have you actually read hegemony and socialist strategy?
getfiscal
getfiscal
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating:
~
yes, why?
sosie
sosie
Post rating:
~
because zizek does not actually disagree with L/M at all REALLY... he doesn't agree with anything! (and the things he does agree with are criticisms of hegel, which happen to be what hegel was saying anyway)
his poking at laclau is maybe a case of just trying to REPEAT laclue, to stay true to his basic insight(which Zizek basically agrees with!)
in other words, it seems to me that Zizek, by interrogating laclau's Theoretical Edifice, is pointing towards what we should all be doing - a confrontation with laclau's hegemony is the sine qua non for even thinking about beginning to think about how to proceed...
his poking at laclau is maybe a case of just trying to REPEAT laclue, to stay true to his basic insight(which Zizek basically agrees with!)
in other words, it seems to me that Zizek, by interrogating laclau's Theoretical Edifice, is pointing towards what we should all be doing - a confrontation with laclau's hegemony is the sine qua non for even thinking about beginning to think about how to proceed...
sosie
sosie
Post rating:
~
getfiscal posted:
big ziz talks about how we have to histrocize historicism itself again. like, some supporters of laclau/mouffe seem to imply that everyone was just being dumb for most of history and ignoring the obvious logic of "hegemony"-oriented liberal socialism. but "hegemony" emerged in a specific historical context. zizek says this is late capitalism with its associated rise of the postmodern. he doesn't think we can simply reassert modernism unchanged, although he does think we need to appeal to the building of universals beyond the liberal-democratic system in order to interrupt it and open possibilities for new things. and he excitedly has pointed to various eruptions of popular power ever since i guess.
but "hegemony" already explicitly refers to itself as being historically determined - it even defines itself against, as i noted in my openingt post, the bourgeois revolutions and those of the colonized.
to me, "hegemony" threw me into an obscure aporia. it is something along the lines of Frank Wilderson's Gramsci's Black Marx that represents my annoyance with Laclaus book the best.
getfiscal
getfiscal
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating:
~
well i would say he disagrees in a few ways:
1. class is not just one or another identity factor but rather is a sort of center of balance in hegemonic formations. for zizek this explains both the emergence of postmodernism around a re-articulation of class after the failure of actually existing socialism had been worked through historically.
2. nation is not simply another identity but rather a sort of zero-institution that people accept in order to structure a basic community (around class). as in, nation is not just difference, it is the possibility of structured difference.
3. we shouldn't accept liberal-democracy as our inevitable situation. mouffe is deeply committed to liberal-democracy to the point where she ridicules attempts at direct and radical democracy. zizek says these latter forms have failed but that we should still orient ourselves to move beyond the state. in laclau/mouffe terms, moving "beyond" liberal-democracy is nonsensical and dangerous because liberal-democracy is the situational foundation for their participation given their position in history.
i agree with you very much that zizek is working within the categories of laclau, and that he considers much of laclau says so common sense that he focuses on points of delineation. i also think there is a risk of simply affirming zizek because he seems to say what coheres most neatly with a (reformulated but basically) orthodox marxist position, which is why sometimes i think most contemporary marxists are popular (marxists buy books). but the differences above are pretty important from a "what to do" perspective i think, and i care obsessively about "what is to be done"
1. class is not just one or another identity factor but rather is a sort of center of balance in hegemonic formations. for zizek this explains both the emergence of postmodernism around a re-articulation of class after the failure of actually existing socialism had been worked through historically.
2. nation is not simply another identity but rather a sort of zero-institution that people accept in order to structure a basic community (around class). as in, nation is not just difference, it is the possibility of structured difference.
3. we shouldn't accept liberal-democracy as our inevitable situation. mouffe is deeply committed to liberal-democracy to the point where she ridicules attempts at direct and radical democracy. zizek says these latter forms have failed but that we should still orient ourselves to move beyond the state. in laclau/mouffe terms, moving "beyond" liberal-democracy is nonsensical and dangerous because liberal-democracy is the situational foundation for their participation given their position in history.
i agree with you very much that zizek is working within the categories of laclau, and that he considers much of laclau says so common sense that he focuses on points of delineation. i also think there is a risk of simply affirming zizek because he seems to say what coheres most neatly with a (reformulated but basically) orthodox marxist position, which is why sometimes i think most contemporary marxists are popular (marxists buy books). but the differences above are pretty important from a "what to do" perspective i think, and i care obsessively about "what is to be done"
getfiscal
getfiscal
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating:
~
i feel obligated to say i'm not well versed in any of this, just a weirdo who has read a handful of books on the subject, i have no formal education in the area other than an economics degree.
sosie
sosie
Post rating:
~
getfiscal posted:
i agree with you very much that zizek is working within the categories of laclau, and that he considers much of laclau says so common sense that he focuses on points of delineation. i also think there is a risk of simply affirming zizek because he seems to say what coheres most neatly with a (reformulated but basically) orthodox marxist position, which is why sometimes i think most contemporary marxists are popular (marxists buy books).
this puts in a really nice way exactly what i was getting at, way better than i could have put it!
getfiscal posted:
1. class is not just one or another identity factor but rather is a sort of center of balance in hegemonic formations. for zizek this explains both the emergence of postmodernism around a re-articulation of class after the failure of actually existing socialism had been worked through historically.
but, if we have accepted "hegemony"'s devastating renunciation of traditional marxism, on what grounds, precisely, are we re-introducing the exceptional status of class?
getfiscal posted:
2. nation is not simply another identity but rather a sort of zero-institution that people accept in order to structure a basic community (around class). as in, nation is not just difference, it is the possibility of structured difference.
this does not contradict "hegemony"
getfiscal posted:
3. we shouldn't accept liberal-democracy as our inevitable situation. mouffe is deeply committed to liberal-democracy to the point where she ridicules attempts at direct and radical democracy. zizek says these latter forms have failed but that we should still orient ourselves to move beyond the state. in laclau/mouffe terms, moving "beyond" liberal-democracy is nonsensical and dangerous because liberal-democracy is the situational foundation for their participation given their position in history.
but mouffe isn't commited to liberal-democracy, she is commited to radical plural democracy...
whatever her pragmatic solutions may be, she is still not in disagreement with Zizek, who claims that the real instantiation of this idea of democracy might be something other than...
her WHOLE POINT is to safeguard democracy - not from weirdos like Zizek, but- from liberal democrats... she really means "radical plural democracy"... and MY whole point of posting this thread is to ask: so where is it? where can we see it? what is blocking us from seeing it, not just externally, out there, but internally, in our own rejection of the political. and that's zizek's point too.
"
Edited by sosie ()
Impper
Impper
Post rating:
~
i dont know anything about laclau mouffe other than the cursory explanations from you guys and what some other people have told me but they seem absolutely horrible
babyfinland
babyfinland
tardy on these heaters
Post rating:
~
this seems like a lot of meaningless babbling to me
can you boil it down to something simple and concrete or must it necesarily remain in teh Gay World of the Abstract Theory BS
can you boil it down to something simple and concrete or must it necesarily remain in teh Gay World of the Abstract Theory BS
getfiscal
getfiscal
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating:
~
"if we have accepted "hegemony"'s devastating renunciation of traditional marxism, on what grounds, precisely, are we re-introducing the exceptional status of class?"
I thought about this for a while and I couldn't come up with a good defence of Zizek's position. His position is that class is the suppressed truth that underlies the identity politics of postmodernism. As in, class (the material) always structures other oppressions and makes them possible. For Zizek, this is not a matter of determinism, or rebuilding teleology, it is saying that in our current configuration it just happens to be that class has this structuring role - it could have been different, just like the existence of the state is historical. And it seems useful to note that the sort of class he identifies as central to radical left politics today is "the excluded" - the slum dwellers, in particular - which suggests difference from the old proletariat. But saying you put emphasis on something doesn't fix class as special, so I dunno.
"mouffe isn't commited to liberal-democracy, she is commited to radical plural democracy... "
Well, I meant liberal-democracy in the sense of the institutions, not in prevailing societal models. She opposes participatory/direct democracy, which she sees as potentially dangerous. While she wants democracy to take place in more sectors of society, she wants this done in fairly structured ways, not some seizure of power or something. Zizek's model is much more dramatic, in that he supports things like divine violence against rich people and so on, and the integration of such violence into radical politics.
Where is radical democratic pluralism? Quebec solidaire seems to me to be closest to it. It has solid left politics but it is shaped by very diverse perspectives. Somehow the party steers away from dogmatism, much to the disappointment of its many Marxists, without falling towards simple social-democratic politics. I doubt it can keep up this - either it will move right with popularity or left with irrelevance, probably. But we'll see.
I thought about this for a while and I couldn't come up with a good defence of Zizek's position. His position is that class is the suppressed truth that underlies the identity politics of postmodernism. As in, class (the material) always structures other oppressions and makes them possible. For Zizek, this is not a matter of determinism, or rebuilding teleology, it is saying that in our current configuration it just happens to be that class has this structuring role - it could have been different, just like the existence of the state is historical. And it seems useful to note that the sort of class he identifies as central to radical left politics today is "the excluded" - the slum dwellers, in particular - which suggests difference from the old proletariat. But saying you put emphasis on something doesn't fix class as special, so I dunno.
"mouffe isn't commited to liberal-democracy, she is commited to radical plural democracy... "
Well, I meant liberal-democracy in the sense of the institutions, not in prevailing societal models. She opposes participatory/direct democracy, which she sees as potentially dangerous. While she wants democracy to take place in more sectors of society, she wants this done in fairly structured ways, not some seizure of power or something. Zizek's model is much more dramatic, in that he supports things like divine violence against rich people and so on, and the integration of such violence into radical politics.
Where is radical democratic pluralism? Quebec solidaire seems to me to be closest to it. It has solid left politics but it is shaped by very diverse perspectives. Somehow the party steers away from dogmatism, much to the disappointment of its many Marxists, without falling towards simple social-democratic politics. I doubt it can keep up this - either it will move right with popularity or left with irrelevance, probably. But we'll see.
Ironicwarcriminal
Ironicwarcriminal
Post rating:
+
getfiscal posted:But we'll see.
well?....
getfiscal
getfiscal
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating:
~
i was just thinking about laclau and mouffe last night, i bought mouffe's new book which should arrive any minute now. i don't have anything intelligent to say about such things now. namaste.
aerdil
aerdil
Post rating:
~
moof's new book, the adventures of peter the pterodactyl