Institut for Samfund Og Globalisering

Laclauian discourse theory, as well as its main source of inspiration, deconstruction, aims to underline change, instability, process. If the theoretical "foundation" can be put to a single line, it would be the affirmation of un-limitability of the productivity of a signifying chain. However, as both Laclau and Derrida have pointed out several times, dissemination only takes place on the background of some kind of stability, some kind of fixity. The question is how to conceive of this fixity or reproduction.

This artide argues that although there is no necessary link between constructivism and particular sets of norms, constructivism opens up a space for normativity and can be articulated through particular normative or political programmes. In the artide it is shown how Laclau's deconstructive constructivism can be articulated within the framework of an ethos of democratisation. The article takes itS empirical point of departure in recent Danish debates on dangerous dogs.

Laclau and Mouffe's political vision of a radical democracy is an attempt to rethink the emancipatory tradition of the left in light of the recognition of the impossibility of a sutured society. The classic emancipatory projects, whether liberal, anarchic or socialist shared an (ultimately eschatological or universalist) belief in the possibility of a social order without (serious) contradictions. The 20. century is marked by an increasingly distrust towards the possibility of universality. Laclau and Mouffe share this distrust, but they claim that the way they restate the relationship between (impossible) universality and particularity opens up to an radicalisation of democracy. This paper presents Laclau and Mouffe's vision of radical democracy, and argues that it has clear advantages over deliberative democracy, even though the latter to a large extent has managed to 'hegemonise' the space of the radical alternative to mainstream liberal representative democra...

In a series of publications Chantal Mouffe (2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2008, 2009, 2013) has criticized cosmopolitanism for its lack of conceptualization of power, conflict and struggle, in short of politics. Even though this critique is largely well placed, the conclusions drawn from the analysis by Mouffe are flawed. As she puts it, if a cosmopolitan democracy “was ever realized, it could only signify the world hegemony of a dominant power that would have been able to impose its conception of the world on the entire planet and which, identifying its interests with those of humanity, would treat any disagreement as an illegitimate challenge to its ‘rational’ leadership”. (Mouffe 2005a 106–7). I argue that Mouffe paradoxically seems to be using a traditional 'realist' conceptualization of hegemony, signifying simply domination. Against this I argue that a poststructuralist understanding of hegemony – as developed by herself and Laclau in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (Laclau and ...

Marchart’s Thinking Antagonism is, systematically following one of the leads of Laclau’s theory – the radical reading (or rather thinking) of antagonism and the Political – to their final conclusions: antagonism lies at the root of every social being – qua being. Despite Marchart’s explicit renunciation I argue it seems more promising to follow the other. It involves accepting radical negativity defies any apprehension, that any action – including antagonizing – always already is a specific articulation. This is better grasped through the concept of dislocation and through Derridean hauntology. De-ontologizing antagonism also means deontologizing politics which reintroduces ethics as an ‘ethics of politization’.

Laclau’s conception of populism is the strongest available and the charges against him, and against populism in general from many quarters is unwarranted. But there is still things to think more about in Laclau’s theory. Ontologically I don’t accept the idea of populism being placed on an ontological level. Normatively, even though there is no necessary link between populism and authoritarianism, neither is there a coincidence between the two. We therefore have to be able to specify which dimensions could be used in order to evaluate to which extent actual populists movements are democratic. In the paper I suggest Inclusion, Participation or active citizenship, pluralism. And go into deeper analysis of Lefort’s concept of the empty place of power and the concomitant idea of incarnation in political representation. Keeping the place of power empty is something democratic populisms must consciously recognise and limit themselves in relation to. Analysis of actual populisms should addr...

Laclauian discourse theory, as well as its main source of inspiration, deconstruction, aims to underline change, instability, process. If the theoretical “foundation” can be put to a single line, it would be the affirmation of un-limitability of the productivity of a signifying chain. However, as both Laclau and Derrida have pointed out several times, dissemination only takes place on the background of some kind of stability, some kind of fixity. The question is how to conceive of this fixity or reproduction. Within social science one traditional answer has been to affirm institutions as some sort of middle layer between (social) structure and agency. Discourse theory offers a conceptualisation where institutions are concieved of as a moment or a logic working at the same time as destabilising or deinstitutionalising moments or logics. The prime concept in Laclau’s discourse theory for thinking fixations and stabilisations is (a reinterpretation of the Husserlian concept of) sedimen...

In a series of publications Chantal Mouffe (2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2008, 2009, 2013) has criticized cosmopolitanism for its lack of conceptualization of power, conflict and struggle, in short of politics. Even though this critique is largely well placed, the conclusions drawn from the analysis by Mouffe are flawed. As she puts it, if a cosmopolitan democracy “was ever realized, it could only signify the world hegemony of a dominant power that would have been able to impose its conception of the world on the entire planet and which, identifying its interests with those of humanity, would treat any disagreement as an illegitimate challenge to its ‘rational’ leadership”. Mouffe, On the Political pp. 106–7. I argue that Mouffe paradoxically seems to be using a traditional 'realist' conceptualization of hegemony, signifying simply domination. Against this I argue that a post-structuralist understanding of hegemony – as developed by herself and Laclau in Hegemony and Socialist Strate...

Laclauian discourse theory, as well as its main source of inspiration, deconstruction, aims to underline change, instability, process. If the theoretical “foundation ” can be put to a single line, it would be the affirmation of un-limitability of the productivity of a signifying chain. However, as both Laclau and Derrida have pointed out several times, dissemination only takes place on the background of some kind of stability, some kind of fixity. The question is how to conceive of this fixity or reproduction. Within social science one traditional answer has been to affirm institutions as some sort of middle layer between (social) structure and agency. Discourse theory offers a conceptualisation where institutions are concieved of as a moment or a logic working at the same time as destabilising or de-institutionalising moments or logics. The prime concept in Laclau’s discourse theory for thinking fixations and stabilisations is (a reinterpretation of the Husserlian concept of) sedim...

Laclau and Mouffe's political vision of a radical democracy is an attempt to rethink the emancipatory tradition of the left in light of the recognition of the impossibility of a sutured society. The classic emancipatory projects, whether liberal, anarchic or socialist shared an (ultimately eschatological or universalist) belief in the possibility of a social order without (serious) contradictions. The 20. century is marked by an increasingly distrust towards the possibility of universality. Laclau and Mouffe share this distrust, but they claim that the way they restate the relationship between (impossible) universality and particularity opens up to an radicalisation of democracy. This paper presents Laclau and Mouffe's vision of radical democracy, and argues that it has clear advantages over deliberative democracy, even though the latter to a large extent has managed to 'hegemonise' the space of the radical alternative to mainstream liberal representative democracy. However, there are certain problems in Laclau and Mouffe's position. The paper will take a closer look at the most present of these problems. Laclau and Mouffe's implicit frame has so far been the nation state. Mouffe has in later writings more explicitly dealt with the issue of globalisation. This is obviously a necessary move, but her global vision-a 'multipolar world order'-to my view so far has serious short comings, when viewed from their own theoretical perspective. The paper starts with situating Laclau and Mouffe's radical democracy in relation to the socialist tradition, and the attempts in the 60ies and 70ies of renewing this tradition by way of a demand for a (more) participatory democracy. Its then criticises the deliberative model, and therefore refuses the dominant position this model has acquired as the heir of the participatory tradition. The criticism centres on the claim of the irreducible presence of power and exclusion in all social relations, even those which may have been established in consensus. This is exactly the point of departure for Laclau and Mouffe's conflictual vision of radical democracy. The paper presents the core concepts of this model (hegemonic universalism, 'agonism', passions and the people), and argues that radical democracy must, as Derrida put it, remain a promise, a democracy to come (a venir). The paper ends with a critical assessment of Mouffe's attempt to solve the (obvious) shortcoming in the focus on the nation state. Even though this move must be fully appreciated, her current theorising is unsatisfactory. In stead I argue what is needed is a vision of a 'popular cosmopolitanism', i.e. a cosmopolitanism facing up to exclusions, power and disagreements.