Daniel sent an estimulating message. It is necessary to clarify - if
it is possible- some ideas on Laclau. Daniel said:
>My question here is about the function of theory of hegemony in
>Laclau and Mouffe's project? Putting the theory of hegemony as a
>stepstone for going beyond Foucault does not mean that the latter
>does not imply it? It all depends on how you locate Foucault?
Foucault >does not need to theorise hegemony and thus bring that
theory out of the >absence? Reality is positive, and the local will
bring to the fore the >necessity of such hegemony as a type of
manifestation of power.
Well, the logic og hegemony is absolutely central in Laclau work.
Hegemony is the name of the way any political identity is
constituted. I said that Laclau seems to be "beyond" Foucault in the
sense that both Laclau and Mouffe draw very much on him but they try
to think a project (radical democracy) which is political and it is
not in foucault. Of Course that foucault never aimed that thing.
Because of this they are beyond, not in the sense of superation but
in the sense of completion, if you want.
Otherwise i agree with you in the idea that Foucault is more
microphisical than the gramscian traditiion.
Then daniel wrote:
So I think the function of
"hegemony" in L&M is to try and rethink how social movements (e.g.,
the New Right) actually operate or could better operate in terms of
achieving a national-popular hegemony; in short, the bloc is
constructed from the local, but also knows a life at the global. For
them, such alliances or blocs are always contingent, and have no
*necessary* roots in class (or in any one thing), or no
necessary forms or contents. Blocs and I suppose hegemony itself
follow no clear or given path. The only ting they are sure of, in
terms of theory, is that blocs and hegemonic social formations are
constructed along "chains of equivalences." And for this to happen,
and while they insist that there has to be a common, *perceived"
antagonism, there does not have to be a given and common *interest*
among the groups. (I cannot say how L&M's later work
diverges/elaborates from my acount.)
Later works differ a bit. Mainly Laclau's ones. Hegemony is precisely
a logic to artuculate between the particular and the universal.
Furthermore, a universal is an empty place that to more empty is more
possibility to articulate different positions it have. The very
activity to fill in this empty place is an hegemonic activity and it
is done through articulation (which is the oppsoite to mediation).
In laclau latter works ( New reflections on the Revoltiuon of Our
time) there is a clear Lacanian shift in the conception of the
subject as a lack. The lack in the subject is a correlate for the
lack in the Other. I know that Michel-Gilles following the old
Friederick would be in the side of the "abundance of being", of
Energy, elan vital, excess of life over knowledge. And Derrida, Lacan
would be ontologizing the lackness in every structure/order. But I
think it is pssible to use both "sides" -whatever yopu want- in order
to ground radical criticism and critical politics. At the end, both
are two sides of the same coin.
laclau's idea that "society is impossible" it is not thatcherite.
Furthermore, may be thatcher "did not know abot what she was speaking
about".
I want to proposse to follow on with the question of the "critique"
in Foucault's work. Is Taylor's Foucault a "taylor-made" Foucault?.
How to understand a "politcs of resistance"?.
I have my own opinion which is the non-necessity to ground anything
about resistance. It is simply done. "Politics of oneself". I would
say, Foucault ethical stance, ethical tint, it is "beyond" (here,
yes, in the sense of "superation") eros and tanathos (Philosophy
Today 32-2, see article, I reccomend it)death and life.
Department of Government Tel: 44-1206-874271
University of Essex Fax: 44-1206-873598
Wivenhoe Park E-mail: ajgrop@xxxxxxxxxxx
Colchester C04 3SQ
England
it is possible- some ideas on Laclau. Daniel said:
>My question here is about the function of theory of hegemony in
>Laclau and Mouffe's project? Putting the theory of hegemony as a
>stepstone for going beyond Foucault does not mean that the latter
>does not imply it? It all depends on how you locate Foucault?
Foucault >does not need to theorise hegemony and thus bring that
theory out of the >absence? Reality is positive, and the local will
bring to the fore the >necessity of such hegemony as a type of
manifestation of power.
Well, the logic og hegemony is absolutely central in Laclau work.
Hegemony is the name of the way any political identity is
constituted. I said that Laclau seems to be "beyond" Foucault in the
sense that both Laclau and Mouffe draw very much on him but they try
to think a project (radical democracy) which is political and it is
not in foucault. Of Course that foucault never aimed that thing.
Because of this they are beyond, not in the sense of superation but
in the sense of completion, if you want.
Otherwise i agree with you in the idea that Foucault is more
microphisical than the gramscian traditiion.
Then daniel wrote:
So I think the function of
"hegemony" in L&M is to try and rethink how social movements (e.g.,
the New Right) actually operate or could better operate in terms of
achieving a national-popular hegemony; in short, the bloc is
constructed from the local, but also knows a life at the global. For
them, such alliances or blocs are always contingent, and have no
*necessary* roots in class (or in any one thing), or no
necessary forms or contents. Blocs and I suppose hegemony itself
follow no clear or given path. The only ting they are sure of, in
terms of theory, is that blocs and hegemonic social formations are
constructed along "chains of equivalences." And for this to happen,
and while they insist that there has to be a common, *perceived"
antagonism, there does not have to be a given and common *interest*
among the groups. (I cannot say how L&M's later work
diverges/elaborates from my acount.)
Later works differ a bit. Mainly Laclau's ones. Hegemony is precisely
a logic to artuculate between the particular and the universal.
Furthermore, a universal is an empty place that to more empty is more
possibility to articulate different positions it have. The very
activity to fill in this empty place is an hegemonic activity and it
is done through articulation (which is the oppsoite to mediation).
In laclau latter works ( New reflections on the Revoltiuon of Our
time) there is a clear Lacanian shift in the conception of the
subject as a lack. The lack in the subject is a correlate for the
lack in the Other. I know that Michel-Gilles following the old
Friederick would be in the side of the "abundance of being", of
Energy, elan vital, excess of life over knowledge. And Derrida, Lacan
would be ontologizing the lackness in every structure/order. But I
think it is pssible to use both "sides" -whatever yopu want- in order
to ground radical criticism and critical politics. At the end, both
are two sides of the same coin.
laclau's idea that "society is impossible" it is not thatcherite.
Furthermore, may be thatcher "did not know abot what she was speaking
about".
I want to proposse to follow on with the question of the "critique"
in Foucault's work. Is Taylor's Foucault a "taylor-made" Foucault?.
How to understand a "politcs of resistance"?.
I have my own opinion which is the non-necessity to ground anything
about resistance. It is simply done. "Politics of oneself". I would
say, Foucault ethical stance, ethical tint, it is "beyond" (here,
yes, in the sense of "superation") eros and tanathos (Philosophy
Today 32-2, see article, I reccomend it)death and life.
Department of Government Tel: 44-1206-874271
University of Essex Fax: 44-1206-873598
Wivenhoe Park E-mail: ajgrop@xxxxxxxxxxx
Colchester C04 3SQ
England