Suchergebnisse

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 renunciationI 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 de-ontologizing politics which reintroduces ethics as an 'ethics of politization'.

Allan Dreyer Hansen, Contribution to the discussion Thinking the Political: After the 'Ontological Turn' , ICI Berlin, 25 September 2019, video recording, mp4, 16:34

In this paper I take issue with the status granted the political in the writings of Laclau and Mouffe. The main conclusion is that the claim of the ontological primacy of the political over the social must be given up. What can be maintained is the autonomy of the political (vis a vis other possible forms of articulations) and the general possibility of political articulations of all social identities. However, such a possibility cannot elevate the political to an ontological primary status, since the possibility of politization is paralleled with the possibility for all other types of social articulations of artistic, economic, etc. character. In terms of the recent development in discourse theory, my main claim is that the political conceptualises one specific set of logics, next to, and on the same ontological level, as other logics (economic etc.) ; In this paper I take issue with the status granted the political in the writings of Laclau and Mouffe. The main conclusion is that the claim of the ontological primacy of the political over the social must be given up. What can be maintained is the autonomy of the political (vis a vis other possible forms of articulations) and the general possibility of political articulations of all social identities. However, such a possibility cannot elevate the political to an ontological primary status, since the possibility of politization is paralleled with the possibility for all other types of social articulations of artistic, economic, etc. character. In terms of the recent development in discourse theory, my main claim is that the political conceptualises one specific set of logics, next to, and on the same ontological level, as other logics (economic etc.)

paperet problematiserer diskursteorien v. Laclau for tesen om politikkens ontologiske primat. det vises at tesen kan forstås på tre forskellige måder. 1) som udtryk for en formal grænselogik 2) som en historisk, men ikke nødvendigvis nærværende nødvendighed 3) som en potentialitet. Alle 3 måder kritiseres og forkastes. Istedet introduces ideen om magt og eksklusion som ontologiske "primære", og spørgsmålet om politisering og demokratisering gøres til etikker snarere end ontologiske nødvendigheder.

Paperet er en diskussion af de to demokratimodeller, deliberativt og agonistisk. Det argumenteres at agonistisk demokrati overkommer en række grundlæggende vanskeligheder ved deliberativt demokrati. Men den måde som Chantal Mouffe har formuleret agonistisk demokrati på har en række problemer, særligt når det relateres til globalisering.

paperet argumenterer for at Laclaus diskursteori, med dets begreb om sociale og politiske logikekr, er et potent udgangspunkt for at overkomme de dualismer der har kendetegnet tilgange til institutioner. Men to konkrete skridt i udformningen af teorien må kritiseres. For det første at institutioner kun ses på den ene 'akse' af betydningsdannelse, nemlig den syntagmatiske eller differentielle. For det andet må tesen om politikkens primat opgives, og distinktionen mellem politik og instituioner må gentænkes.

In this paper, we compare the political anatomy of two distinct enactments of (leftist) radical politics: Occupy Wall Street and The Alternative, a recently elected political party in Denmark. Departing from Ernesto Laclau's conceptualization of 'the universal' and 'the particular', we show how the institutionalization of radical politics (as carried out by The Alternative) entails a move from universality towards particularity. This move, however, comes with the risk of cutting-off supporters who no longer feel represented by the project. We refer to this problem as 'the problem of particularization'. In conclusion, we use the analysis to propose a conceptual distinction between radical movements and radical parties: While the former is constituted by an infinite chain of equivalent grievances, the latter is constituted by a prioritized set of differential demands. While both are important, we argue, they must remain distinct in order to preserve the universal spirit of contemporary radical politics