《霸权和社会主义战略》拉克劳和墨菲着英文版讲课稿

1、Good is good, but better carries it.精益求精，善益求善。霸权和社会主义战略拉克劳和墨菲着英文版ErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe:HegemonyandSocialistStrategy-TowardsaRadicalDemocraticPoliticsSecondEditionHEGEMONYANDSOCIALISTSTRATEGYSECONDEDITIONERNESTOLACLAUandCHANTALMOUFFE(i)ERNESTOLACLAUisProfessorofPoliticalTheoryattheUniversityo

2、fEssex.HeistheauthorofPoliticsandIdeologyinMarxistTheory,NewReflectionsontheRevolutionofourTime,Emancipation(s),TheMakingofPoliticalIdentitiesand,withJudithButlerandSlavojZizekContingency,Hegemony,Universality.CHANTALMOUFFEisProfessorofPoliticalTheoryattheCentrefortheStudyofDemocracyattheUniversityo

3、fWestminster.Sheistheauthorof,amongotherworks,TheReturnofthePolitical,TheDimensionsofRadicalDemocracy,TheChallengeofCarlSchmittandTheDemocraticParadox.(ii)(iii)HegemonyandSocialistStrategyTowardsaRadicalDemocraticPoliticsSecondEditionERNESTOLACLAUandCHANTALMOUFFEVERSOLondonNewYork(iv)Firstpublishedb

4、yVerso1985ErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe1985ThissecondeditionfirstpublishedbyVerso2001ErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffe2001AllrightsreservedThemoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted3579108642VersoUK:6MeardStreet,LondonWIF0EGUS:180VarickStreet,NewYork,NY100144606VersoistheimprintofNewLeftBISBN1859846211I

5、SBN1859843301(pbk)BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataAcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryLibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataAcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongressPrintedandboundinGreatBritainbyBiddiesLtd,HYPERLINKhttp:/www.biddles.co.ukw

6、ww.biddles.co.uk(v)ContentsPrefacetotheSecondEditionviiIntroduction11Hegemony:theGenealogyofaConcept72Hegemony:theDifficultEmergenceofaNewPoliticalLogic473BeyondthePositivityoftheSocial:AntagonismsandHegemony934HegemonyandRadicalDemocracy149Index195(vi)(vii)PrefacetotheSecondEditionHegemonyandSocial

7、istStrategywasoriginallypublishedin1985,andsincethenithasbeenatthecentreofmanyimportanttheoreticopoliticaldiscussions,bothintheAnglo-Saxonworldandelsewhere.Manythingshavechangedinthecontemporaryscenesincethattime.Toreferjusttothemostimportantdevelopments,itisenoughtomentiontheendoftheColdWarandthedi

8、sintegrationoftheSovietsystem.Tothisweshouldadddrastictransformationsofthesocialstructure,whichareattherootofnewparadigmsintheconstitutionofsocialandpoliticalidentities.Toperceivetheepochaldistancebetweentheearly1980s,whenthisbookwasoriginallywritten,andthepresent,wehaveonlytorememberthat,atthattime

9、,Eurocommunismwasstillseenasaviablepoliticalproject,goingbeyondbothLeninismandsocialdemocracy;andthat,sincethen,themajordebateswhichhaveabsorbedtheintellectualreflectionoftheLefthavebeenthosearoundthenewsocialmovements,multiculturalism,theglobalizationanddeterritorializationoftheeconomyandtheensembl

10、eofissueslinkedtothequestionofpost-modernity.WecouldsayparaphrasingHobsbawmthattheshorttwentiethcenturyendedatsomepointintheearly1990s,andthattodaywehavetofaceproblemsofasubstantiallyneworder.Giventhemagnitudeoftheseepochalchanges,weweresurprised,ingoingthroughthepagesofthisnot-so-recentbookagain,at

11、howlittlewehavetoputintoquestiontheintellectualandpoliticalperspectivedevelopedtherein.Mostofwhathashappenedsincethenhascloselyfollowedthepatternsuggestedinourbook,andthoseissueswhichwerecentraltoourconcernsatthatmomenthavebecomeevermoreprominentincontemporarydiscussions.Wecouldevensaythatweseetheth

12、eoreticalperspectivedevelopedthenrootedasitwasintheGramscianmatrixandinthecentralityofthecategoryofhegemonyasafarmoreadequateapproachtocontemporaryissuesthantheintellectualapparatus(vii)iwhichhasoftenaccompaniedrecentdiscussionsonpoliticalsubjectivity,ondemocracy,andonthetrendsandpoliticalconsequenc

13、esofaglobalizedeconomy.Thisiswhywewanttorecapitulate,asawayofintroducingthissecondedition,somecentralpointsofourtheoreticalintervention,andtocounterposesomeofitspoliticalconclusionstorecenttrendsinthediscussionaboutdemocracy.LetusstartbysayingsomethingabouttheintellectualprojectofHegemonyandthetheor

14、eticalperspectivefromwhichitwaswritten.Inthemid-1970s,Marxisttheorizationhadclearlyreachedanimpasse.Afteranexceptionallyrichandcreativeperiodinthe1960s,thelimitsofthatexpansionwhichhaditsepicentreinAlthusserianism,butalsoinarenewedinterestinGramsciandinthetheoreticiansoftheFrankfurtSchoolwereonlytoo

15、visible.Therewasanincreasinggapbetweentherealitiesofcontemporarycapital-ismandwhatMarxismcouldlegitimatelysubsumeunderitsowncategories.Itisenoughtoremembertheincreasinglydesperatecontortionswhichtookplacearoundnotionssuchasdeterminationinthelastinstanceandrelativeautonomy.Thissituation,onthewhole,pr

16、ovokedtwotypesofattitude:eithertonegatethechanges,andtoretreatunconvincinglytoanorthodoxbunker;ortoadd,inanadhocway,descriptiveanalysesofthenewtrendswhichweresimplyjuxtaposedwithoutintegrationtoatheoreticalbodywhichremainedlargelyunchanged.OurwayofdealingwiththeMarxisttraditionwasentirelydifferentan

17、dcould,perhaps,beexpressedintermsoftheHusserliandistinctionbetweensedimentationandreactivation.Sedimentedtheoreticalcategoriesarethosewhichconcealtheactsoftheiroriginalinstitution,whilethereactivatingmomentmakesthoseactsvisibleagain.ForusasopposedtoHusserlthatreactivationhadtoshowtheoriginalcontinge

18、ncyofthesynthesisthattheMarxiancategoriesattemptedtoestablish.Insteadofdealingwithnotionssuchasclass,thetriadoflevels(theeconomic,thepoliticalandtheideological)orthecontradictionbetweenforcesandrelationsofproductionassedimentedfetishes,wetriedtorevivethepreconditionswhichmaketheirdiscursiveoperation

19、possible,andaskedourselvesquestionsconcerningtheircontinuityordiscontinuityincontemporarycapitalism.TheresultofthisexercisewastherealizationthatthefieldofMarxisttheorizationhadbeenfarmoreambivalentanddiversifiedthanthemonolithictransvestitethatMarxismLeninismpresentedasthehistoryofMarxism.Ithastobec

20、learlystated:thelastingtheoreticaleffectofLeninismhasbeenanappallingimpoverishmentofthefieldofMarxiandiversity.While,at(ix)theendoftheperiodoftheSecondInternational,thefieldsinwhichMarxistdiscursivitywasoperatingwerebecomingincreasinglydiversifiedranging,especiallyinAustro-Marxism,fromtheproblemofth

21、eintellectualstothenationalquestion,andfromtheinternalinconsistenciesofthelabourtheoryofvaluetotherelationshipbetweensocialismandethicsthedivisionoftheinternationalworkersmovement,andthereorganizationofitsrevolutionarywingaroundtheSovietexperience,ledtoadiscontinuityofthiscreativeprocess.Thepathetic

22、caseofaLucs,whocontributedhisundeniableintellectualskillstotheconsolidationofatheoretico-politicalhorizonwhichdidnottranscendthewholegamutofshibbolethsoftheThirdInternational,isanextremebutfarfromisolatedexample.Itisworthpointingoutthatmanyoftheproblemsconfrontedbyasocialiststrategyintheconditionsof

23、latecapitalismarealreadycontainedinnuceinthetheorizationofAustro-Marxism,buthadlittlecontinuityintheinter-warperiod.OnlytheisolatedexampleofGramsci,writingfromtheMussolinianjails,canbequotedasanewdepartureproducinganewarsenalofconceptswarofposition,historicalbloc,collectivewill,hegemony,intellectual

24、andmoralleadershipwhicharethestartingpointofourreflectionsinHegemonyandSocialistStrategy.Revisiting(reactivating)theMarxistcategoriesinthelightoftheseseriesofnewproblemsanddevelopmenthadtolead,necessarily,-todeconstructingtheformerthatis,todisplacingsomeoftheirconditionsofpossibilityanddevelopingnew

25、possibilitieswhichtranscendanythingwhichcouldbecharacterizedastheapplicationofacategory.WeknowfromWittgensteinthatthereisnosuchthingastheapplicationofaruletheinstanceofapplicationbecomespartoftheruleitself.TorereadMarxisttheoryinthelightofcontemporaryproblemsnecessarilyinvolvesdeconstructingthecentr

26、alcategoriesofthattheory.Thisiswhathasbeencalledourpost-Marxism.Wedidnotinventthislabelitonlymarginallyappears(notasalabel)intheIntroductiontoourbook.Butsinceithasbecomegeneralizedincharacterizingourwork,wecansaythatwedonotopposeitinsofarasitisproperlyunderstood:astheprocessofreappropriationofaninte

27、llectualtradition,aswellastheprocessofgoingbeyondit.Andindevelopingthistask,itisimpor-tanttopointoutthatitcannotbeconceivedjustasaninternalhistoryofMarxism.Manysocialantagonisms,manyissueswhicharecrucialtotheunderstandingofcontemporarysocieties,belongtofieldsofdiscursivitywhichareexternaltoMarxism,a

28、ndcannotbereconceptualizedintermsofMarxistcategoriesgiven,especially,(x)thattheirverypresenceiswhatputsMarxismasaclosedtheoreticalsystemintoquestion,andleadstothepostulationofnewstartingpointsforsocialanalysis.Thereisoneaspectinparticularthatwewanttounderlineatthispoint.Anysubstantialchangeintheonti

29、ccontentofafieldofresearchleadsalsotoanewontologicalparadigm.AlthusserusedtosaythatbehindPlatosphilosophy,therewasGreekmathematics;behindseventeenth-centuryrationalism,Galileanphysics;andbehindKantsphilosophy,Newtoniantheory.Toputtheargumentinatranscendentalfashion:thestrictlyontologicalquestionasks

30、howentitieshavetobe,sothattheobjectivityofaparticularfieldispossible.Thereisaprocessofmutualfeedbackbetweentheincorporationofnewfieldsofobjectsandthegeneralontologicalcategoriesgoverning,atacertaintime,whatisthinblewithinthegeneralfieldofobjectivity.TheontologyimplicitinFreudianism,forinstance,isdif

31、ferentandincompatiblewithabiologistparadigm.Fromthispointofview,itisourconvictionthatinthetransitionfromMarxismtopost-Marxism,thechangeisnotonlyonticbutalsoontological.Theproblemsofaglobalizedandinformation-ruledsocietyareunthinblewithinthetwoontologicalparadigmsgoverningthefieldofMarxistdiscursivit

32、y:firsttheHegelian,andlaterthenaturalistic.Ourapproachisgroundedinprivilegingthemomentofpoliticalarticulation,andthecentralcategoryofpoliticalanalysisis,inourview,hegemony.Inthatcase,howtorepeatourtranscendentalquestiondoesarelationbetweenentitieshavetobe,forahegemonicrelationtobecomepossible?Itsver

33、yconditionisthataparticularsocialforceassumestherepresentationofatotalitythatisradicallyincommensurablewithit.Suchaformofhegemonicuniversalityistheonlyonethatapoliticalcommunitycanreach.Fromthispointofview,ouranalysisshouldbedifferentiatedfromanalysesinwhichuniversalityfindsinthesocialfieldadirect,n

34、on-hegemonicallymediatedexpression,andthoseinwhichparticularitiesaremerelyaddedupwithoutanymediationbetweenthembeingthinkableasinsomeformsofpost-modernism.Butifarelationofhegemonicrepresentationistobepossible,itsontologi-calstatushastobedefined.Thisisthepointatwhich,forouranalysis,anotionofthesocial

35、conceivedasadiscursivespacethatis,makingpossiblerelationsofrepresentationstrictlyunthinkablewithinaphysicalistornaturalisticparadigmbecomesofparamountimportance.Inotherworks,wehaveshownthatthecategoryofdiscoursehasapedigreeincontemporarythoughtgoing(xi)backtothethreemainintellectualcurrentsofthetwen

36、tiethcentury:analyticalphilosophy,phenomenology,andstructuralism.Inthesethreethecenturystartedwithanillusionofimmediacy,ofanon-discursivelymediatedaccesstothethingsthemselvesthereferent,thephenomenonandthesign,respectively.Inallthree,however,thisillusionofimmediacydissolvedatsomepoint,andhadtoberepl

37、acedbyoneformoranotherofdiscursivemediation.ThisiswhathappenedinanalyticalphilosophywiththeworkofthelaterWittgenstein,inphenomenologywiththeexistentialanalyticofHeidegger,andinstructuralismwiththepost-structuralistcritiqueofthesign.Itisalso,inourview,whathappenedinepistemologywiththetransitionverifi

38、cationismPopperKuhnFeyerabend,andinMarxismwiththeworkofGramsci,wherethefullnessofclassidentitiesofclassicalMarxismhastobereplacedbyhegemonicidentitiesconstitutedthroughnon-dialecticalmediations.Allthesecurrentshavefedourthoughttosomeextent,butpost-structuralismistheterrainwherewehavefoundthemainsour

39、ceofourtheoreticalreflectionand,withinthepost-structuralistfield,deconstructionandLacaniantheoryhavehadadecisiveimportanceintheformulationofourapproachtohegemony.Fromdeconstruction,thenotionofundecidabilityhasbeencrucial.If,asshownintheworkofDerrida,undecidablespermeatethefieldwhichhadpreviouslybeen

40、seenasgovernedbystructuraldetermination,onecanseehegemonyasatheoryofthedecisiontakeninanundecidableterrain.Deeperlevelsofcontingencyrequirehegemonicthatis,contingentarticulations,whichisanotherwayofsayingthatthemomentofreactivationmeansnothingotherthanretrievinganactofpoliticalinstitutionthatfindsit

41、ssourceandmotivationnowherebutinitself.Fornotunrelatedreasons,Lacaniantheorycontributesdecisivetoolstotheformulationofatheoryofhegemony.Thus,thecategoryofpointdecapiton(nodalpoint,inourterminology)ormaster-signifierinvolvesthenotionofaparticularelementassumingauniversalstructuringfunctionwithinacert

42、aindiscursivefieldactually,whateverorganizationthatfieldhasisonlytheresultofthatfunctionwithouttheparticularityoftheelementpersepredeterminingsuchafunction.Inasimilarway,thenotionofthesubjectbeforesubjectivationestablishesthecentralityofthecategoryofidentificationandmakesitpossible,inthatsense,tothi

43、nkofhegemonictransitionswhicharefullydependentonpoliticalarticulationsandnotonentitiesconstitutedoutsidethepoliticalfieldsuchasclassinterests.Indeed,politico-hegemonicarticulationsretroactivelycreatetheintereststheyclaimtorepresent.(xii)Hegemonyhasverypreciseconditionsofpossibility,bothfromthepointo

44、fviewofwhatarelationrequirestobeconceivedashegemonic,andfromtheperspectiveoftheconstructionofahegemonicsubject.Asforthefirstaspect,thealreadymentioneddimensionofstructuralundecidabilityistheveryconditionofhegemony.Ifsocialobjectivity,throughitsinternallaws,determinedwhateverstructuralarrangementexis

45、ts(asinapurelysociologisticconceptionofsociety),therewouldbenoroomforcontingenthegemonicrearticulationsnor,indeed,forpoliticsasanautonomousactivity.Inordertohavehegemony,therequirementisthatelementswhoseownnaturedoesnotpredeterminethemtoenterintoonetypeofarrangementratherthananother,neverthelesscoal

46、esce,asaresultofanexternalorarticulatingpractice.Thevisibilityoftheactsoforiginaryinstitutionintheirspecificcontingencyis,inthisrespect,therequirementofanyhegemonicformation.Buttosaycontingentarticulationistoenounceacentraldimensionofpolitics.Thisprivilegingofthepoliticalmomentinthestructurationofso

47、cietyisanessentialaspectofourapproach.Ourbookshowshow,historically,thecategoryofhegemonywasoriginallyelaboratedinRussiansocialdemocracyasanattemptataddressingtheautonomouspoliticalinterventionwhichwasmadepossiblebythestructuraldislocationbetweenactorsanddemocratictasksthatresultedfromthelatedevelopm

48、entofcapitalisminRussia;how,later,thenotionofcombinedandunevendevelopmentextendedittothegeneralconditionsofpoliticsintheimperialistage;andhow,withGramsci,thishegemonicdimensionwasmadeconstitutiveofthesubjectivityofhistoricalactors(whothusceasetobemerelyclassactors).Wecouldaddthatthisdimensionofconti

49、ngency,andtheconcomitantautonomizationofthepolitical,areevenmorevisibleinthecontemporaryworld,intheconditionsofadvancedcapitalism,wherehegemonicrearticulationsarefarmoregeneralizedthantheywereinGramscistime.Asforhegemonicsubjectivity,ourargumentdovetailswiththewholedebateabouttherelationbetweenunive

50、rsalismandparticularismwhichhasbecomequitecentralinrecentyears.Ahegemonicrelationhas,nodoubt,auniversalisticdimension,butitisaveryparticulartypeofuniversalismwhosemainfeaturesitisimportanttopointout.Itisnottheresultofacontractualdecision,asinthecaseofHobbessLeviathan,forthehegemoniclinktransformsthe

51、identityofthehegemonicsubjects.Itisnotnecessarilylinkedtoapublicspace,aswithHegelsnotionofauniversalclass,forhegemonicrearticulationsstartatthelevelofcivilsociety.Itisnot,finally,like(xiii)theMarxiannotionoftheproletariatasauniversalclass,foritdoesnotresultfromanultimatehumanreconciliationleadingtot

52、hewitheringawayoftheStateandtheendofpolitics;thehegemoniclinkis,onthecontrary,constitutivelypolitical.What,inthatcase,isthespecificuniversalityinherentinhegemony?Itresults,weargueinthetext,fromthespecificdialecticbetweenwhatwecalllogicsofdifferenceandlogicsofequivalence.Socialactorsoccupydifferentia

53、lpositionswithinthediscoursesthatconstitutethesocialfabric.Inthatsensetheyareall,strictlyspeak-ing,particularities.Ontheotherhand,therearesocialantagonismscreatinginternalfrontierswithinsociety.Vis-visoppressiveforces,forinstance,asetofparticularitiesestablishrelationsofequivalencebetweenthemselves.

54、Itbecomesnecessary,however,torepresentthetotalityofthechain,beyondthemeredifferentialparticularismsoftheequivalentiallinks.Whatarethemeansofrepresentation?Asweargue,onlyoneparticularitywhosebodyissplit,forwithoutceasingtobeitsownparticularity,ittransformsitsbodyintherepresentationofauniversalitytran

55、scendingit(thatoftheequivalentialchain).Thisrelation,bywhichacertainparticularityassumestherepresentationofauniversalityentirelyincommensurablewithit,iswhatwecallahegemonicrelation.Asaresult,itsuniversalityisacontaminateduniversality:(1)itlivesinthisunresolvabletensionbetweenuniversalityandparticula

56、rity;(2)itsfunctionofhegemonicuniversalityisnotacquiredforgoodbutis,onthecontrary,alwaysreversible.AlthoughwearenodoubtradicalizingtheGramscianintuitioninseveralrespects,wethinkthatsomethingofthesortisimplicitinGramscisdistinctionbetweencorporativeandhegemonicclass.Ournotionofacontaminateduniversali

57、typartscompanywithaconceptionsuchasthatofHabermas,forwhomuniversalityhasacontentofitsown,independentofanyhegemonicarticulation.Butitalsoavoidstheotherextremerepresented,perhaps,atitspurestintheparticularismofLyotard,whoseconceptionofsocietyasconsistinginapluralityofincommensurablelanguagegames,whose

58、interactionscanbeconceivedonlyastort,makesanypoliticalrearticulationimpossible.Asaresult,ourapproachconceivesofuniversalityasapoliticaluniversalityand,inthatsense,asdependingoninternalfrontierswithinsociety.Thisleadsustowhatis,perhaps,themostcentralargumentofourbook,whichislinkedtothenotionofantagon

59、ism.Wehaveexplainedwhy,inourview,neitherrealoppositions(KantsRealrepugnanz)nordialecticalcontradictioncanaccountforthespecificrelationthatwecallsocialantagonism.Ourthesisisthat(xiv)antagonismsarenotobjectiverelations,butrelationswhichrevealthelimitsofallobjectivity.Societyisconstitutedaroundtheselim

60、its,andtheyareantagonisticlimits.Andthenotionofantagonisticlimithastobeconceivedliterallythatistosay,thereisnocunningofreasonwhichwouldrealizeitselfthroughantagonisticrelations.Noristhereanykindofsupergamethatwouldsubmitantagonismstoitssystemofrules.Thisiswhyweconceiveofthepoliticalnotasasuperstruct