8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

1/16

NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND THE PLURALITY OF THE SOCIAL

Ernes to Laclau

We have come t oge t he r in t h i s workshop to t r y to throw some l i g h ton th e new soc ia l movements in Lat in America. Our concern i s thusroo ted with in the numerous contemporary deba tes in which an a t t empti s made to dete rmine the r ad i ca l l y new farms and dimensions whichs o c i a l c o n f l i c t has assumed i n r ecen t decades . My con t r ibu t ion tot h i s discuss ion i s no t aimed a t a desc r ip t ive ana lys i s of th e move-ments as a whoIe, o r o f some of them in p a r t i c u l a r - t ha t i s workto be done by spe c i a l i s t s who a re more competent in t h i s pa r t i cu l a r f i e ld than I . Rathe r , I s h a l l p u t forward c e r t a in t heo r e t i c a lpremises which make it poss ib l e to t h ink the novel ty and the spe c i f i c i t y o f th e new forms o f s t rugg le and r e s i s t ance .The f i r s t ques t ion t h a t a r i s e s when dea l ing with th e new soc ia lmovements i s : in what re spec t s a re they ' new'? In our a t tempt toou t l ine a r ep ly , we w i l l r e f e r t h i s novel ty , above a l l , to theway in which the new s t ru g g l e s br ing about a c r i s i s of a t r a d i t i o nal paradigm in s o c i a l sc i ences concerning the kind o f uni tywhich c h a ra c t e r i s e s s a c i a l agents and th e shapes which c o n f l i c tbetween them can t ake . Three main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have t yp i f i edt r a d i t i ona l concep tua l i za t ions of s o c i a l c o n f l i c t s : th e determi n a t ion of th e iden t i t y o f the agents was given th rough ca tegor i e sbelonging to th e s oc i a l s t r uc t u r e i th e kind of con f l i c t was de t e r mined in t e rms of a d iach ron ic -evo lu t iona ry parad igm; and thep l u ra l i t y o f spaces o f s o c i a l c o n f l i c t was reduced, i n s o fa r asthe c o n f l i c t s became p o l i t i c i s e d , to a uni f ied pol i t i ca l spacein which the presence of th e agents was conce ived o f as a ' r e presen ta t ion of i n t e r e s t s ' . The f i r s t f ea tu re r e f e r s the a reaof emergence of every c o n f l i c t to th e empi r i ca l - r e f e r en t i a l un i tyof th e group: s t rugg le s are l abe l l ed ' p e a s a n t ' , ' bou r geo i s ' , ' pe t i t - b o u r g e o i s ' , e tc . Each of these ca tegor i e s thus des i gna t e s both

-27-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

2/16

the soc ia l agent as r e f e re n t and an assumed a p r i o r i pr i nc i p l eof uni ty between the a ge n t ' s var ious pos i t i ons . The second de t e r mines th e meaning of every s t ruggle in terms of a t e l e o log i c a l ,evolu t ionary scheme, through which t h a t meaning becomes ' ob j e c t i ve ' : it does not depend on th e consciousness of th e agents , bu ton an under ly ing movement of hi s to ry - th e t r a ns i t i on from t r a d i t i ona l to mass socie ty , in same concep tua l i s a t ions ; o r thet r a ns i t i on from feudal ism to capi ta l i sm in o t he r s , e t c . Thet h i rd aspec t i s an i nev i t ab l e conseguence of the f i r s t two: inthe closed soc ie ty pos tu la ted by the synchronic and diachronicdimensions of the paradigm under s c r u t i ny , the p o l i t i c a l spherei s a prec i s e ' l e v e l ' o f the soc ia l ; if the i de n t i t y of the soc ia lagents , then , i s cons t i t u t ed a t a d i f f e r e n t l eve l - e . g . th eeconomic - t h e i r presence a t the p o l i t i c a l l eve l can only t akethe farm of a rep re sen ta t ion of i n t e r e s t s . What i s c ha ra c t e r i s t i cof the new s oc i a l movements i s t ha t , th rough them, the un i ty ofthese th ree aspec ts o f th e paradigm has been braken up. On theone hand, it has become inc reas ing ly imposs ib le to iden t i fy thegroup, con ceived as r e f e r e n t , with an order ly and coherent systemof ' s ub j ec t p o s i t i o n s ' . Take the example of the worker . I s the resame s tab Ie r e l a t i on between hi s /he r pos i t ion in the r e l a t i ons ofproduct ion and h i s / he r pos i t ion as consumer, r e s i den t in a spec i f i ca rea , pa r t i c ipa n t in th e p o l i t i c a l system, e tc .? Evident ly , ther e l a t i on between these d i f f e r e n t pos i t ions i s fa r from being obvious and permanent; it i s r a the r the r e s u l t of complex p o l i t i c a lcons t ruc t ions which a re based on the t o t a l i t y of soc ia l re la t ionsand which cannot be der ived un i l a t e r a l l y from the r e l a t i ons ofproduct ion . In the 19th century th e p r i o r i t y of the r e l a t i ons ofproduct ion was due to the long hours spen t by the workers in thefac to r ie s and t he i r l imi ted access to consumer goods and to genera lsoc ia l pa r t i c ipa t i on as a re su l t of t h e i r low wages. The t r a ns fo r mation of these condi t ions in the 20th century , however, has vJeakened the t i e s which l inked the var ious i d e n t i t i e s of the workeras producer , consumer, p o l i t i c a l agent , e t c . This has had twor e su l t s : on the one hand, th e soc ia l agen t ' s pos i t ions becomeautonomous - it i s t h i s autonomy which i s a t the roo t of the spec i f i c i t y of the new s oc i a l movements - , but on the o the r hand,

-21}-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

3/16

the type of a r t i cu la t ion ex is t ing among these d i f f e r e n t pos i t ionsbecomes cont inua l ly more inde te rmina te . At any r a t e , they cannotbe der ived au tomat ica l ly from the un i ty o f the group as r e f e re n t .Categor ies such as 'working c l a s s ' , ' p e t i t - bou rge o i s ' , e tc . , be-come l e s s and less meaningful as ways of understanding the over-a l l i ~ e n t i t y of s oc i a l agents . The concept of ' c l a s s s t rugg le ' ,fo r example, i s ne i t he r cor rec t nor i ncor rec t - it i s , simply,t o t a l ly i n su f f i c i e n t as a way of account ing fo r contemporarysoc ia l c on f l i c t s .Secondly, t h i s col lapse of the synchronic uni ty between the d i f fe ren t pos i t ions of the agent has led to a c r i s i s in the dia chronic theory of ' s t a g e s ' : thus in the same way t h a t a deterrni-nate sub jec t posi t ion - in the example given above the pos i t ionin the re l a t ions of product ion - does not automat ica l ly provideany necessary dete rmina t ion of the o the r pos i t ions , it i s impos-s ib le to r e f e r each s ingle pos i t ion to a ra t iona l , necessarysuccession o f s tages . Very ear ly on Marxism had to dea l with thephenomena designated as ' unequal and combined development ' ,with the growing coexis tence of ' e lements ' which p o l i t i c a l pract i ce had to a r t i c u l a t e in the presen t and which, t he o re t i c a l l y ,should have made t h e i r appearance in successive phases of develop-ment. Simi lar ly , the so-ca l l ed 'modern isa t ion ' t heor i es were soonforced to recognise th e use lessness fo r p o l i t i c a l analys is ofass ign ing each aspect o f s oc i a l and economic r e a l i t y to the succes-s ive s tages of ' t r a d i t i o n a l ' and 'modern' soc ie ty , a iven thevar i e ty o f heterodox combinat ions of the two , which der ived fromthe phenomena of economic and soc ia l dependence.Las t ly , if the i den t i ty o f soc ia l a gen t s i s no longer con-ceived as cons t i tu t ed a t a s ing le l eve l of soc ie ty t he i r presence a t the o ther ' l e ve l s ' can also not be conceived of as a' r epresen ta t ion of i n t e r e s t s ' . The ' r epresen ta t ion of i n t e r e s t s 'model thus loses i t s va l id i ty . But, for the same reason , thepo l i t i ca l ceases to be a l eve l o f t h e s oc i a l and becomes a d i-mension which i s presen t , to a grea te r or l e s s e r ex ten t , in a l lsoc ia l prac t ice . The p o l i t i c a l i s one o f the poss ib le forms ofex is tence o f the s oc i a l - we sha l l see which . The new soc ia l mo vements have been character i sed by an inc reas ing po l i t i c i s a t ion

- 29 -

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

4/16

of soc ia l l i f e (remember the femini s t s logan: 'The personal i sp o l i t i c a i ' ) ; but a lso it i s prec i s e ly t h i s which has sha t t e redthe vis ion of the p o l i t i c a l as a c l osed , homogeneous space .At t h i s p o i n t one might ask: i s it n o t the case t ha t t h i s p lu ra l i t y of the soc ia l and t h i s pro l i f e r a t i on of p o l i t i c a l spaceswhich l i e behind the new soc ia l movements, a re bas i ca l l y typ ic -a l o f the advanced i ndus t r i a l s oc i e t i e s , w h i l s t the s o c i a l r e a l i ty of the Third World, given i t s lower l eve l of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ,can still be apprehended in terms of the more c l a s s i c a l ca tegor i e sof soc io log ica l and c l a s s ana lys i s? The rep ly i s t h a t , bes ides thefa c t t h a t t h i s ' lower l e v e l of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ' i s a myth, ThirdWorld s oc i e t i e s have lzc,"'ep been comprehens ible in t e rms of as t r i c t c lass ana lys i s . We hard ly need to r e f e r to the Eurocentr ismin which the ' u n i v e r s a l i z a t i o n ' of t h a t ana lys i s was based. It sawthe ca tegor i e s emerging from d i s t i nc t i ons among modes of produc t ion , among soc ia l c la s se s - i . e . ca tegor i e s which had been conce i ved of as a way of apprehending the European exper ience - as const an t s of every poss ib le soc ie ty . Sta r t ing from t h i s po in t , soc iolog ica l ana lys i s fol lowed a very simple course : every th ing depended on a s t ra tegy of recogni t ion , in which the very way in whichthe ques t ions were asked a l ready presupposed h a l f o f th e answer .A ques t ion such as 'what i s the c la s s s t r uc t u r e o f the agrar iansec to r in count ry x or z?' presupposes what it s e t s ou t to show,namely, t h a t the d iv i s ions between s oc i a l agents should be t r ea t edas c la s s d iv i s ions . Likewise , ques t ions about the prec i s e loca t ionof the c a p i t a l i s t Sta te with in a ce r t a i n soc ia l format ion aref requent ly t r ea t ed as i f t ha t e n t i t y - the c a p i t a l i s t Sta te -der ived a l l i t s e s s e n t i a l de te rmina t ions from a l eve l on to log i ca l ly d i f : e r e n t from t h a t in which i t s h i s t o r i c a l l y cont ingentva r ia t ions are c o n s t i t u t e d . (A s imi l a r process of e s s e n t i a l i s treduct ion i s a t work behind ques t ions such as 'What pa th did thet r a ns i t i on from feudal ism to capi ta l i sm fol low in t h a t country ora r ea? ' ; or 'Was the revolu t ion of such a yeargeois r evo l u t i on? ' ) .

democrat ic bour-

We should t r y to a\"oid t h i s kind of Eurocent r i c un iversa l i sm.To do so , we must s t a r t by t ak ing a s tep backwards and look a t

- 30 -

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

5/16

e n t i t i e s such as ' c l a s s e s ' , ' l e ve l s ' of the s oc i a l , e t c . as com-plexes r e s u l t i ng from the cont ingent a r t i c u l a t i on of smal le r en-t i t i e s . We have to determine the t he o re t i c a l s t a tu s of these en-t i t i e s and the spe c i f i c i t y of t ha t a r t i c u l a to ry l i nk , ex i s t ingamong them, a l i nk to which we have r e f e r r ed without , however,providing an adequate t he o re t i c a l concept o f it.

1. Subjec t E ~ ~ ~ ~ i o n s , a r t i c u l a t i on , hegemony.lOne of the fundamental advances in s oc i a l sc iences i n r ecen tyears has been the break with the ca tegory of the ' s ub j e c t ' asa r a t i ona l , t ransparen t un i ty which would convey a homogeneousmeaning on the t a t a 1 f i e l d of h i s / he r conduct by being the source of h i s /he r ac t ions . Psychoana lys i s has shown t h a t , fa r frombeing organi sed around th e t ransparency of an ego, pe rsona l i tyi s s t ruc tured in a number of l eve l s which l i e outs ide th econsc iousness and r a t i o n a l i t y of the agents . Marxism was ear lyon forced to recoqnise the fundamental asymmetry between theac tua l consciousness of the agents and th e one which should havecorresponded to them accord inq to t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r e s t s -al though its reac t ion to t h i s discovery , ins tead of l ead ing toa c r i t i que of the ra t iona l i sm i mp l i c i t in the no t ion of ' i n t e r e s t s ' , was r a t he r to rea ff i rm the l a t t e r by means of th e ' i n it-s e l f / f o r i t s e l f ' d i s t i n c t i o n .This remaval of the c e n t r a l i t y of th e sub jec t in contemporarysoc ia l sc ience has led to an invers ion of th e c l a s s i c not ion ofs ub j ec t i v i t y . Ins tead o f seeing the sub jec t as a souree whichwould provide the world with meaning, we see each sub jec t pos i -t ion as occupying d i f f e r e n t i a l l o c i with in a s t ruc tu re . Thiss t ruc ture o r ensemble of d i f f e r e n t i a l pos i t ions we c a l l a dis -course. There i s no a pr ior i , necessary reZation between thediscourses which cons t i t u t e the worker , fo r example, as a mi l i t a n t or a s a technica l agent in the workplace, and those whichdetermine h is a t t i t ude towards p o l i t i e s , r a c i a l v io lence , sexismand other spheres in which the agent i s a c t i v e . I t i s thus impos-s ib Ie to speak of the s oc i a l agent as i f we were dea l ing with au n i f i e d , homogeneous e n t i t y . We have r a the r to approach the soc ia l

-31-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

6/16

agent as a p lu ra l i t y , dependent on th e var ious sub jec t pos i t ionsby which s /he i s cons t i tu t ed with in var ious d iscu rs ive format ions.This provides us with a t he o re t i c a l key to unders tand the pecul i a r i t y o f th e new s oc i a l movements : t he i r c e n t r a l c ha ra c t e r i s t i ci s , fo r reasons which w i l l be discussed l a t e r , t h a t an ensembleof sub jec t pos i t ions (a t the leve l o f , the p iace of res idence ,i n s t i t u t i o n a l appara tuses , var ious forms of c u l t u r a l , r a c i a l andsexual subord ina t ion) have become poin t s o f c on f l i c t and p o l i t i c a lmobi l i sa t ion . The pro l i f e r a t i on of these new forms of s t rugg ler e su l t s from the inc reas ing autonomization of s oc i a l spheres incontemporary soc ie t i e s , autonomizat ion which can only be theore t i c a l l y grasped in a l l its impl ica t ions if we s t a r t from the not i on o f the sub jec t as a de-cent red , de - to t a l i s e d agent .We should a t t h i s po in t i nd ica te the t he o re t i c a l s t a t u s t ha t canbe a t t r ibu ted to these un i t s of ana lys i s which we have ca l l ed ' subj e c t pos i t i ons ' . They c e r t a in ly give us the ins t ruments with whichto th ink the spe c i f i c i t y o f a number of s i t ua t i ons which have evaded c l a s s i c a l soc io log ica l ana lys i s . Por example, they enable us tosee t ha t a ca tegory s11ch as the 'working c l a s s ' o f the European exper ience was the r e s u l t of an a r t i c u l a t i on between spec i f i c sub jec tpos i t ions a t the l eve l of the r e l a t i ons of produc t ion , and o the rpos i t ions a t a separa te l e ve l which were never the less organi sedaround a c e n t r a l axis cons t i tu t ed by the former. The explana t ionfo r t h i s l i e s in pa r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l f ac tor s connected with thespe c i f i c i t y of t ha t s i t ua t i on . In o the r h i s t o r i c a l contex ts the pos i t ions a t the l eve l of the r e l a t i ons of product ion wi l l be a r t i c u l a ted with the o the rs in a d i f f e r e n t way, without it being poss ib leto guarantee a pr ior i the c e n t r a l i t y of any one o f them. One problem,however, remains unsolved: what i s it t h a t guarantes the separat ionbetween th e d i f f e r e n t sub jec t pos i t ions . The answer i s : nothing -none of them i s immune to the ac t ion of the o t he r s . Thei r d i f f e re n t i a t i on i s c e r t a in ly r e l a t e d to the imposs ib i l i t y of es t ab l i sh ing ana pr io r i , necessary l i nk between them; but t h i s does no t mean t ha tthe re are no t cons tan t e f f o r t s to e s t a b l i sh between them h i s to r i ca l lycont ingent and va r iab ie l i nks . This type of l i nk , which es t ab l i s he sbetween va r ious pos i t ions a con t ingen t , non-predetermined r e l a -t i on , i s what we c a l l ar t i cu la t i on . There i s no necessary l ink

-32-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

7/16

between racism and mil i tancy on the pa r t of white workers , but a td i f f e r e n t moments t he re wi l l be discourses t ha t w i l l t ry to provide an a r t i c u l a t i on between the two from p o l i t i c a l l y opposed s tandpoin ts - the immigrants may be por t rayed as fore igners who cometo s t e a l the jobs o f th e white na t iona l s , or a l t e rna t ive ly racismmay be portrayed as an ideology which t r i e s to stir up xenophobicfee l ings in the i n t e re s t s o f the c a p i t a l i s t s . Every subjec t pos i t ion i s thus cons t i tu t ed with in an e sse n t i a l l y uns tab le di scur s ives t ruc tu re , s ince it i s subjected to a r t i cu la to ry pr ac t i c e s which,from d i f f e r e n t s tandpoin ts , subver t and t ransfarm it. I f the l inkbetween ant i - rac ism and workers ' mil i t ancy were to reach the po in tt ha t each would neces sa r i ly imply the other , they would bath havebecome p a r t of the same d iscu rs ive format ion and would thus nal anger c ons t i t u t e d i f f e r e n t sub jec t pos i t ions , but d i f f e r e n t i a lmoments of a un i f i ed sub jec t pos i t ion . In such a case , the re wouldbe na room fo r any a r t i c u l a t o ry pra c t i c e . Because t h i s i s not thecase , because s oc i a l r e a l i t y never a r r ive s a t such a po in t o f c lo sure , the sub jec t pos i t ions always d isp lay a c e r t a in degree ofopenness and ambigui ty ( in t e chn ica l t e rms , they always r e t a i n ,to some ex ten t , the charac te r of ' f l oa t i ng s i g n i f i e r s ' ) .This l a s t po in t i s dec i s ive . There i s no sub jec t pos i t i on whosel i nk s Nith the others i s permanent ly assured; and consequen t l y .there i s no f u l l y acquired soc ia l i d en t i t y which i s no t sub jec t .to a grea t e r o r l e s se r degree . to the ac t ion o f ar t i c u l a t o r yprac t i c e s . The r i s e o f fascism in western Europe a t the end ofWorld War I can be seen as a vas t process of r e - a r t i c u l a t i on whichdeeply t ransformed the s oc i a l i d e n t i t i e s and which fasc ina tedp o l i t i c a l ana lys ts of t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t ideo log ica l persuas ions ,because it sha t te red the confidence in the permanence a t t r i bu t e dby the dominant concept ion of progress to the bas ic a r t i c u l a t i onsof the l i b e r a l Sta te . Simi la r ly , the ana lys is of contemporary news oc i a l movements must no t allow us to f a l l under th e i l l us ion t h a tthey are neces sa r i ly progres s ive . I f they open up the po t en t i a lfo r advance towards f r e e r , more democrat ie and e ga l i t a r i a n soc ie t i e s , it i s c l ea r t h a t t h i s i s only a po t en t i a l , and t ha t i t srea l i sa t ion w i l l depend l a r g e l y o n th e farms of a r t i c u l a t i onwhich a re se t up among the d i f f e re n t democrat ie demands. The ab-

-33-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

8/16

sorp t ion of p a r t o f these demands by neo-conserva t ive popu l i s tpro jec t s (e .g . Reagan, Thatcher) i s an example which i s only tooobvious and which should serve as a warning.The foregoing ana lys is shows us a double movement of opposi tes igns . On the one hand, t h e r e i s t endency towards autonomy onthe p a r t of the separa te sub jec t pos i t i ons i on th e o the r , the rei s the oppos i t e tendency to f ix them, through a r t i c u l a t o r y prac t i c e s , as moments of a un i f i ed d i s cu rs ive s t ruc tu re . The ques t ionthen inev i tab ly a r i s e s ' a r e these two moments con t rad ic to ry? 'We can only rep ly in th e a f f i rma t ive : ca r r i ed to extremes, thel og ic o f autonomy and th e log ic o f a r t i c u l a t i on a re con t rad ic to ry .However, the re i s no con t rad ic t ion in our t h e o r e t i c a l pos i t i on ,s ince the re i s no incons is tency in af f i rming t ha t the s oc i a l i scons t ruc ted by the p a r t i a l l i m i t a t i on of the e f f e c t s of con t rad ic to ry l og ics . We should s t r e s s the imp l i ca t ions o f t h i s as s e r t i on .It would be an e s s e n t i a l i s t premise to assume t h a t every s oc i a lcon t rad ic t ion or incompa t ib i l i ty can be reduced to a moment inthe opera t ion o f an underlying l og ic which would fu l l y r es to re thepos i t i v i t y of the s oc i a l - as in th e case of the Hegelian 'cunningof reason ' . I t i s prec i se ly the r e j ec t i on o f t h i s r a t i o n a l i s t no t ion of the soc ia l which l eads us to see i t s p l u r a l i t y and i n s t a b i l i t y - which i s shown among o the r th ings , by th e poss i b i l i t yof con t rad ic t ion - as cons t i t u t i ve and fundamental . In o the r words,the s oc i a l i s in the l a s t ins tance groundless . The forms o f r a t i o na l i t y it shows a re only those r e s u l t i ng from th e con t ingen t andprecar ious l inks es tab l i shed by a r t i c u l a to ry p ra c t i c e s . ' Soc ie ty 'as a r a t i ona l , i n t e l l i g i b l e e n t i t y i s consequent ly impossible . Thesoc ia l can never be fu l ly cons t i tu t ed as p o s i t i v i t y .Now, among the fac to rs which combine to subver t the pos i t i v i t yof th e s o c i a l , the re i s one which has prime importance : th epresence of antagonism. When a r t i c u l a to ry pr ac t i c e s opera te ina f i e ld cr i s s -c rossed by an tagon is t i c a r t i c u l a to ry p ro j e c t s , wec a l l them hegemonie p rae t i e e s . The concep t of hegemony supposesthe concept of antagonism, to which we s ha l l now t u r n .

-34-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

9/16

2. Antagonisms and the mul t ip l i ca t ion of p o l i t i c a l spaces .Antagonism invo lves th e presence of nega t iv i ty with in the s o c i a l .Let us t ake as an example a p o l i t i c a l discourse which seeks tocrea te the div i s ion of s o c i a l space i n to two an tagon i s t i c camps' t he conserva t ives , l i b e r a l s and s o c i a l democrats are the samev i s - -v i s the i n t e re s t s o f the working c la s s ' . This discourse sub-v e r t s the p o s i t i v i t y o f t he soc ia l in two c lose ly l inked dimen-s ions . F i r s t l y , the p o s i t i v i t y of the s o c i a l i s denied inasmuch asthe system o f di f ferences on which it i s based i s subver ted - con-se rva t ives , l i b e r a l s and soc i a l democra ts as p o s i t i v e e n t i t i e s ,di f f e r ing from one ano ther , are subver ted by the d i scourse inques t i on , in so fa r as each of these p o s i t i v i t i e s i s presen ted asequivalent to the o t h e r s . In other s words, from a c e r t a i n perspect ive they a l l r e p r e s e n t the same. There i s , however, a second sensein which the subvers ion of p o s i t i v i t y t akes p lace . I f we look morec lose ly we see t h a t it i s the r e l a t io n o f oppos i t ion to the i n t e r e s t s of th e working c l a s s which makes poss ib le the equivalence ofa l l these i ns t ances . Now t h i s r e l a t i o n of oppos i t ion i s no t thed i f f e r e n t i a l , p o s i t i v e coex is tence between two e n t i t i e s , but thef a c t t h a t one of them i s the pure ly nega t ive reverse of the othe r .The div i s ion of the p o l i t i c a l space in to two camps preven ts themboth from being c o n s t i t u t e d through de te rmina t ion , d i f f e r e nc e andpos i t i v i t y s ince the i d en t i ty of each i s es t ab l i shed as the nega-t ion of the other and, t hus , the i n t e rn a l d i f f e r e n t i a l moments ofeach camp are p resen ted as a chain of equ iva lences which c ons t r uc t sthe oppos i t ion to the othe r camp. This i s why antagonism preven tsthe s o c i a l from becoming ' s o c i e t y ' - i . e . a s tab le and conceptual ly apprehens ib le system o f di f f e rences .We are thus saying t h a t the s oc i a l can only be c o n s t i t u t e d andconceived as a t o t a l i t y , through the expuls ion of a ce r t a in ' s u r plus of meaning' - the othe r camp - which i s cons t ruc ted and r e presen ted as nega t iv i ty . To pu t it in a d i f f e r e n t way, a ce r ta insoc i a l order can only be cons t i t u t ed on the base o f a f r o n t i e rwhich separa tes it from what i s r a d i c a l l y ' o t h e r ' and opposed toit. Let us take two diamet r i ca l ly opposed examples of t hese op-posed s o c i a l l og ies of equivalence and di f f e rence , in order toa r r ive a t an unders tanding of the r a d i c a l na ture of the change

-35-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

10/16

wrought in the p o l i t i c a l imaginary by the r i s e of the new s oc i a lmovements.The f i r s t case i s t ha t of mil lenar ian ism. Here the log ic of equi valence i s unchal lenged. A ll the aspec ts o f urban cu l t u r e - d i f fe rences in dress , ha b i t s , even skin co lour - are presen ted asthe negat ion of the cu l t u r e of the peasan t community. One t ypeof community i s r a d i c a l l y e x t e r io r to the o the r . But t h i s verye x t e r i o r i t y impl ies , f i r s t l y , t ha t t he re i s only one space inwhich antagonisms are cons t i tu ted , and, secondly , t ha t t h i s space ,f a r from c a l l i ng fo r a complex p o l i t i c a l cons t ruc t ion , i s a p r i mary, f ixed datum of exper ience. In o the r words, the dimensionwhich we have defined as hegemony and art iculat ion i s absen t .The second, diamet r i ca l ly opposed example, i s t h a t o f the pract i ces and ideo log ies which have accompanied the es tab l i shmentof the Welfare Sta te . Here the foca l po in t of c ons t i t u t i on ofthe s oc i a l and p o l i t i c a l imaginary i s a hor izon es tab l i sh ingthe poss i b i l i t y of an unl imi ted in tegrat ion. Every demand canbe (potent ia l ly) s a t i s f i e d , and can as such be cons idered as al eg i t ima te d i f fe rence with in the system. Here the log ic of d i f ference i s extended towards a t enden t ia l ly unl imited horizon.The pr o j ec t i s the cons t ruc t ion of a soc ie ty without i n t e rna ldiv i s ion or f ron t i e r s (Daniel Be l l ' s ' t he end of i deo logy ' ,the Tory s logan 'one na t ion ' ) . It i s in the movements of d i s placement of t h i s i n t e rna l p o l i t i c a l f ron t i e r t ha t we must seekthe d i s t i nc t i ve fea tu re s of contemporary s oc i a l s t r ugg l e s .The ensemble of h i s t o r i c a 1 experience and p o l i t i c a l discoursesin 19th century Europe was dominated by the displacements andt rans format ions of t h i s i n t e rna l f ro n t i e r , of t h i s l i ne whichc ons t i t u t e s soc ia l nega t iv i ty . In the per iod 1789-1848 th e d iv i ding l i ne was drawn by th e oppos i t ion ' peoplejAncien Rgimes' .The ' peop le ' was a powerful en t i ty with in the p o l i t i c a l imaginary- a 'myth ' in Sore l ' s usage - because it organised the mass offorces opposed to the dominant order in to a v a s t system ofequivalences . Even a t a t ime when it became inc rea s ing ly d i f f i c u l tto see both camps as s imple givens , and when the i n t e rna l f ron t i e r srequ i red , correspondingly, an increas ing e f f o r t of p o l i t i c a l cons-

-36-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

11/16

t r uc t i on , one can still say t ha t , in genera l , the l i ne separa t ingthe two camps cont inued t o a c t as a s t abIe framework of s i gn i f i c a t ions which made it poss ib le to iden t i fy s oc i a l agent s and t h e i rantagonisms. I t was when t h i s framework o f s tabIe s ign i f i c a t i onsbegan to break up, and when the syrnbolic produc t iv i ty of the' people ' as an agen t of h i s t o r i c a l s t rugg le s began to f a i l , t ha tMarxism at tempted to conceive the i n t e rna l f ron t i e r o f th e soc ia lin terms of a d i f f e r e n t div id ing pr i nc i p l e : the c las s div i s ion .Now, it i s of the g r e a t e s t importance to r e a l i s e t ha t fo r Marxismt h i s par t i t i on , which was cons t i tu t ed in the economie sphere ,could only reproduce i t s e l f withou t a l t e r a t i on in the p o l i t i c a lsphere in a d i s t a n t fu ture , when c a p i t a l i s t development had sim-p l i f i e d the s oc i a l s t ruc tu re and the c l a s s s t rugg le had reachedi t s cl imax in a s imple showdown between c a p i t a l i s t s and pr o l e t a r i ans . The f a i l u re of capi ta l i sm to evolve in t h i s way, and theincreas ing complexity o f c las s s t ruc tu re in advanced i n d u s t r i a lsoc i e t i e s , rendered c l a s s d i v i s i on , a s a c ons t i t u t i ve pr inc ip le ofan i n t e rna l s oc i a l f r o n t i e r , l e s s and l e s s opera t ive in i t s e f f ec t s and inc reas ing ly dependent upon cont ingent forms of p o l i t i ca l cons t ruc t ion . To pu t it in a d i f f e r e n t way, from t h i s pointon po l i t i e s was impossible without ar t icu la t ion and hegemony.The t r a ns i t i on to t h i s new form o f p o l i t i e s impl ies a dec is ivechange : the t ransformat ion of the ro l e of the po l i t i ca l imagi-nary. By t h i s we mean the ensemble of s ign i f i c a t i ons which, within a determinate i deo log ica l -d i scur s ive complex, funct ion as ahorizon - i . e . as the moment of equiva len t t o ta l i sa t ion of anumber o f p a r t i a l s t ruggles and confron ta t ions . This horizon i salways presen t , but i t s ro l e in the cons t i tu t ion o f p o l i t i c a ls ign i f i c a t i ons can vary cons iderab ly . We can i nd i ca t e two extremes i t ua t i ons . In the f i r s t one, the re i s a r ad i ca l dispropor t ionbetween the ac tua l s i t ua t i on of domination and th e poss i b i l i t yof combat t ing the dominant force and, in t h i s r e s pec t , of wagingan e f f e c t i ve war of pos i t ion aga ins t it. In such a case , the con-f l i c t i s excZusive ly conceived and exper. ienced a t the imaginaryl eve l ; th e funct ion of the hor izon i s no t to allow the t o t a l i s a t i on of a mass of p a r t i a l conf ron ta t ions , but , on the contra ry ,to cons t i tu te t h e i r primary s ign i f i c a t i on . But by the very f ac t

-37-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

12/16

t ha t t h i s horizon has t h i s primary c ons t i t u t i ve func t ion , thes oc i a l can only be experienced and conceived as a t o t a l i t y . Inthe second case , by c on t r a s t , each p a r t i a l s t ruggle i s success fu l in cons t i tu t ing i t s e l f as a war of pos i t ion and, as such,draws out of i t s e l f , from i t s d i f f e r e n t i a l uniqueness , the worldof s ign i f i c a t i ons which al low the c ons t i t u t i on of a s oc i a l orp o l i t i c a l i den t i ty . The moment of t o t a l i s a t i o n is thus purelya hor izon , and i t s re l a t ion to the concrete antagonisms becomesuns tab le and t akes on a ce r t a in ex te r io r i t y .Within such a perspec t ive , we can formulate the d i s t inc t ion between th e soc ia l s t ruggles of the 19th and 20th cen tur i es asfol lows. In the 19th century , soc ia l s t ruggles led not sa muchtowards a pro l i fe ra t ion of p o l i t i c a l spaces and a p o l i t i c i s a t i o nof each s oc i a l antagonism, but ra the r to the cons t ruc t ion of waysof giving to these antagonisms access to a r e l a t ive ly uni f iedp o l i t i c a l space. Ta t h i s ex ten t , t he re was always a dis tance between the a reas of emergence of antagonisms and the area of cons t ruc t ion of the p o l i t i c a l . As a r e s u l t of t ha t , the presence ofthe farmer in the l a t t e r had to t ake on the farm of a r e l a t i o nof r epresen ta t ion . Moments of c r i s i s in the p o l i t i c a l systemwere moments in which new s oc i a l antagonisms d i r e c t l y impingedon the t r ad i t i ona l p o l i t i c a l spaces (1830, 1848, 1871); but ,in any case , these c r i se s were always c r i ses of a t o ta l modelof socie ty - what we have ca l led a uni f i ed p o l i t i c a l imaginary.In recen t decades, by c on t r a s t , the mul t ip l i ca t ion of poin ts ofrup ture which has accompanied the inc reas ing bureaucra t i sa t ionof s oc i a l l i f e and the ' commodif icat ion ' o f advanced i ndus t r i a lsoc i e t i e s , has led to a pro l i f e r a t i on of antagonismsi but each ofthem has tended to crea te i t s own space and to p o l i t i c i s e a spec i f i c area of s oc i a l r e l a t i ons . Feminis t , eco log is t , a n t i - i n s t i t u t i ona l s t ruggles and those o f the marginal groups do not genera l lyassume the farm of antagonisms whose p o l i t i c i s a t i o n should lead tothe r epresen ta t ion o f each of these ' i n t e r e s t s ' in a d i f f e r e n tand precons t i tu t ed p o l i t i c a l sphere , but they lead r a the r to ad i r e c t p o l i t i c i s a t i o n of the space in which they a re each cons t i t u t ed . This means only t ha t the moment of t o t a l i s a t i o n , the d imension of horizon of the p o l i t i c a l imaginary, i s na l anger

-38-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

13/16

cons t i tu t ed as a ' t o t a l model ' of s oc i e t y , but i s r e s t r i c t ed toce r ta in demands and ce r t a in spec i f i c soc ia l r e l a t i ons . The r a d i ca l ly democratic p o t e n t i a l o f the new soc ia l movements l i e s prec i se ly in t h i s - in t h e i r impl ic i t demand fo r a rad ica l ly openand indeterminate view of soc ie ty , in so fa r as every ' g loba l 'soc ia l arrangement i s only the cont ingent r e s u l t of bargainingbetween a p l u ra l i t y of spaces and no t a foundat ional category,which would determine the meaning and l imi t s of each of thesespaces.

Po l i t i ca l spaces and soc ia l movements in Lat in America.How are we to extend the preceding re f l ec t ions to the process offormation o f Lat in American soc ie t i e s , to the spec i f i c forms inwhich the p o l i t i c a l has been constructed in them? We have a l readyr e fe r red the formation of the p o l i t i c a l imaginary to a bas ic asyrn-metry : to the dis tance which prevents the s t ab i l i s a t ion of anysystem of di f fe rences as a pos i t ive , complete t o t a l i t y , closed inon i t s e l f , and the r e f e r r a l o f t h i s moment of closure to the t o t a l iz ing dimension of a hor izon , i n s t i t u t i n g soc ia l d iv i s ion and an-tagonism. From t h i s perspec t ive we can say tha t the f i e ld of po l i t i c s in Lat in America has been cons t ruc ted , in the pas t century ,around two success ive , b a s i c , t o t a l i z ing m a t r i c e s : l ibera l i smand populism. Both seem to be ca l l ed in to quest ion by the soc ia lmovements of the pas t twenty years , which point in the di rec t ionof a new experience o f democracy. We w i l l concent ra te our ana lys i son these two h i s to r i ca l matr ices , s ince the c r i s i s of them bothbr ings the spe c i f i c i t y o f the new s i t ua t i on in to r e l i e f .The l i b e r a l p o l i t i c a l imaginary conceived Latin American soc ie t i e sas systems of di f fe rences - in the sense already ind ica ted - whoseexpansion would progress ive ly br idge the gap which separa ted themfrom the European soc i e t i e s . The idea of th i s c los ing gap was thedimension of horizon which was a t the roo t of the cons t i tu t ion ofa l l p o l i t i c a l s ign i f i ca t ions . Each p o l i t i c a l reform, each t echn ica linnovat ion, each economic t ransformat ion , would be in te rpre ted - inthe l i g h t of the p o s i t i v i s t ideology of progress - as a s tep to wards a type of soc ie ty which exis ted completely and e xp l i c i t l y

-39-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

14/16

only in l i b e r a l c a p i t a l i s t Europe. Without t h i s re fe rence to ar ea l i t y ex te rna l to the Lat in American soc i e t i e s , the s oc i a l andp o l i t i c a l experience of th e l a t t e r w ~ s meaningless : t h i s i s whyt h i s imaginary dimension became the fundamental key and th e t o t a l i s ing moment of th e whol p o l i t i c a l exper ience . Soc ia l div i s ionwas conceived as a f ron t i e r which exac t ly reproduced th e terms oft h i s imaginary dimension. Sarmiento - and th e r e s t of La t in Amer i can l ibe ra l i sm - had a l ready sa id it : the fundamental div i s ionwas between ' c i v i l i s a t i o n ' and ' ba rbar i sm ' . Two symmetr ica l ly op-posed systems of equivalence s l i ced p o l i t i c a l space in two.This p o l i t i c a l hor izon was organized around the fol lowing dimen-s ions : i ) the ex is tence of an i n t e rna l f ron t i e r between ther a t iona l i t y of a p o l i t i c a l world modelled on Europe and t h a t' f r i nge ' cons t i t u t ed by the nat ive backwardness of La t in Americansoc ia l r e a l i t y ; i i ) the momento of antagonism was provided bythe exis tence of t h a t div id ing f ron t i e r - what was beyond it couldnot be i n t egra t ed as di f fe rence , bu t had to be dominated and dest royedi iii) the progress ive advance of ' c i v i l i s a t i o n ' wouldend up by rep lac ing t ha t more pr imi t ive world - in t h i s way theidea l could be a t t a ined of homogeneous soc i e t i e s , in which thelog ic of d i f fe rence would hold an undivided sway. This l a s t po in ti s dec is ive : the hor izon c ons t i t u t i ve of the l i b e r a l imaginaryfound i t s poin t of c losu re , i t s t o t a l i s ing dimension, in a fu tu rereduct ion of the soc ia l t o a pure log ic of di f fe rence and in thee jec t ion of the log ic o f equivalence ( ' t h e two na t ions ' ) frornthe p o l i t i c a l sphere . The oppos i t iona l movements which ernergeda t the t ime could be loca ted a t e i t he r of the two s ides of thep o l i t i c a l f ron t i e r r e s u l t i ng from the hegernony of the l i b e r a ldiscourse . Ei the r they t o t a l l y r e j ec t ed th e l a t t e r and presen tedthemselves as c oun t e r - t o t a l i t i e s - as in th e case of the Canudosmovement in Braz i l - or they were cons t ruc ted as antagonisms in t e rna l to th e l i be r a l i rnaginary, which d id not ques t ion the 'C i v i l i z a t ion /Ba rba r i sm ' dichotomy - such was the case with theemerging so c i a l i s t and anarch i s t groups , genera l ly organizedaround European immigrants in th e urban cen te r s . The l i b e r a limaginary was thus a hor izon which airned to c lose the s oc i a l ,to c ons t i t u t e it as ' s o c i e ty ' . I t i s important to r e c a l l t ha t the

-40-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

15/16

popu l i s t imaginary s t a r t e d from an i nden t i ca l t o t a l i s ing as p i r a -t ion . The imaginary dimension of l i be ra l i sm ceased to be product i ve a t the po in t when hope had been l o s t in the poss ib i l i t y ofi t s unl imi ted expansion, in i t s capac i ty to extend i t s f ron t i e r sand absorb a l l antagonisms with in ahomogeneous system of d i f -ferences . When t h i s expansive dimension came in to c r i s i s , thero le of the f ron t i e r was t ransformed : what had been bordersbecame l imi ta t ions . The l i b e r a l system was na l anger seen as at a a l of progress and s oc i a l homogenisa t ion , but as a simple sys-tem of domination. This i s the base from which populism emerqedas a new matr ix of the p o l i t i c a l imaginary . Two f ea tures standout fo r comment. F i r s t l y , while the l i b e r a l imaginary po in t o fc losure was a hor izon provided by a pure log ic o f di f fe rence ,in the case of populism t h i s hor izon was cons t i tu t ed by the a f -f i rmat ion o f soc ia l d iv i s ion and the log ic of equivalence. Thet o t a l i s ing dimension of the soc ia l i s i n s t i t u t ed through bas icoppos i t ions such as ' p eop l e / o l i ga r chy ' , ' n a t ion j impe r ia l i sm ' ,e t c . Secondly, t h i s imaginary dimension def ines nodal po in t saround which the new p o l i t i c a l hor izon i s organized : the lead-e r , the armed forces , or the appeal of t e chn ica l exoer t i se andeconomic development . Popul ism, in o the r words, remains a d i s -course of the t o t a l i t y of the soc ia l , which s t s up a f ron t i e rbetween the soc ia l forces whose r e l a t i on of equivalence cons t i -t u t e the popular camp and those other , symmetr ica l ly opposed,which rep re sen t the camp of dominat ion .What i s pa r t i cu la r ly new and s t r ik ing in the s oc i a l movementswhich have emerged in La t in America in the l a s t twenty years i st ha t - perhaps for the f i r s t t ime - t h i s t o t a l i s ing moment i sabsent , o r a t l e a s t se r ious ly ca l led i n to ques t ion . Popular mob i l i s a t i ons are na l anger based on a model of t o t a l soc ie ty oron the c rys t a l l i s a t i on in terms of equivalence of a s ing le conf l i c t which divides the t o t a l i t y of the soc ia l in two camps,bu t on a p lu ra l i t y of concrete demands l ead ing to a pro l i f e r a t i ono f p o l i t i c a l spaces . This i s the dimension which, it seems to me,i s the most important fo r us to c l a r i fy in our discuss ions towhat ex ten t do the new mobi l i sa t ions break with a t o t a l i s ing

-41-

8/22/2019 pp-27-42(Laclau)

16/16

imaginary, o r , on the contra ry , to what ex ten t do they remain impr i soned within i t ? This problem involves an i s sue of fundamentalimportance fo r the fu ture of democracy in Lat in America : w i l lthe exper ience of the opening up of the p o l i t i c a l systems a f t e rthe c r i s i s of the d i c t a t o r s h i ps lead to the reproduc t ion ofthe t r a d i t i ona l p o l i t i c a l spaces , based on a dichotomy whichreduces a l l p o l i t i c a l pr ac t i c e to a r e l a t i on of rep re sen ta t ion?Or wi l l th e r a d i c a l i s a t i on of a va r i e t y of s t ruggles based ona p lu ra l i t y of sub jec t pos i t ions lead to a pro l i f e r a t i on ofspaces , reducing the d i s tance between r epresen ta t ive and repre -sented?

1 The t he o re t i c a l cons idera t ions in t h i s paper are deve lopedinE. Laclau and eh. Mouffe (1985), Hegemony and Soc i a l i s t S t ra t egy ,

~ o n d o n , Verso Books.

-42-