-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
1/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
TheDefenderofContigency:
AnInterviewwithErnestoLaclau
byAthenaAvgitidouandEleniKoukou*
Citation:A.Avgitidou&E.Koukou,TheDefenderofContigency:AnInterviewwith
ErnestoLaclau,(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
Abstract:ErnestoLaclau,oneof themostsignificantpoliticalscientistsof the20th
century,talksabouthistheoreticalworkandexpresseshisviewsoncurrentevents.
Intheinterviewheenlightensusprimarilyonhistheoretical'armory',whichincludes
theconceptsof laicism,radicaldemocracy, identityandcompetition.Nevertheless,
he also discusseswith us about contemporary issues, such as the present global
economic
crisis,
the
rise
of
extreme
right
wing
political
parties
in
Europe
and
the
postmodernisminpolitics.
The name of the Argentinean theoretician Ernesto Laclau is widely known
especially to thosewhoareconcernedwith the internationaldevelopmentsat the
fieldof theoryand ideas.Laclauhasbeenaprofessorat theUniversityofEssex in
Great Britain formany years and has taught at several European and American
universitiesasavisitorprofessor.HisbookHegemonyandSocialistStrategy,which
he cowrotewithhiswifeChantalMouffe, aswell as the NewReflectionon the
RevolutionofourTimerenderedhimoneofthemostsignificantfiguresinthefield
of
political
science.
He
belongs
to
the
post
marxist
tradition,
is
the
main
carrier
of
the socalled discourse theory and has been inspired by the theories ofGramsci,
Althusser,Saussure,LacanandFoucault.Twoofhisbooks thePoliticsandIdeology
inMarxist theory and the NewReflectionon theRevolutionofour Time have
beenluckilytranslatedintoGreek.
ErnestoLaclauvisitedourcountryonMay2008 inordertogivea lectureafter
beinginvitedbytheSchoolofPoliticalScienceatAristotleUniversityofThessaloniki
andparticularlyhisfriendandcolleague,professorYiannisStaurakakis. Hispresence
constituted an outstanding event for the academic community in Greece and
attracted a great number of students from various schools, professors and
journalists.
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
2/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
ProfessorLaclauacceptedourinvitationtogiveusaninterviewafewdayslater
atCapsisHotelwhereheresided.Herespondedwitheagerness,friendlyattitudeto
everyquestionweposeddespitehisfameandscientificstatus.
In your probably most famous book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, cowrittenbyChantalMouffe,youattemptedtodeconstructbothMarxisttheory
andliberaldemocraticthoughtinordertoreinterprettheminsuchawaythat
they could contribute to a more sufficient understanding of contemporary
politics. Which is the significance of the concept of identity for the
comprehensionofmodernreality?
Well I think that theconceptof identitycanbeanalyzed fromdifferentsides.One
sidewould
be
to
identify
identity
with
aparticularity.
There
are
some
difficulties
obviously in this type of identification of the two categories, particularity and
identity. But on the other hand there are some advantages of this identification
becauseobviouslythepoliticalproblemwhichpresentsitselftopoliticsisaproblem
ofgeneralarticulationandgeneralarticulationhastorelyonsomekindofcategory
ofidentity.Sothisisthewayinwhichthequestionofidentityemergestoday.Itcan
berelated toavarietyof intellectualcontextbut I think that theessentialpoint is
thatithasnoobviousformsofuniversalitywhichcanreplacethenotionofidentity.
In your first book Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory in 1977 youdiscussedthepopulistphenomenon. In2005youpublishedtheOnPopulist
Reasonwhich isalso focusedonpopulism. It seems thatpopulism isat the
centerofyourinterest.Populismisabroaderarticulationthanothersbecause
onethe
one
hand,
the
people
constitutes
its
nodal
point
and
on
the
other
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
3/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
handit isopposedtoanythingantipopulist. Inthecaseofacountrywhich is
governedbyapopulistpartywhatcanweassumeforthepolitical identityof
thatpeople?Howispopularsubjectivityconstructed?Inthecaseofpopulism
canwe put in question the de facto existence of a frontier separating two
antagonisticequivalentchains?
I think thatwe have to introduce a classical distinction: the distinction between
populusandplebs.Populus,ontheonehand,isthetotalityofthecommunity.Plebs
are those at the bottom of the social pyramid. A characteristic of the plebeian
mobilization is that they are on the one hand a certain partiality within the
communityandontheotherhandtheytrytopresentthetotalityofthecommunity.
So,thisdistinctioniscentralinallthisanalysis.Thepeopleare,ontheonehand,the
totalityof
the
community.
On
the
other
hand,
the
people
are
those
at
the
bottom
of
thesocialpyramidwhoareputting intoquestionthetotalityofthecitythatexists.
Thecharacteristicofpopulismisthatyouhavealwaysaplebe,thoseatthebottom,
whohoweverpresentthemselvesasincarnatingthetotalityofthecommunity.
In Greece, the socialist wing of the political arena in the 80s under theleadership of Andreas Papandreou addressed a populist policy in order to
attract themajorityof theGreek people. The same party, however, twenty
yearslater,undertheleadershipofKostasSimitisfollowedaninstitutionalism
policy.Howcanonescientificallyexplainthereversalofopinionsinthegulfsof
thesamepoliticalparty?
IdonotknowhowtoansweryouaboutthisspecialGreekcasebutIcananswerthe
general issueofwhatyouareaddressing.Populism issomethingwhichworksfora
whileasawayofseizingpowerfromatraditionallead.But,ontheotherhand,you
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
4/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
cannothave apermanentpopulismbasedall the time in confrontation.At same
pointyouaregoingtohavetomovetoamoreinstitutionalizedpolicy.InArgentina,
forinstance,atthebeginningoftheprocessofPeronism,youhavethefigureofthe
descamisados,theshirtless,theSansculottesargentine.Theywerethevocation
ofthisfigure,thefigureoftotalconfrontationwitholigarchicpower.However,later
onin
the
history
of
Peronism
you
have
atransition
to
what
it
was
called
the
organized community. And the organized community at the moment in which
populismhadtoreachsomeformsofinstitutionalization.So,Idonotthinkonehas
toopposepopulismto institutionalismastwo logicswhicharetotallyatoddswith
eachother.Theyrepresentdifferentmomentsinapoliticalprocess.So,therewould
benoAndreaswithoutSimitis.Thetwoofthemrequireeachother.Insomesense,
atthesetwodimensionscanbereflectedthestructureofasingleparty.
Yousomehowequatepopulismwithradicaldemocracy.Towhichdegreethesetwofieldscoincide?
IthinkthattheycoincideentirelybecausebyradicaldemocracyIdonotunderstand
a political system. By radical democracy I understand that the expansion of the
equivalencial chain beyond the limits which are admitted by a certain political
system.Soyoucan radicalizedemocracy in same sense throughequivalenciesbut
this is exactly the same thing as creating a popular identity because the popular
identity is created through the equivalencial chain. For instance, you have an
interpretationwhich I think is totallywrong, Imean the interpretationof Zizek in
whichheissayingWellIagreewithpopulismbutnotwithradicaldemocracy.That
issimplynotunderstandingwhatthenotionofradicaldemocracyinvolves.Hethinks
thatradical
democracy
is
some
kind
of
left
wing
institutionalized
liberal
democracy
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
5/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
buttherearemanymoreformsofradicaldemocracywhichdonotpassthroughthe
liberalscene.
The concept of antagonism which is involved in the context of radicaldemocracyconstitutesakeyconcept.Wouldyouliketoclarifythemeaningof
antagonismby
setting
us
an
example?
Yes. Iwillpose theSicilianexample.Thecaseof the landowner trying toexpelthe
peasantfromthelandandthecaseofthepeasantresistingthisexpulsionfromthe
land.Thebasicargumentthereisthatinthistypeofconfrontationyoudonothave
anobjectiverelationbetweenthetwopoles.Thetwopolesarenottheexpressionof
a deeperprocesswhichwould embrace both but the clash is somethingwhich is
irretrievable from the point of view of objectivity. And you can think of many
antagonisms to be seen exactly in this way. Now, there are forms of relation
between the adversarial forces in which the space of representation is there,
operating and being something deeper than the antagonism between the two
oppositeforces.Butthereareothersituationsinwhichtheantagonismprevailsover
areformofobjectiverepresentation.
Youarguethatantagonismisconstitutiveofhumansociety.Inwhichwaydoyoutheorizeantagonismthroughthenotionofthelimitofthesocial?
O.k.. Lets go step by step. Why antagonism is the limit of the constitution of
objectivity?Forinstance,ifyouhavethepeasantandyouhavethelandowner,from
the point of view of the landowner the discourse of the peasant is completely
irrational.From
the
point
of
view
of
the
peasant
the
discourse
of
the
landowner
is
equallyirrational.So,thereisnocommonmeasurebetweenthetwodiscourses.So,
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
6/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
themomentof the clash is constitutive in a transcendal sense.Now,what is the
possibility that there is an objective discourse? It is only possible, if there is the
discourseof a thirdmanwho says Well,what the peasants and the landowners
thinkis irrelevantbecausewhatishappeningthere issomethingwhichescapesthe
consciousnessofthetwoopposingforces.Anobjectiveprocess,thisisexactlywhat
Hegelcalls
the
Absolute
Spirit.
So,
in
that
case
if
you
have
the
absolute
spirit,
the
discourseofthethirdman,inthatcaseyouaregoingtosubsumeantagonismintoa
deeper objectivity. But as a result of this, the form of consciousness that the
peasantsinvolveinthesocialantagonismisirrelevantbecausetheantagoniststhink
thattheotheristheevil.Butfromthepointofviewoftherollingofhistorythereisa
deepermechanismwhichexplainshowtheprocessoperates.So,thewholethingis:
ifthereisthisthirdman,thisthirddiscoursewhichistheabsolutespirit,inthatcase
historycanbereducedtoadeeperobjectivity.Ifthere isnotthatman,theclashes
whichconstitutehistoryaregoingtobeconstitutiveinthefirstplace.
Theproblemofevilwasattheologicalterms:ifGodisalmightyinthatcasethereisa
reasonablehistoryexplainingeverything,whichisthewillofGod.Butinthatcase,
because there is evil in the world, God can not be at the same time absolute
goodness.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
God
is
not
responsible
for
the
existence
of
evil
in
the
world in that case he could be absolute goodness but not almighty. So, at the
moment of objectivity either is present there or not. The way of solving these
problems, intheologicalsense,consists insayingthatevildoesnotexistbutevil is
simplyoneof theways inwhichGod reacheshisown perfection through certain
process.This lateron isthecomingofthereason, forHegelandMarx.So,there is
whereIthinktheproblemlies.
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
7/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
Inthe lastfewyearsmostofthedevelopedanddevelopingcountriesaffrontthe consequences of an economic depression. Do you believe that this
phenomenon could lead to revolutionary action? In otherwords, could the
worldwide economic depression stimulate peoples revolutionary
consciousness?Ifsuchaperspectiveseemsutopian,whatcouldinspirepeople
inorder
to
obtain
arevolutionary
consciousness?
The revolutionary consciousness,at the firstplace is thewilloferuptionwith the
wholeexistingsystemofaffairs.Revolutionaryconsciousnessisnotsomethingwhich
Is inherent istheconsciousnessofanygivennation.Peopleseethatatsomepoint
theycannot stand theexistingsituationany longerandhaveanupheavalagainst
theexisting situation.Now.This isnever the resultofa singledetermination. It is
alwaystheresultofanoveldeterminationofmanyforces.Forinstance,ifyoustudy
the Russian revolution, if you go back to the analysis of Althusser, he said that
Russian revolution was the result of many things and suddenly all these forces
crystallizedaround somebasicmotoswhichwere: landandpeace.That is to say,
alwaysarevolutionaryconsciousnessisaconjecturalaccumulationofthings.Itisnot
somethinginherentfromtheverybeginningoftheprocessinshortofateleological
way.
There
are
also
many
forms
of
revolutionary
consciousness.
We
have
a
revolutionary consciousness that has to do with a total breakdown or with the
necessityofaradicalchange.
Themodelofradicaldemocracymaintainstheideaofanexpandedversionofdemocracyinmoreaspectsofsociallifeandofanattemptforconstitutionand
multiplicationofnew identities. So, someone could assume that you accept
theexistence
of
constituted
inequality
in
democracy.
But,
yet,
you
did
not
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
8/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
developatheoryaboutjustice.Couldyoutellusthereasonwhythere isthis
absenceinyourwork?
Theconceptofjustice isthetypicalconceptofanemptysignifier.Becausewhat is
justiceornot insociety isopentoan infinitedebate.So, ifyouhavethenotionof
justice,justice
is
something
which
has
no
clear
content.
But
in
order
to
link
some
content under certain particular circumstances: for instance you can imagine a
debatebetweenafascistandasocialistaroundwhatisajustsociety.Theyaregoing
todiscussaboutmanypossiblecontentsbutwhat theyarenotgoing todiscuss is
whetherjusticeisjustornot.Becausethathastobeacceptedastheveryterrainof
theargumentbutinorderforjusticesemanticallytoplaythatroleissomethingthat
shouldnothaveanyparticularcontent.Andthecontent isgoingtobeeventothe
dialogicaleffort.
Soyouthinkthatjusticeiscontingent.
Well,thecontentofjusticeiscontingent.Thecategoryofjustice,however,hastobe
presenttherefromtheverybeginning.
Youhaveinventedanewvocabulary(articulation,nodalpoint,elementsetc).Whatledyoutofollowthisverbalapproach?Doyoubelievethatthisfactdid
contributeessentiallytothesubstanceorsuccessofyourwork?
I thinkwe have provided a new vocabulary of politicswhich is the result of the
radicalizationofasetofothervocabulary innovationswhichmainlycomefromthe
gramscian tradition.My intellectualstrategy forexamplehasbeen theoppositeof
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
9/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
that of Slavok Zizek. Zizek has not introduced a single theoretical category into
political analysis. He has simply taken the categories of lacanianism and has
elaborated them. By expanding the vocabulary of the gramsian grammar,we are
obviously introducingasetofnewcategorytopoliticalanalysis.Probablytheeffect
ofthisinnovationatthelevelofvocabularyisatrootofwhatpeoplefindinteresting
orattractive
in
our
analysis.
Itiswidelybelievedthatyourthoughtbelongstoapostmodernframe.Doyou accept this characterization? Do you believe that you are a post
modernintellectual?
Itdependsonhowonedefinesacategoryofpostmodern.Thereiscertainpost
modernityone link toBaudrillard,which Idont identifymyself inthe least.On
the other hand by postmodern it is understood not as a simply rejection of
modernity but as diminution of the epistemological ambitions of themodern
project. Yes, in substance you can say that we are postmodern. But, this
distinction that I am trying to make I think it is quite crucial in order to
understandsomething.Wearenotrejectingthewholeprojectofmodernity,but
wearethinkingthatprojectofmodernityissomethingwhichshouldbelessthan
the original formulators of the enlightenmentwere thinking that project to
consistof.
Someonecouldarguethattheturntoadiscourseanalysisispostmodern.But what is understood by postmodern? You can understand postmodern
throughtherejectionofmodernityandthisisaviewwithwhichIdisagree.You
canunderstand
post
modern
through
the
demerit
of
the
ambitions
of
the
modernprojectonthebasisofcontigencyandthisisaviewIagreewith.
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
10/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
Wewould like tohearyourviewsonanothercurrent issue.What isyouropinion about the gradual rise of the extreme right wing parties across
Europe?
Well I think that rising is lastly the result of the fact that people inwestern
Europe feel that theydonthavepoliticalalternative.Clearly, in thepast there
wasa rightanda left,clearlydifferentiated fromeachother.And therewasa
vote, for instance, fall inFrance fortheFrenchcommunistpartybecausethere
representavoteofprotestagainstexistingsystemofaffair.Whatpeoplehave
thefeelingtodayisthatbetweentheleftandtherightinatraditionalsensethe
differences areminimal. Butwe have an overpowerful technocracy and this
overpowerful technocracypresent new answers,which are a bitmore social
democraticandabitmoreconservativebutthereisnorealdifferencebetween
them. So,when people dont fight that from the left come a system of clear
alternative, the clear alternatives are going to come from the right. And for
instance,manyofthetraditionalvotersofthecommunistpartyinFrancetoday,
voteforLepen.Becauseherepresentstheradicalalterativevisavistheexisting
system. So, I think that political systems inWestern Europe areprofoundly in
crisis. And the crisis is that people in elections dont feel that there are real
alternatives.At some point there are important vote for the knowing friends,
Dutch referendumwas the vote, a vote to protest against existing system of
affairs,butunlesstheleftstartspresentingarealsystemofalternative,probably
thewholeprotestvoteisgoingtogointherightwingdirection inthepopulism
ofthe
right.
-
7/28/2019 ITL05p085095 the Defender of Contigency an Interview With Ernesto Laclau Avgitdou Koukou
11/11
intellectumINTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL
www.intellectum.org
(05)2008Intellectum,pp.8595
Because you are interviewed by two women, we would like to ask yousomethingquitepersonal.Howsignificantdoyoubelieve isforascientist
andhisevolutiontohavebyhissidenotasafriendbutasapartnerinlife
agreattheoreticiansuchasChanta;Mouffe?
WellIfeel
very
well
with
Chantal
Mouffe
(laughs),
obviously
we
have
had
an
intellectual partnership for several years. I dont think that it has particularly
mattered that thegenderdivisionbetweenourselves is toomusha relationof
equal, in order to speak about a gender division. But in other type of
partnerships I can imagine thatagenderdivisionplays somekindof role.And
how thiskindof rolecanbenegotiated isalwaysacomplicatedmatter,which
passesthroughthesingularityoftherelationship.