itl05p085095 the defender of contigency an interview with ernesto laclau avgitdou koukou

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.


2/11


www.intellectum.org


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


3/11


www.intellectum.org


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


4/11


www.intellectum.org


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


5/11


www.intellectum.org


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,


6/11


www.intellectum.org


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.


7/11


www.intellectum.org


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


8/11


www.intellectum.org


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


9/11


www.intellectum.org


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.


10/11


www.intellectum.org


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.


11/11


www.intellectum.org


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.

itl05p085095 the defender of contigency an interview with ernesto laclau avgitdou koukou

Documents