Laclau and Mouffe: The Radical Democratic Imaginary
partially of our choosing—could have been taken in a different way; none of them
Download 0.72 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
The-Radical-Democratic-Imaginary-oleh-Laclau-and-Mouffe
partially of our choosing—could have been taken in a different way; none of them express absolute necessity. Where one alternative is chosen instead of others, this decision is ultimately based on force rather than rational necessity. The force in question may be quite minimal, such as the suppression of a given set of alternatives when a choice is made, or it may involve the most brutal forms of exclusion (Laclau 1996b:112). In other words, social change is achieved not because the arguments of some historical groups are morally better than others when measured according to a universal standard, and not because the triumphant group’s discourse expresses a necessary moment in the unfolding of reason. For Laclau, the very notions of universal standards and historical necessity are strategic myths. In contemporary complex societies, social change is achieved because some political struggles and historical forces strategically prevail over the opposing groups and forces. We have seen that Laclau tends to argue that the success of a hegemonic strategy depends on its form—its provision of an orderly space for the inscription of political demands. Differing slightly with Laclau on this point, I would argue that a hegemonic force prevails to the extent that it deploys a combination of tactics— involving violence, exclusion, articulation and redefinition, persuasion, the general framing of the political terrain, institutionalization and so on—that allows it to exploit the unique opportunities that are available in a given historical configuration. It should also be noted that in both this formulation and Laclau’s theory, the hegemonic agent is not a concrete subject; it is instead an historical force. As Nietzsche and Foucault argue, historical forces are always prior to the M U LT I C U LT U R A L D I F F E R E N C E A N D T H E P O L I T I C A L 185 formation of subjects. Hegemony and power are not instruments that can be wielded by individuals or groups; they are the conditions of possibility of any subjectivity. The permanence of power relations is not, however, a fatality for radical democratic pluralism. The political aim of radical democratic pluralism is not the elimination of power, but the transformation of the prevailing forms of power, such that they become more compatible with democratic principles (Mouffe 1995:502). The space for contestation will have to be kept open against all sorts of closure strategies; new decisions must always be taken; and alternative possibilities will have to be suppressed (Laclau 1996b:115). Perhaps an egalitarian policy will have unforeseen consequences with respect to the limitations of some individuals’ freedom; perhaps a progressive conception of civil liberties and civil rights will have serious inegalitarian effects in a new context; or perhaps an apparently innocent identification with radical principles is actually influenced by an unspeakable demonization. While democracy tends to enhance an awareness of contingency and to create the space in which difference in identity can be affirmed, it also creates the potential for a reactive politics of dogmatic identitarianism (Connolly 1991:193). By creating and defending the space for contestation, and by keeping the tension between the principles of equality and liberty alive, radical democratic pluralism seeks to sustain the conditions in which these sorts of problems could be brought to light and addressed (Mouffe 1992a:13). Further, there is no reason to assume that an awareness of the contingency of decision-making would necessarily lead to political paralysis. Laclau contends that to the extent that we become aware of contingency, we are much more likely to submit a given formation to democratic contestation and to grasp the vulnerability of the democratic revolution’s historical gains. Awareness of historicity can enhance a sense of social responsibility for the “consciousness of the historicity [of values]…will make us more responsible citizens, more ready to engage in their defense” (Laclau 1996b:123). Mouffe similarly writes, “When we realize that, far from being the necessary result of a moral evolution of mankind, liberal democracy is an ensemble of contingent practices, we can understand that it is a conquest that needs to be protected as well as deepened” (1993b:145). 2 Fish would be somewhat more pessimistic. Criticizing what he calls the “anti-foundationalist theory hope,” Fish asserts that every political discourse necessarily closes off some set of differences as legitimate, and necessarily fails to express a complete consciousness of contingency and historicity (1994:172–9). Download 0.72 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling