Laclau and Mouffe: The Radical Democratic Imaginary

Laclau and Mouffe’s critique of the disintegrated society thesis
We have seen that Laclau and Mouffe’s radical democratic pluralist theory has, as
one of its central concerns, the preservation of autonomy. The logic of autonomy
must be mobilized against the logic of assimilation to preserve a genuinely
multicultural pluralism. Further, radical democratic pluralism has a differentiated
approach to autonomy claims. Autonomy claims that would further empower the
traditionally empowered and disempower the traditionally disempowered would
be treated as suspect cases. The fraudulent claims on the part of privileged
individuals and groups who mimic feminist and civil rights discourse should be

---

S E L F - D E T E R M I N AT I O N , C O M M U N I T Y A N D C I T I Z E N S H I P
144
exposed. As Marcil-Lacoste argues, all differences should not be equally affirmed,
for some differences, such as fascism, are defined in terms of reactionary antagonistic
principles. Calling for a differentiated thinking on difference, she contends that
some differences already exist and should be preserved, others already exist and
should be eliminated, and still others do not yet exist but ought to be brought into
being (1992:138–9). To this, one could add that there is a fourth category of
differences: those that do not yet exist and should not be allowed to emerge.
Again, it is only at the level of citizenship—Mouffe’s nodal point for every counter-
hegemonic bloc—that such political distinctions can be formulated (Mouffe
1992a:13; 1992b:235).
Having established this pluralist autonomy principle, Laclau and Mouffe specify
a limit to its application: the social should not be theorized as if it were disintegrating
into a jumble of dispersed fragments that remain closed off from one another.
They consistently oppose this “essentialism of the fragments” with their insistence
on the ubiquitous nature of overdetermination and articulation (Laclau and Mouffe
1985:104–5; Laclau 1996e: 59). In this respect, they clearly distance themselves
from Baudrillard, for whom the disintegration of the social is so pervasive that
virtually every social bond has dissolved, individuals have become isolated particles,
and empty discourse and simulation have replaced the circulation of meaning.
Baudrillard contends that the “masses” no longer seek values and fully reject the
imploded system of political representation. They yearn only for spectacle and