On this Side of the Frontier: Hegemony, Populism and Pluralism

Otros responsables
Fecha
05/2024
Editorial
Universidad de Sevilla
Revista
Araucaria
Título del libro
Nombre del evento
Fecha del evento
Institución organizadora
ISSN
1575-6823
eISSN
2340-2199
ISBN
Idioma
Español
Tipo del evento
Clasificación temática
Palabras clave
Resumen
Este artículo se pregunta qué es una hegemonía pluralista, cuáles sonsus características y si el populismo puede cumplirlas o no. El texto parte dela reflexión de Laclau para analizar si el antagonismo y el Nombre del Lídercomo significante vacío chocan con el pluralismo. En diálogo con distintasposiciones sobre la relación entre pluralismo, hegemonía y populismo, elartículo va fijando una conceptualización propia sobre ese problema. Ésta sealeja de la asimilación del pluralismo a una proliferación infinita de diferencias;de la visión agonista, que busca sublimar el antagonismo; y también de lanoción laclausiana del Nombre del Líder como significante arquetípico delpopulismo. Para nosotros, la frontera política es un requisito y no la negacióndel pluralismo, y el significante vacío no representa un problema en sí, salvocuando puede anticiparse su nombre, pues entendemos el pluralismo como unalógica de producción y circulación de diferencias, abierta a la contingencia.
This paper poses the following questions: What is pluralistic hegemony? Which are its defining features? Can populism be seen to possess them? We draw on Laclau’s thought to examine whether antagonism and “the name of the leader” as an empty signifier are incompatible with pluralism. With reference to various different perspectives regarding the relationship between pluralism, hegemony and populism, we present our own particular understanding. Our conceptualization distances itself from the notion that pluralism involves an endless proliferation of difference and the agonistic view that seeks to sublimate antagonism, and also from Laclau’s “the name of the leader” as an archetypal signifier of populism. Rather than the political frontier being the antithesis of pluralism, we see it as its precondition, with the empty signifier not representing a problem in itself, except when its name is pre-given. We perceive pluralism as being open to contingency, as a logic of the production and flow of differences.
This paper poses the following questions: What is pluralistic hegemony? Which are its defining features? Can populism be seen to possess them? We draw on Laclau’s thought to examine whether antagonism and “the name of the leader” as an empty signifier are incompatible with pluralism. With reference to various different perspectives regarding the relationship between pluralism, hegemony and populism, we present our own particular understanding. Our conceptualization distances itself from the notion that pluralism involves an endless proliferation of difference and the agonistic view that seeks to sublimate antagonism, and also from Laclau’s “the name of the leader” as an archetypal signifier of populism. Rather than the political frontier being the antithesis of pluralism, we see it as its precondition, with the empty signifier not representing a problem in itself, except when its name is pre-given. We perceive pluralism as being open to contingency, as a logic of the production and flow of differences.
Colecciones
Aprobación
Revisión
Complementado por
Referenciado por
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como by-nc-sa
