Se analiza desde un punto de vista filosófico-político y pragmático-discursivo las características ideológicas del discurso de Rafael Correa durante las elecciones presidenciales de 2006. Correa acometió una interpretación laclausiana del tiempo histórico, traduciendo que la crisis de representación del país podía originar un estallido o momento populista. En base a ello, el discurso populista que llevó a Correa al poder en 2007, se construyó sobre el uso de dos marcos argumentativos básicos: 1) ubicar a los partidos políticos tradicionales (“la partidocracia”) (...) como antagónicos a la patria y 2) proponer una reforma constitucional mediante una Asamblea Constituyente. Se concluye con una valoración crítica sobre los límites entre movilización popular y su institucionalismo. (shrink)

El presente artículo plantea que el uso de la noción de hegemonía en la argumentación sobre el populismo y su capacidad democratizante en la obra de Ernesto Laclau implica un rezago antidemocrático que resta potencial emancipador y de ampliación de la participación política. La argumentación de Laclau incluye como horizonte ineludible de la articulación de un movimiento populista la formación de una hegemonía que sea capaz de disputar el poder político y que configure una ‘cadena de equivalencias’ entre ‘demandas sociales (...) insatisfechas’. En consecuencia, el presente artículo revisa dos frentes de crítica a la argumentación de Laclau sobre la hegemonía en el populismo: uno que proviene de la academia estadounidense y es liderado por Alberto Moreiras y Jon Beasly Murray y otro que viene de la sociología argentina con la interactuó Laclau: Aboy Carlés y Emilio de Ipola. El sentido de revisar estás críticas es repensar el populismo sin hegemonía para hallar un camino que supere las dificultades que desde distintos frentes se endilgan a la obra de Laclau. La hipótesis que se presenta como alternativa es que una vez desprendido de la noción de hegemonía, el populismo se puede recategorizar en torno a su capacidad de solución a demandas insatisfechas y ampliación de participación política institucional en lo que llamaré ‘populismo transformativo’. (shrink)

This article examines the connection between populism and post-foundationalism in the context of contemporary debates about populism as a strategy for the Left. I argue that there is something “populist” about every constitutional order, including liberal democratic ones. I argue so drawing on Chantal Mouffe’s theories of hegemony, agonistic democracy, and left populism. Populism is the quintessential form of post-foundational politics because, rightly understood, populism constructs the object it claims to represent, namely the people. As such, it expresses the fact (...) that, because there is no ultimate foundation, politics consists in the construction of contingent foundations. I develop this argument through readings of Jan-Werner Müller and Chantal Mouffe, showing the differences between their respective post-foundational approaches. I show that Müller cannot uphold the distinction between populism and democracy in the way he seeks to do, but I also argue that this does not mean that we must jettison all normativity, only that it requires that we rethink normativity in hegemonic terms. (shrink)

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 48, Issue 7, Page 992-1013, September 2022. This article examines the connection between populism and post-foundationalism in the context of contemporary debates about populism as a strategy for the Left. I argue that there is something “populist” about every constitutional order, including liberal democratic ones. I argue so drawing on Chantal Mouffe’s theories of hegemony, agonistic democracy, and left populism. Populism is the quintessential form of post-foundational politics because, rightly understood, populism constructs the object it (...) claims to represent, namely the people. As such, it expresses the fact that, because there is no ultimate foundation, politics consists in the construction of contingent foundations. I develop this argument through readings of Jan-Werner Müller and Chantal Mouffe, showing the differences between their respective post-foundational approaches. I show that Müller cannot uphold the distinction between populism and democracy in the way he seeks to do, but I also argue that this does not mean that we must jettison all normativity, only that it requires that we rethink normativity in hegemonic terms. (shrink)

Hegemony is one of the most widely diffused concepts in the contemporary social sciences and humanities internationally, interpreted in a variety of ways in different disciplinary and national contexts. However, its contemporary relevance and conceptual coherence has recently been challenged by various theories of ‘posthegemony’. This article offers a critical assessment of this theoretical initiative. In the first part of the article, I distinguish between three main versions of posthegemony – temporal, foundational and expansive – characterized by different understandings of (...) the temporal and logical implications of hegemony. I then offer a critical assessment of the shared presuppositions of these theories, including their ‘pre-Gramscianism’, their indebtedness to Laclau and Mouffe’s formulation of hegemony, and their characterization of hegemony in terms compatible with modern theories of sovereignty. I conclude by arguing that the contradictions and oversights of the debate on posthegemony encourage us to undertake a reassessment of the real historical complexity of hegemonic politics and its different traditions of conceptualization. (shrink)

This article focuses on two issues involved in the formation and political trajectory of populist representations within political antagonism. First, it explores the role of crisis in the articulation of populist discourse. This problematic is far from new within theories of populism but has recently taken a new turn. We thus purport to reconsider the way populism and crisis are related, mapping the different modalities this relation can take and advancing further their theorization from the point of view of a (...) discursive theory of the political, drawing primarily on the Essex School perspective initially developed by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Second, this will involve focusing on the antagonistic language games developed around populist representations, something that has not attracted equal attention. Highlighting the need to study anti-populism together with populism, focusing on their mutual constitution, we will test the ensuing theoretical framework in an analysis of SYRIZA, a recent and, as a result, under-researched example of egalitarian, inclusionary populism emerging within the European crisis landscape. (shrink)

Rise of populist politics in the 21s century calls scholars and politicians alike to reflect upon the question of how politics and democracy have been understood. Drawing on the theory of hegemony, this article establishes a distinction between democracy and ‘demography’ as a key line of conceptualization in politics. It highlights a central misunderstanding at the core of the demonization of populism: For radical democratic theory, ‘the people’ is not a demographic, socio-economic, or historically sedimented category tied to some characteristics, (...) but a performative process of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ ‘the people’ as a self-consciously enacted polity. This statement challenges the taken-for-granted status of subjectivities of political struggle and links this approach to other contemporary discussions of politics, democracy, and populism. After discussing how anti, neo and post-foundational theoretical accounts on populism reveal a dimension of politics and representation, this article emphasizes action and performativity over static categories and models characteristic of political realism and political system approaches. (shrink)

This paper mobilises the psychoanalytic concepts of desire and enjoyment to better understand how processes of education aimed at extending and defending democratic life might respond to and engage with populist politics. I approach this task by engaging with a particular vector of Mouffe and Laclau’s political philosophy, moving from a critique of liberal democracy’s rationalist pretensions to their insistence that left populism and its passionate construction of a ‘people’ is the central task facing radical politics. This attention to the (...) libidinal basis of political identification locates them in a community of Left Lacanian thinkers who reframe the problems of democratic politics in terms of desire and enjoyment rather than miseducation or its lack. Whilst this position might suggest a binary choice between different analytical frames, I inquire into what insights are generated by theorising left populism as an ‘education of desire’. The paper is organised into four main parts: the opening discussion clarifies my understanding of education by engaging with the literature on educational agonism. The second section lays the groundwork for a critique of the way in which education is fetishized, in different ways, by liberals and radicals as a panacea for populist politics. The third section reframes democratic crisis as an enjoyment problem in order to better grasp the relationship between the liberal democratic disavowal of its own irrationality and the structure of right-wing populist enjoyment. The fourth section applies these insights to develop a critical analysis of what is at stake when we explicitly consider the left populist construction of a ‘people’ as an educational task. I conclude by drawing together and summarising the main features and considerations of left populism understood as an education of desire. (shrink)

This article begins with a theoretical tension. Radical democracy, in the joint work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, can be understood as a joint articulation of a post-foundational ontology of contingency and a politics of autonomy of ‘democratic struggles’ within a hegemonic bloc as loci of antagonisms in their own right, while Laclau’s theory of populism marks a shift from the autonomy of struggles to the representative function of the empty signifier as a constitutive dimension. This tension between a (...) horizontal logic of autonomy and a vertical logic of representation comes to the fore not least in the manifold attempts to combine radical-democratic and populist practices in the wake of the ‘movements of the squares.’ This argument is illustrated empirically in the cases of two party projects situating themselves in contexts of social protest—‘Social Movement’ in Ukraine and Podemos in Spain—both of which seek to combine a left-populist discursive strategy with some form of radical-democratic politics of autonomy, either by supporting local alliances independent from the party or by integrating trade union representatives into the organizational center, which in turn finds expression in a representative logic. (shrink)

Constellations, Volume 28, Issue 4, Page 522-536, December 2021.

Populism has been a rather marginalized notion in mainstream social sciences. In his ambitious work On Populist Reason, renowned theoretician Ernesto Laclau aimed to give the notion a more central role. However, the work is dominated by ungrounded theory. In this article I test the factors that the work identifies as conditions to explaining populism, against the backdrop of three historical cases the work analyzes. I add the case of Chávez and the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. From the comparison I (...) conclude that the work innovates less than it claims when explaining populism. I propose that a hypothetical way to build on its contribution is by shifting the focus from its central notion of heterogeneity to coalitions, and from there to types of populisms as a way towards the construction of grounded, middle-range generalizations. (shrink)

Este artículo investiga los vínculos entre el sujeto y la estructura en el transcurso de la teoría política de Ernesto Laclau, integrando sus aspectos teóricos, onto-epistemológicos y axiológico-normativos. A través de la sistematización de sus principales trabajos escritos durante el período 1977-2014, se indaga en sus contribuciones al debate Agente-Estructura y se propone una periodización compleja de su obra. Mediante una articulación pragmática de conceptos del (pos)estructuralismo, el psicoanálisis, la deconstrucción, la fenomenología, el marxismo y la filosofía posanalítica, a partir (...) de su ruptura onto-epistemológica con el esencialismo de los años 80 Laclau construyó una innovadora teoría discursiva del sujeto, superadora tanto del subjetivismo como del objetivismo, y convergente con una estrategia socialista y radicalmente democrática. La razón populista aportó nuevas herramientas que destacaron la capacidad del agente de articular (parcialmente) lo social. Sin embargo, este trabajo marcó un quiebre en su obra, que dejó de lado el análisis retroductivo de las transformaciones históricas más recientes en la estructura social y en las identidades y su conexión con la creciente fragmentación y proliferación de las luchas sociales. Al mismo tiempo, relegó la centralidad de la categoría de articulación para amalgamar la pluralidad de luchas sociales en el capitalismo complejo actual, para priorizar la construcción (tendencial) de un antagonismo binario y una lógica de simplificación y reducción conceptual del espacio social. Desde el plano axiológico, la teoría formal del populismo Laclau abandonó la iniciativa socialista y el desarrollo de los contenidos ético-políticos críticos, inherentes a la teoría posgramsciana de la hegemonía. Se concluye que ―más allá de estas inconsistencias― la teoría posfundacional del sujeto de Laclau realizó aportes innovadores, relevantes y valiosos que contribuyen a superar la falsa disyunción sujeto-estructura, a complejizar el análisis político y social, y a fortalecer la lucha hegemónica, desde una perspectiva antiesencialista. (shrink)