The Dislocated Universe of Laclau and Mouffe: An Introduction to Post-Structuralist Discourse Theory

Abstract

Post-structuralist Discourse Theory is an approach to political analysis that reformulates Marxist theory so as to emphasize structural contingency and openness. Whereas classic Marxian sociology is rooted in economic processes that "structure" society and ideas, post-structuralist Discourse Theory emphasizes the absence of any determinative principle. Thus, it radicalizes an ongoing shift in Marxism away from economic essentialism towards indeterminacy. The ideological superstructure becomes ever more important at the expense of the economic base; class struggle and production relations lose analytical and strategic purchase in favor of a complex and integral form of politics; there are no deeper, natural foundations determining how society is organized and structured. Post-structuralist discourse-theorists argue that this orientation leads to a more satisfactory analysis and critique of political practice than is possible through positivist behaviorism or orthodox Marxism. Assessing that claim requires a survey of the hermetic terminology in which poststructuralist discourse-theorists often express their ideas-the discourse, as it were, of discourse-theorists-exploring their use of Marxist sociology, structuralist linguistics, psychoanalysis, populism research, and various currents of political theory.

Coexistence of continuity and change in institutional work

“…Therefore, the paper makes a theoretical contribution by answering the question of how the actors can become more or less reproductive, disruptive and/or creative in their institutional work and thus become a source of both continuity and change. It also contributes to the recent discussions on contingency of institutions (Hay, 2016(Hay, , 2017Jacobs, 2018Jacobs, , 2019Schmidt, 2008Schmidt, , 2010, resistance productive of institutional change (Lawrence, 2008), reflexivity of institutional actors (Aleksandrov et al, 2018;Chiwamit et al, 2014) and intersubjective construction of institutional work (Hay, 2006(Hay, , 2016(Hay, , 2017Jacobs, 2018;Larsson, 2015;Schmidt, 2008). Accordingly, first, the paper highlights the role of power relations and resistance in institutional contingency, which necessitate reciprocal relations for ongoing accomplishment of institutions.…”

“…The framework indicates that institutions are contingent and dynamic (Hay, 2016(Hay, , 2017Jacobs, 2018Jacobs, , 2019Schmidt, 2008Schmidt, , 2010. Institutions refer to a process rather than an outcome (Hay, 2016).…”

“…The framework supports the view that "institutional contexts are typically arenas of social interaction in which particular forms of inter-subjective consensus (such as norms, standards, rules, conventions and paradigms) persist" (Hay, 2016, p. 528). It further suggests that like institutions, institutional work is relational and intersubjective (Hay 2006(Hay , 2016(Hay , 2017Jacobs, 2018;Larsson, 2015;Schmidt, 2008). The actors' maintenance, disruption and creation of institutions is shaped by an intersubjective context composed of reciprocal and power relations.…”

Bringing agency back in: the missing link between identity, knowledge, and mediated discourse

“…Though it originally featured in the title of Laclau and Mouffe's magnum opus and PDT's foundational text 'Hegemony and Socialist Strategy', for decades, the notion had all but disappeared from Discourse Theory's conceptual apparatus. Only recently has it started to be reappraised again (Herschinger 2012;Jacobs 2018;Nonhoff 2019). This long repudiation can be explained by the view that strategy is too suggestive of the intentionalist conception of agency in which a sovereign and voluntarist subject is unconstrained and free to do as he or she sees fitstrongly rejected by Discourse Theory (Howarth 2013, pp.…”

Populism in Estonia and Slovakia: Performances, Transgressions, and Communicative Styles

“…This relates populism to culture wars 8 replete with "mannerisms, gestures and aesthetic flourishes" 9 , which justifies the characterization of populism as a 'style' of politics" 10 , more emotive than normative, and always a matter of degree (there may be more or less populism in a specific discourse) 11 . Populism might therefore be defined as a "political style and the repertoires of performance that are used to create political relations" 12 , a mode of operating "rather than a self-sufficient set of ideas" 13 .…”