Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics: Online-First Articles

Limits, frontiers, antagonism

Discursive topography in (and beyond) Laclau and Mouffe

ORCID logo | University of Milan
The paper deals with the role of antagonism within post-structuralist discourse theory, and does so by revisiting the genesis and transformations of the conceptual couple limit/frontier. The first paragraphs introduce the conception of discourse put forward by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, and explain why they envisaged the necessity of discursive closure in antagonistic terms. The central sections deal with the emergence of the concept of antagonism in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985) and its connection with the notions of limit and frontier, highlight the theoretical problems arising thereof and follow the refinements advanced by discourse-theoretical critics and scholars. The last paragraph draws the consequences of this debate and argues for a rehabilitation of the concept of antagonism: not to be intended as a fate inherent to the constitution of any discourse, but as a useful political tool for questioning concrete discursive formations.
Keywords: Laclau, Mouffe, antagonism, discourse, limit, frontier, identity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse: An open structure
  • 3.Antagonism as the limit of discourse
  • 4.Limits, frontiers and their consequences
  • 5.Antagonism: Now what?
  • Declaration of conflicting interests
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 September 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22175.det
References (40)
References
Biglieri, Paula, and Gloria Perelló. 2011. “The Names of the Real in Laclau’s Theory: Antagonism, Dislocation, and Heterogeneity.” Filozofski Vestnik 32 (2): 47–64.Google Scholar
Carpentier, Nico. 2017. The Discursive-Material Knot. Cyprus in Conflict and Community Media Participation. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Coletti, Lucio. 1975. “Marxism and the Dialectic.” New Left Review 931: 3–29.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gadal, Sébastien, and Robert Jeansoulin. (2000). “Borders, frontiers and limits: Some computational concepts beyond words.” Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geras, Norman. 1987. “Post-Marxism?” New Left Review 163 (1): 40–82.Google Scholar
Glynos, Jason, and Yannis Stavrakakis. 2004. “Encounters of the Real Kind. Sussing out the Limits of Laclau’s Embrace of Lacan.” In Laclau: A Critical Reader, ed. by Simon Critchley, and Oliver Marchart, 201–216. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Glynos, Jason, and David Howarth. 2007. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London ; New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howarth, David. 2000. Discourse. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Howarth, David, and Yannis Stavrakakis. 2000. “Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis.” In Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change, ed. by David Howarth, Aletta Norval, and Yannis Stavrakakis, 1–23. Manchester ; New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Marianne W., and Louise Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1988. “Metaphor and Social Antagonisms.” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 249–257. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
. 1990. New Reflections on The Revolution of Our Time. London ; New York: Verso.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Subject of Politics, Politics of the Subject.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 7 (1): 146–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Why Do Empty Signifiers Matter to Politics?” In Emancipation(s), 36–46. London: Verso.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Paul de Man and the Politics of Rhetoric.” Pretexts 7 (2): 153–170.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Glimpsing the Future.” In Laclau: A Critical Reader, ed. by Simon Critchley and Oliver Marchart, 279–328. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2005. On Populist Reason. London ; New York: Verso.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Discourse.” In The Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. by Robert G. Goodin and Philip Petitt, 541–547. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2014. The Rhetorical Foundations of Society. London ; New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1987. “Post-Marxism without Apologies.” New Left Review 1661: 79–106.Google Scholar
. 2001 [1985]. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics [HSS]. London: Verso.Google Scholar
. 2011. Egemonia e strategia socialista: verso una politica democratica radicale. Genova: Il melangolo.Google Scholar
Macdonell, Diane. 1986. Theories of Discourse. An Introduction. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marchart, Oliver. 2007. Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
. 2018. Thinking Antagonism: Political Ontology after Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2004. Discourse. London ; New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Norris, Andrew. 2002. “Against Antagonism: On Ernesto Laclau’s Political Thought.” Constellations 9 (4): 554–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Ernesto Laclau and the Logic of “the Political”’. Philosophy & Social Criticism 32 (1): 111–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norval, Aletta. 1997. “Frontiers in Question.” Filozofski Vestnik 18 (2): 51–75.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Trajectories of Future Research in Discourse Theory.” In Discourse Theory and Political Analysis. Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change, ed. by David Howarth, Aletta Norval, and Yannis Stavrakakis, 219–236. Manchester ; New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Stäheli, Urs. 2004. “Competing Figures of the Limit. Dispersion, Transgression, Antagonism, and Indifference.” In Laclau: A Critical Reader, ed. by Simon Critchley, and Oliver Marchart, 226–240. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomassen, Lasse. 2019. 2‘Discourse and Heterogeneity.” In Discourse, Culture and Organization, ed. by Tomas Marttila, 43–61. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torfing, Jacob. 1999. New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Discourse Theory: Achievements, Arguments, and Challenges.” In Discourse Theory in European Politics, ed. by David Howarth, and Jacob Torfing, 1–32. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žižek, Slavoj. 1990. “Beyond Discourse-Analysis.” In New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time, 249–60. London ; New York: Verso.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Class Struggle or Postmodernism? Yes, please!” In Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Žižek, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left. London: Verso.Google Scholar