Article 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 a 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 theoretical 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
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (40)
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