[books pdf] On Populist ReasonAutor Ernesto Laclau – Vivefutbol.co

In This Highly Original Work Ernesto Laclau Continues The Philosophical And Political Exploration Initiated In Hegemony And Socialist Strategy Here He Focuses On The Construction Of Popular Identities And How Ldquo The Peoplerdquo Emerge As A Collective Actor Skillfully Combining Theoretical Analysis With A Myriad Of Empirical References From Numerous Historical And Geographical Contexts He Offers A Critical Reading Of The Existing Literature On Populism, Demonstrating Its Dependency On The Theorists Of Ldquo Mass Psychologyrdquo Such As Taine And Freud He Demonstrates The Relation Of Populism To Democracy And To The Logic Of Representation, And Differentiates His Approach From The Work Of Iek, Hardt And Negri, And Ranciere This Book Is Essential Reading For All Those Interested In The Question Of Political Identities In Present Day Societies


2 thoughts on “On Populist Reason

  1. says:

    This is the second or third text I ve read from Laclau on political theory, all three of which I ve really enjoyed This text is less far less explicitly Marxist or rather, post Marxist than something like Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, but he employs the same strategy, blending post structuralist theory with some Lacanian psychoanalysis to develop a theory of political agency which rejects any form of immanent linkage between social position and political activities By this, I mean that Laclau argues that there is no fundamental motor of history OR political struggle he rejects things like class struggle or working class as being irreducible elements of politics, emphasizing instead that nearly any political issue can become an empty signifier a hegemonic signifier that represents a whole series of different political ambitions Thus, women s rights, migrant rights, union workers and environmentalists could all be united without contradiction under the banner of a Green Party, for example.Laclau s specific theory of populism is interesting and engaging The meat of the text comes after he finishes disparaging the prevailing theories of populism and begins to develop his own methodology in Chapter 4 For those looking to save some time, chapters 4, 5, and the afterword are by far the most important In the afterword, he goes after Zizek and Hardt I think Laclau won that argument Why he felt the need to restate this difference as a misreading of him was a bit puzzling and just seemed bitter The criticism of Hardt however, post structuralists tend to circle around their ineffable points sufficiently well that one understands what, precisely, they are trying to get at As such, my real issue was that this sentence received no further clarification the following line is something like If we adopt the latter of these two positions.In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed the text and would recommend it to anyone interested in theories of history, post Marxism, Gramscian political thought, or a post structuralist politics.


  2. says:

    This is the second or third text I ve read from Laclau on political theory, all of which I ve really enjoyed This text is less far less explicitly Marxist or rather, post Marxist than something like Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, but he employs the same strategy, blending post structuralist theory with some Lacanian psychoanalysis to develop a theory of political agency which rejects any form of immanent linkage between social position and political activities By this, I mean that Laclau argues that there is no fundamental motor of history OR political struggle he rejects things like class struggle or working class as being irreducible elements of politics, emphasizing instead that nearly any political issue can become an empty signifier a hegemonic signifier that represents a whole series of different political ambitions Thus, women s rights, migrant rights, union workers and environmentalists could all be united without contradiction under the banner of a Green Party, for example.Laclau s specific theory of populism is interesting and engaging The meat of the text comes after he finishes disparaging the prevailing theories of populism and begins to develop his own methodology in Chapter 4 For those looking to save some time, chapters 4, 5, and the afterword are by far the most important In the afterword, he goes after Zizek and Hardt I think Laclau won that argument Why he felt the need to restate this difference as a misreading of him was a bit puzzling and just seemed bitter The criticism of Hardt however, post structuralists tend to circle around their ineffable points sufficiently well that one understands what, precisely, they are trying to get at As such, my real issue was that this sentence received no further clarification the following line is something like If we adopt the latter of these two positions.In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed the text and would recommend it to anyone interested in theories of history, post Marxism, Gramscian political thought, or a post structuralist politics.