From: "Chris Hurl" <munkah-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: AUT: Laclau & Mouffe
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:13:51 -0800
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<DIV>hey all,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>i was just taking a read through Laclau & Mouffe's, "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" and I have found myself getting increasingly irritated. Something doesn't seem to fit with their so-called "post-Marxist" approach. For instance, they propose that in order for struggles to escape becoming "floating signifiers", they must embrace a "chain of equivalents": </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"If the meaning of each struggle is not given from the start, this means that it is fixed -- partially -- only to the extent that the struggle moves outside itself, through chains of equivalence, links itself structurally to other struggles" (170).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now this doesn't sit well with me. It seems like the construction of chains of equivalence is very much similar to an exchange value, making all struggles interchangeable. Now from my reading of Marx, it seems that he argues, as labour is subordinated to "exchange value", workers are fundamentally alienated from the "use value" of their labour. If we were to communicate struggle through chains of equivalence, would this alienate struggle from its immediate use value? It seems like the promotion of struggle through chains of equivalence creates a sort of absolute mediation as they are just floating signifiers if they are not exchanged. Is there some other way to communicate struggle? Am I just misreading the idea of chains of equivalence?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They claim:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"For the defence of the interests of the workers not to be made at the expense of the rights of women, immigrants or consumers, it is necessary to establish an equivalence between these different struggles" (184).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How is equivalence established? Who gets to "represent" workers struggles? Who makes them equivalent? It seems to me that the political field Laclau and Mouffe construct is oversimplified. Who is more privileged in communicating worker's struggle through chains of equivalence to other movements, the union leader or the non-unionized immigrant just scraping by? It seems like Laclau and Mouffe completely overlook the hegemonic domination of the ruling bloc through their promotion of "hegemonic articulations". In other words, by reducing all social locations to "discursive formations", they seem to neglect the material inequality that perpetuates these locations. But maybe I'm just misreading this. Opinions?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>chris</DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM301601/11'>Click Here</a><br></html>
--- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005