Laclau-rancier Polemic VersoBooks

8/20/2019 Laclau-rancier Polemic VersoBooks

1/14

Recent contributorsNatascha UhlmannColin BeckettFlorence Stencel-WadeJohn Merrick Alex Doherty

Recently mentioned authors

Ellen Meiksins Wood

Robert BrennerGiacomo MarramaoBenedict AndersonSlavoj Žižek

Recently mentioned books

Peasant-Citizen and Slave

The Origin of Capitalism

Liberty and Property

Citizens to LordsThe Pristine Culture of Capitalism

Follow Verso

Facebook Twitter

"Don't they represent us?": A discussion betweenJacques Rancière and Ernesto LaclauBy Kieran O'Connor / 26 May 2015

Is representation necessary, or antithetical, to the democratic will? Inlight of the significant gains made by the indignados in the Spanishmunicipal and regional elections on Sunday, we publish a discussionabout democracy and representation between Jacques Rancière, the

inspiration for much analysis of the 15-M movement, and ErnestoLaclau, an important theoretical reference point for Podemos.

Emancipation(s)

by Ernesto Laclau

Laclau argues that thechanges of the latetwentieth century havealtered Enlightenmentnotions of emancipation.8 posts

On the Shores of Politics

by Jacques Rancière

Returning politics to itsoriginal and necessary meaning: the organization

See more books

All authors

V E R S O About Authors Books Blog Events Subjects40 years of radical publishing

Cart (0) / Log In / Register

VersoBooks.com http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...

1 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...


2/14

1 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50

V E R S O About Authors Books Blog Events Subjects40 years of radical publishing

egister

RSS Feed

Links

#Trans on the Verso blog#Feminism on the Verso blog#BlackLiberation on the Verso blog#MentalHealth on the Verso blog

#Greece on the Verso blog#ClimateChange on the Verso blog#ItalianCommunism on the Verso blog#Economics on the Verso blogLondon Review of BooksBookforumDemocracy Now!GuernicaHarper'sCounterpunchMondoweissN+1

NationThe New Inquiry New Left Review DissentRadical Philosophy Electronic IntifadaOpen Democracy ReadySteadyBook libcom.orgTariq Ali TV JacobinDavid Harvey

Archives

2016February January

2015DecemberNovember

Amador Fernández-Savater introduces a discussion between the

philosophers Jacques Rancière and Ernesto Laclau. Translated by

David Broder, from El Diario

On 16 October 2012, at the University of San Martín in the Argentinian

capital, the French philosopher Jacques Rancière gave a lectureentitled "Democracy Today", as part of a week long conference inBuenos Aires and Rosario organised by UNSAM (Universidad Nacionalde San Martín) and the publisher Tinta Limón.

In this lecture, Rancière expanded on his by now well-known

of dissent.7 posts

On Populist Reason

by Ernesto Laclau

Major analysis of theforces that drive populismand their relation todemocracy.13 posts

Hatred of Democracy


“A piercing essay on thedefinitions andredefinitions of the term‘democracy.’”– Times

Higher Education

Supplement

9 posts


2 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50



3/14

OctoberSeptember AugustJuly JuneMay AprilMarchFebruary

January

2014DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptember AugustJuly JuneMay AprilMarch

February January

2013DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptember AugustJuly JuneMay

AprilMarchFebruary January

2012DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptember

elaborations on the question: "Democracy is not a system of government, but the always conflictual and disruptive manifestation of the principle of equality". As an example, he describes how the workingclasses of the nineteenth century decided to act not as if they were merelabour power, but people equal to others in their intelligence andabilities, in their capacity for reading, thinking, writing and

self-organising their labour. In this view democracy is "theungovernable" on display, that is to say, an egalitarian activity thatdisrupts the hierarchical distribution of spaces, social roles and socialfunctions, opening up the sphere of what is possible and expanding thedefinitions of communal life.

"There is no such thing as a democratic state": such was Rancière’sstriking comment to an audience with a keen interest in the political

context behind the progressive governments of the region (Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay, etc.). Meaning, there is no possibleinstitutional translation of this disruptive and expansive politicalundercurrent. It can have many consequences in terms of freedoms orrights; yet "democracy cannot be identified a form of the state; rather,it denotes a dynamic which is autonomous of place, time, and the stateagenda."

After the lecture, as scheduled, Ernesto Laclau took the floor. A populist theorist of hegemony, and a key intellectual reference point forthe group that founded and now leads Podemos, Laclau has a great dealof knowledge of Rancière's work, and has written numerous papersexplaining both his affinities and disagreements with his thinking. Here

we reproduce the short discussion between the two thinkers, as astimulus for further thought about the tensions between political and

Contingency, Hegemony,

Universality

by Judith Butler, ErnestoLaclau, et al.

The Hegelian legacy, Leftstrategy, andpost-structuralism versusLacanian psychoanalysis.18 posts

The Making of Political

Identities

Edited by Ernesto Laclau

Abstract and appliedanalysis of post-Cold Warpolitical groupings.8 posts


3 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...


4/14

AugustJuly JuneMay AprilMarchFebruary January

2011DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptember AugustJuly JuneMay AprilMarchFebruary January

2010DecemberNovemberOctoberSeptember AugustJuly JuneMay AprilMarch

February January

2009SeptemberMay January

state dynamics (or indeed, between 15M and Podemos).

Ernesto Laclau

First of all, I'd like to apologise for missing the first half of Jacques

Rancière's presentation—there was a lot of traffic and, well, all thosekinds of problems. So, unfortunately, I won't be able to respond toJacques' contribution in the same way as if I'd had the chance to listento the whole of his talk.

Nevertheless, there are a few key topics that the two of us havediscussed on other occasions, and if we were to sum these up with onetheme, I'd say that it is the relationship between democracy and

representation. I think that's where the shades of disagreement between Jacques' analysis and my own efforts can be found.

What do I think is the problem of representation? The issue is this: if there is a conflict between democracy and representation, it is becauseit is thought that democracy represents a popular identity thatessentially excludes the mechanisms of representation. Rousseauhimself thought that the only true form of democracy was direct

democracy. He had in mind the Geneva of his time, which he thought of in fairly Utopian terms. But the situation of the major states made themoment of representation seem inevitable.

So, this raises the following question: Is the principle of representationoligarchic by necessity? By which I mean, something that is a lesser eviladded on to a democratic principle that would otherwise represent a

New Reflections on the

Revolution of Our Time

by Ernesto Laclau

A critical examination of social struggle in thecontext of late capitalism.8 posts

Hegemony and Socialist

Strategy

by Ernesto Laclau andChantal Mouffe

“A brilliant tour de force of

scholarship andargument.”– Marxism Today16 posts


4 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50V B k h // b k /bl /2008 d h di i b j i

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie...


5/14

homogenous popular will? I think that this would only be the case if popular will could be formed entirely outside of the mechanisms of representation. And that is where I would draw a line. I don't believethat it is possible to form a democratic will, nor a popular will, except

via the mechanisms of representation.

Why is this? Because the process of representation is a dual one. AsJacques very rightly pointed out, the principle of representationimplies the possibility of an oligarchic power. But it can also stand forsomething else. If, at the level of the social foundations of a system,there are marginalised sectors with a barely formed will of their own,representative mechanisms can to an extent act as the vehicle for theformation of that will. The other day, during the conversation that wehad with Jean-Luc Mélenchon (the leader of the Front de Gauche) here

in Buenos Aires, we said that the problem with the anarchic democraticforms that we see today (for example the indignados in Spain) is that if that will doesn't translate into the restructuring of the political systemthen it becomes dispersed.

In other words, I don't see that there is a democratic principle opposedto the principle of representation, but instead a political constructionprocess which cuts across the moment of the basic formation of the

popular will and the moment of representation. If we think of the way that the question of universality and totality has been raised in politicaltheory, it is clear that Hegel saw the state as the only point at which theuniversal nature of the political community is constituted. This is

because civil society is the domain of the logic of private interest, of what he called the "system of needs". There would therefore be anabsolutely clear separation between the moment of (statist) totality and

Staging the People


Rancière's classic essaysfrom the 1970s, as he wasdeveloping his distinctivemethod.8 posts

The Emancipated

Spectator


The foremost philosopherof art argues for a new

politics of looking.12 posts


5 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50V B k htt // b k /bl /2008 d t th t di i b t j i



6/14

(private) dispersion. Marx disagreed and argued instead that the stateis a sphere of particularity because it is the instrument of the rulingclass, and only if a class were to emerge which is in and of itself universal—i.e. emerging at the level of civil society—would it bepossible to overcome this fragmentation and particularity. For Marxthis would mean the end of politics and the gradual extinction of state-

forms.

If we look to Gramsci, we can see an intermediate point, which for meis the beginning of an adequate political framework for addressing thisquestion. Gramsci agreed with Marx that civil society is also a point forthe construction of the universal, but that Hegel was right in saying thatthis universal moment was a political moment. And for this reasonGramsci talked about the "integral state".

The problem I have with democracy in this sense, accepting in partJacques' argument whilst allowing for some points of contention, is thatthere need to be forms of political mediation that cut across thedistinction between the state and civil society. Anything thatcontributes to the radicalisation of the distinction between these twoterms leads either towards a vacuous parliamentary social democracy,if one emphasises the purely statist moment, or else towards the ultra-

libertarianism of a mythical popular will constituted entirely outside of the state.

I believe that in a way the Latin American democracies, which arecurrently works in progress, are an attempt to transcend these tensionsand are perhaps the best way to exemplify what is fundamental toGramsci's insights regarding the war of position, hegemony, and the

Proletarian Nights


A classic text by Rancièreon the intellectual thoughtof French workers in the19th century.11 posts

Politics and Ideology in

Marxist Theory

by Ernesto Laclau

Analysis of the role of ideology in political

movements.8 posts


6 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50V B k htt // b k /bl /2008 d t th t di i b t j i



7/14

integral state. Well, Jacques, I will leave you with these minorprovocations, so you can respond to the point in question and thenmake way for the general will of the public (laughter).

Jacques Rancière

First of all, I'd like to clarify one point for the discussion. For me it isnot at all a question of setting out the principle of direct democracy as ahomogenous popular will. In fact I'm not coming from the standpoint of this search for a homogenous popular will, nor exactly from the conflict

between representation and direct democracy. Essentially, in my work I have raised the question of what is a political power and why a power,in order to be political, must to some extent integrate the democraticprinciple of equality.

Power has always existed and there are many forms of power which arenot political: the power of the boss, of the teacher, the owner, themaster... They are private powers, relations of authority with socialfunctions. What interests me is how to establish, in general terms, theidea itself of politics. And what really interests me is the way in whichthe democratic principle functions in itself as a challenge to theprinciple of the state. Because the principle of the state, in spite of

everything, always functioned as a principle of confiscation andprivatisation of collective power.

To consider the theme of representation we have to start from the factthat today, not denying the very different and impressive situation in

Argentina, at least in European countries the representative principle

Aisthesis


Rancière’s magnum opuson the aesthetic13 posts

The Rhetorical

Foundations of Society

by Ernesto Laclau

Coauthor of Hegemonyand Socialist Strategy

shows how rhetoricconstitutes the socialorder11 posts


7 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50 VersoBooks com http://www versobooks com/blogs/2008 don t they represent us a discussion between jacques rancie



8/14

of the state is completely integrated into the oligarchic mechanismsthat it reproduces. It certainly does not function as a means for buildinga popular will. Perhaps that's how it used to be in the European statesof the past, but not any more. Representation is all but obsolete. That

would be my first point.

Secondly, it is important to note that whilst we may be in agreement onthe dual, or two-faced nature of the representative system, one has tolook at which side the scales will fall. I obviously prefer a system to berepresentative, with short, non-renewable and non-cumulative termsof office, etc., than otherwise. And if we're talking about Latin

American democracies, I can't conceive of a democratic regime if every six years we have to elect the same president (that is, in Venezuela). I

believe that a democratic president is one who does their work and

then leaves. And who hands over power to someone other thanthemselves because otherwise what we are dealing with is aprivatisation of power.

Lastly, I wonder if we need to keep thinking in terms of the state versuscivil society. In terms of this Hegelian logic where, on one side there iscivil society (the private), and on the other the universal state, etc.Things don't work like that now. You said it yourself to some extent: in

spite of everything, the state is increasingly a principle of privatisation,and the state absorbs representation. It isn't about trying to opposerepresentation with the people directly presenting themselves in thestreets. As it stands, the only means of opposing this permanentprivatisation by the state are effectively the forms of autonomousprotest by the people, an autonomous presence by the people. The only

way to avoid there just being the state and the representative model

The Intervals of Cinema


An essential analysis of cinema from one of thegreat figures of Frenchphilosophy 9 posts

Politics in a Time of Crisis

by Pablo Iglesias

“Iglesias and his Podemosparty are radically shakingup Spain’s po liticalestablishment.” – NewYork Times

59 posts





9/14

which it absorbs, is for there to be another power with autonomousforms of existence. I'm not talking about a mass of people united by ahomogenous will, but instead a strong movement of action whichembodies a power which is the power of everybody and anybody. Thatis the very principle of existence and democracy and politics. And forme that is what is most essential today.

Following directly on, there are a couple of questions that question the

distinction and opposition between democratic logic and state logic,

giving current examples from Argentina (in 2012, that is). On one

hand, the "Ley de Medios" (the Media Law) via which audiovisual

monopolies (for example, the Clarín group’s monopoly) are regulated.

On the other, conservative or reactionary elements protesting against

the Kirchner government taking to the streets. These examples are

cited to show situations in which the state struggles against oligarchywhilst the people in the occupied streets defend it—examples that

supposedly throw into question or complicate the analysis proposed

by Rancière.

Jacques Rancière

It is perfectly obvious that anybody can occupy the street and we have

seen groups trying to use that position to impose private interests. I'mnot saying that when people occupy the street that they are "thepeople", nor that everything that is spoken from the street is a goodthing. There is the particular situation in several Latin Americancountries where states have attempted to impose constraints on certaineconomic influences and I am not against that.





10/14

But what seems fundamental to me is to discern whether the statelimits itself to taking the minimal steps required of it or if it is really providing, in a wider sense, the means for another form of expression,for another expression. This would be the only way for us to escape thefight setting powerful interests and the state against each other as the

only political actors. All the same, it's certainly true that, there, Latin America has a certain particularity as compared to Europe, wherethere is an almost total integration of political power (the state,parliamentary representatiion) and financial power.

What does it mean to say "the power of anybody"? It means to takeaction in accordance with a capacity that belongs to everybody, toanybody. If you take to the streets to defend the rights of the company

Clarín, you aren't taking to the streets in the name of the democraticprinciple, but rather in the name of other principles: that there arethose who are in the know and those who aren't, etc. It doesn't meanthat whoever takes to the streets will be in the right. Speaking of thepower of anybody is to take the side of the universal. The power of anybody means that there is a capacity that cannot be monopolized by any one group, be it the oligarchy or the "working class", who claims itas their own. There is no single group which represents the universal

capacity, that of politics. There are principles we can use to think through this "anybody". We can ask ourselves, what is the principle of action that is playing out, in the here and now? So we have to set inmotion a series of forms of investigation and assessment to put thisdifferentiation to the test, to discern whether this "anybody" is auniversal form or one of private interests.


10 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50 VersoBooks com http://www versobooks com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie



11/14

nother question from the floor asks whether it is possible to really

live in a true democracy or if we are always going to be living under

oligarchies that dominate us, interspersed with brief intervals of

opular protest.

Jacques Rancière

What the future holds for us, I don't have the faintest idea. The pointfor me is to see that the present opens or closes doors to differentfutures, to think of the present as that which opens and closes thesedoors. There are those that think, like Tiqqun or the InvisibleCommittee, that only a type of catastrophe could pave the way forliberation. Then there is Toni Negri, for his part, who thinks that it isthe very process of work under capitalist conditions that creates theconditions for future communism. There are groups who argue thatobjective conditions have to mature, that we have to create vanguards,and that in five thousand years the true revolution will come, etc.

To all of this I say No. I insist upon this alternative popular presence inresponse to the confiscation of the power of everyone by the state, or by powers associated with financial powers. The primary condition foranother future is that we expand in the here and now the spheres of

initiative based on a shared way of thinking, ways of shared decision-making, pockets of autonomy that can empower anybody. Where arethe conditions for other futures that will not be a reproduction of thepresent? Here, in the present. Where will this lead? I do not know.

What I do know is that an alternative to the present can be reachedthrough the creation of other autonomous pockets of power and


11 de 14 06/02/2016 10:50 VersoBooks com http://www versobooks com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie



12/14

expression, of other ways of using the capacities of the anonymous.That is to say, by maintaining and renewing the forms of existence of apower that is not oligarchic.

Ernesto Laclau

I am going to make another contribution to the general confusion, by saying the following: Derrida and Deleuze both focused part of theiranalysis on the relationship of representation. Ostensibly they claim theopposite, but I think that this is what they are doing. Deleuze says that"representation presupposes presentation, but since this originalpresentation never appears, the representation too lacks meaning"Derrida says: "since no original presentation exists, all that exist aregames of representation". This Derridean "presentation" introducesmore possibilities for political analysis. It becomes clear that in a sense,

where representation is concerned there is nothing "outside of thetext". There is no radical "outside" of the field of representative politics.The construction of oppositions will have to be made from within thefield of logic of representation.

This logic of representation can lead to oligarchic forms. Oralternatively, through the strategies that can be developed within the

field of representation, a more radical democracy can be initiated. Idon't share the opinion that democracy exists outside of politics andthat politics is something opposed to the state. Excepting, of course, thestate in its current forms. But there is something in statist logic thatescapes the already crystallised states that we are up against. It is the"part for those who have no part" which Jacques talks about, that is to


12 d 14 06/02/2016 10 50 VersoBooks com http://www versobooks com/blogs/2008-don-t-they-represent-us-a-discussion-between-jacques-rancie



13/14

say, the people who are at war with the system and that need to be brought to participate and have a voice through different means. All thesame, I believe that this necessarily passes through a politicalconstruction process and through representative mechanisms.

Jacques Rancière

I don't believe that there are original presentations, nor an original"people", nor an original popular will—be it voluntary or homogenous.Of course there aren't. But there will always be people who take to thestreets and say "we are the people" and this for me is democracy. Not interms of all the people being united there in a literal sense, but ratherthat a "figure of the people" presents itself there. A "figure of thepeople" is the enactment of the capacity that does not belong to any particular group, to any particular vanguard, nor to any particularpolitical science, but rather to the capacity of everybody, of anybody.

There is no such thing as political science, there is only governmentalscience. And it is commonly thought that governmental science (or thescience of the polls) is political science. But really there are no politicalsciences, only presentations, presentations of politics, cases. Perhaps

we call these representations, but we need to be careful of possible

ambiguities here, because what they call representation—that is, theelectoral game—is only one amongst various forms of presentation.There have to be others: the autonomous forms of presentation of analternative power, above all when the parliamentary type of representation has become almost obsolete. And that must be madecrystal clear.

VersoBooks.com http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2008 don t they represent us a discussion between jacques rancie...

13 d 14 06/02/2016 10 50



14/14

Laclau-rancier Polemic VersoBooks

Documents

Transcript of Laclau-rancier Polemic VersoBooks