1887
image of Limits, frontiers, antagonism
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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 (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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.22175.det
2024-09-13
2025-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Biglieri, Paula, and Gloria Perelló
    2011 “The Names of the Real in Laclau’s Theory: Antagonism, Dislocation, and Heterogeneity.” Filozofski Vestnik (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Carpentier, Nico
    2017The Discursive-Material Knot. Cyprus in Conflict and Community Media Participation. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Coletti, Lucio
    1975 “Marxism and the Dialectic.” New Left Review: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Fairclough, Norman
    1992Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1995Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gadal, Sébastien, and Robert Jeansoulin
    (2000) “Borders, frontiers and limits: Some computational concepts beyond words.” Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography. 10.4000/cybergeo.4349
    https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.4349 [Google Scholar]
  7. Geras, Norman
    1987 “Post-Marxism?” New Left Review (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Glynos, Jason, and Yannis Stavrakakis
    2004 “Encounters of the Real Kind. Sussing out the Limits of Laclau’s Embrace of Lacan.” InLaclau: A Critical Reader, ed. bySimon Critchley, and Oliver Marchart, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Glynos, Jason, and David Howarth
    2007Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. London ; New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203934753
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203934753 [Google Scholar]
  10. Howarth, David
    2000Discourse. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Howarth, David, and Yannis Stavrakakis
    2000 “Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis.” InDiscourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change, ed. byDavid Howarth, Aletta Norval, and Yannis Stavrakakis, –. Manchester ; New York: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jørgensen, Marianne W., and Louise Phillips
    2002Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE. 10.4135/9781849208871
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871 [Google Scholar]
  13. Laclau, Ernesto
    1988 “Metaphor and Social Antagonisms.” InMarxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. byCary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, –. London: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1990New Reflections on The Revolution of Our Time. London ; New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1995 “Subject of Politics, Politics of the Subject.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies (): –. 10.1215/10407391‑7‑1‑146
    https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-7-1-146 [Google Scholar]
  16. 1996 “Why Do Empty Signifiers Matter to Politics?” InEmancipation(s), –. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1998 “Paul de Man and the Politics of Rhetoric.” Pretexts (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2004 “Glimpsing the Future.” InLaclau: A Critical Reader, ed. bySimon Critchley and Oliver Marchart, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2005On Populist Reason. London ; New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2009 “Discourse.” InThe Blackwell Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, ed. byRobert G. Goodin and Philip Petitt, –. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2014The Rhetorical Foundations of Society. London ; New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe
    1987 “Post-Marxism without Apologies.” New Left Review: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2001 [1985]Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics [HSS]. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011Egemonia e strategia socialista: verso una politica democratica radicale. Genova: Il melangolo.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Macdonell, Diane
    1986Theories of Discourse. An Introduction. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Marchart, Oliver
    2007Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2018Thinking Antagonism: Political Ontology after Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9781474413329
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474413329 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mills, Sara
    2004Discourse. London ; New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203487136
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203487136 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mouffe, Chantal
    2005On the Political. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Norris, Andrew
    2002 “Against Antagonism: On Ernesto Laclau’s Political Thought.” Constellations (): –. 10.1111/1467‑8675.00303
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00303 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2006 “Ernesto Laclau and the Logic of “the Political”’. Philosophy & Social Criticism (): –. 10.1177/0191453706059848
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453706059848 [Google Scholar]
  33. Norval, Aletta
    1997 “Frontiers in Question.” Filozofski Vestnik (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2000 “Trajectories of Future Research in Discourse Theory.” InDiscourse Theory and Political Analysis. Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change, ed. byDavid Howarth, Aletta Norval, and Yannis Stavrakakis, –. Manchester ; New York: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Stäheli, Urs
    2004 “Competing Figures of the Limit. Dispersion, Transgression, Antagonism, and Indifference.” InLaclau: A Critical Reader, ed. bySimon Critchley, and Oliver Marchart, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Thomassen, Lasse
    2019 2‘Discourse and Heterogeneity.” InDiscourse, Culture and Organization, ed. byTomas Marttila, –. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑94123‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94123-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  37. Torfing, Jacob
    1999New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2005 “Discourse Theory: Achievements, Arguments, and Challenges.” InDiscourse Theory in European Politics, ed. byDavid Howarth, and Jacob Torfing, –. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230523364_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523364_1 [Google Scholar]
  39. Žižek, Slavoj
    1990 “Beyond Discourse-Analysis.” InNew Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time, –. London ; New York: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.22175.det
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.22175.det
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: antagonism ; discourse ; identity ; limit ; Mouffe ; Laclau ; frontier
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error