Kyle Park
Initial Response to Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Hegemony and Socialist Strategy
June 5th, 2024
Some of my initial reactions and interesting takeaways I want to revisit soon. PDF of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Hegemony and Socialist Strategy comments on the failures of Marxism and recommends several avenues worth exploring to remobilize the Left. Written during an era of growing social movements that addressed various issues of inequality, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy critically re-examines Marxist theory to highlight fundamental flaws in Marxist reasoning and attempts to propose positive alternatives for social movements to generate change. Although Marx hypothesized that capitalism would inevitably result in a working-class revolution (and delivered similar ideas in his 1848 Communist Manifesto), modern society has yet to see the said revolution in most capitalist nations. Laclau and Mouffe attempt to answer why Marxism has failed and instead led to the rise in right-wing neoliberal politics.
Building on Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, Laclau and Mouffe explain the extent to which elites can maintain power not only through coercion or economic force but also through ideology. When values and norms propagated by the elites are accepted by citizens as standard knowledge or common sense, ideology essentially provides legitimacy for those in power which contributes to maintaining the status quo (85). Laclau and Mouffe expand Gramsci’s theory by suggesting the possibility of the Left establishing and spreading their own hegemonic discourse in hopes of driving social change.
Regarding social change, Laclau and Mouffe provide three conceptual contributions. First, Laclau and Mouffe claim that social change is not deterministic. Unlike Marxist ideas, the argument is made that social change or revolution does not necessarily happen at specific points in time. Though Marx frames the inevitable outcome of capitalism as demise in the form of popular revolution, Laclau and Mouffe argue that there remains “nothing inevitable or natural in the different struggles against power” (152). As the outcome of power struggles are indeterminate, greater emphasis is placed on understanding why certain social movements are successful at some points and less successful in others. Second, Laclau and Mouffe argue that social change can involve a plurality of social actors. Contrast to Marxist ideology, Laclau and Mouffe believe that a single privileged actor such as the working class does not bring about social change; rather, with increasing social complexity, a pluralist approach to politics becomes necessary. Lastly, according to Laclau and Mouffe, social change requires a discourse––the “structured totality resulting from articulatory practice”––that allows social activists to frame power inequality as oppression. Creating antagonism expedites the process of mobilizing people for social change.
Nonetheless, due to increasing diversity of social groups (civil rights, feminism, environmental, etc.), two opposing parties can no longer be easily divided into different camps (ex. Bourgeoisie vs. proletariat). Thus, finding a narrative that effectively constructs a new antagonism which mobilizes multiple social groups under one umbrella becomes the new challenge. To establish a story that successfully mobilizes people, the story must also frame antagonism as constituting an inequality of power––subordination––and as constituting an unjust inequality of power––oppression (133). In this context, the primary goal is to display subordination as oppression which requires a connection to a broader, existing hegemonic discourse. For example, throughout history, inequality of power between men and women have been deemed unjust. Yet, only when the idea of equality for all humans emerges does it become possible to promote a struggle for gender equality (alongside struggles for race, age, and others). In crafting this “big picture” story, “the democratic principle of liberty and equality first had to impose itself as the new matrix of social imaginary” (155). Throughout the final chapter of the book, Laclau and Mouffe focus on challenging relations of subordination and “[identifying] the conditions in which a relation of subordination becomes a relation of oppression” (153).
Laclau and Mouffe’s theory on hegemony and radical democracy provide four hypotheses about the conditions under which social movements can thrive in achieving political change. As mentioned earlier, Laclau and Mouffe believe that social movements that are successful in constructing an antagonism that highlights power inequality between social groups subsequently build connections to a pre-existing and accepted discourse. Moreover, Laclau and Mouffe note the importance of flexibility as the democratic image of equality shifts from socioeconomic classes to new realms of power inequality movements. In other words, democracy is a moving target, and as social reality changes, new power inequalities constantly emerge and new activist movements will seek to achieve social change. Hence, social movements that are agile and able to adapt to changing social realities are likely to be successful in addressing inequalities. Laclau and Mouffe also underline the need to collaborate and work with social diversity as their main critique regarding the Left is its excessive reliance on socio-economic class as a strategy to mobilize people for social change. As plurality of society has gradually become a fact, social movements that narrowly revolve around a single target group are less likely to find success compared to social movements that can bring together diverse social groups to construct a common story that unites these communities and sets collective aims. Lastly, Laclau and Mouffe argue that social movements must provide viable alternatives: If the demands of a subordinated group are purely negative demands without any reference to viable projects for reconstruction, their capability to act hegemonically will be excluded from the outset. Social movements that can construct a concrete imaginary of an alternative reality/society are likely to gain wider support when attempting to bring social change.