Thank you so much for your beautifully articulated interpretation of LaClau & Mouffe's work. Since reading their work in the mid-nineties, their ideas have been core to my understanding of contemporary social movements. As a political anthropologist, I am indebted to them for their work and as an educator, to you for providing such a wonderfully instructive video.
I found this video after searching 'antagonism politics' because I kept seeing so many incendiary conversations and headlines around the internet/media
Good explanations. Where do I find the hypothesis that you are talking about? Couldn't find it in their book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy from 1985. Thanks!
Wow, this really explains what we see around us in the modern world. I was aware of the Frankfurt School, which seems very similar in the idea to change the narrative from class struggle to wider minority oppression. I can't help thinking there's something terribly wrong with the idea of convincing people who don't feel oppressed that they are, in order to achieve a political outcome that has not been shown to be truly beneficial to the worst off. It's all very Hegelian.
Because it is wrong. Clearly once the would stabilizes a direct response needs to be made against the carelessness of these ideology.. namely, the threat of radical figerpointing that gets out of hand in modern civilizations amplified by social media wherein nothing is offered to replace what is currently being torn down because of an inability to meet the utopian idea of complete equality resulting in destruction alone.
@@confusedarmchairphilosopher I haven't watched this video for years, so I'm not sure what it was about. I'm a little confused by your question? Are you claiming that you know something about the Frankfurt School, and they have nothing to say about oppression of minority groups? Or are you just asking what the Frankfurt School had to say about oppression? They are two different answers.
To explain more, Laclau and Mouffe propound that identity construction is variable, unstable, and complicated, in endless process of articulation and disarticulation, and within wider political realms and discursive institutes variably operating in society.
Laclau-Mouffe’s vehement critique of identity determinism, objective situatedness of the self and necessity of history. The theorists suggest multi-dimensional character of subjectivity to be constructed in multiple discursive constructs in their plural political orientations.
Interesting video. L&M's argument was not so much that Marxism was deterministic in the sense of the inevitability of the demise of capitalism - although that can be inferred. In fact, it is quite contestable that Marx himself held such a view (if he did, why did he bother writing the Manifesto?). Their main target was the the idea that social relations are determined by an economic base.
A good video from an explanatory perspective but as with a lot of Post isms, Laclau and Mouffe lead us down a blind alley with no return. The title of their book incorporates the word 'Socialist' but there is nothing socialist about their proposals. The Lefts abandonment of class since 1968, a direction that Laclau and Mouffe have re-inforced through their work, has fragmented the left and driven the working class into either an 'empty void' , withdrawn from the struggle for change or directly into the hands of the far right (as the current European electoral trend highlights - not to mention Trump). Since the cultural turn that the likes of Laclau and Mouffe have engineered there have few material gains for ordinary people. The social movements, they are fond of, burn brightly for a while and then fizzle out. The best and most recent example of the failure of Laclau and Mouffe's strategy is the movement to re-write the Chilean constitution. After an initial and important political success, the social movements cobbled together a potpourri of demands & proposals that - whilst well intentioned - were soundly rejected by a large majority of citizens - including ordinary working class people. After years of austerity and neoliberalism their failure to foreground material, economic based concerns condemned the draft constitution to defeat and emboldened the return of the right. A lost opportunity - wasted. The harsh reality is that the horizon of class antagonisms and struggle is still open. After 40 years of neoliberalism - exploitation, alienation, class oppression and domination (suppression of class based action) are all ever present. The lesson post 1968 is clear - Gender, sexuality, immigration, race or any other cultural construction will not overcome Capitalism. Those issues will be absorbed, defanged and weaponised by capitalism to subdue class. Class was, and remains, the only field of contest where Capitalism will fight to the death to prevent change. In the end the politics of Laclau and Mouffe is little more than re-hashed liberalism. So, let a thousand academic careers die, we are done with de-colonizing the syllabus, leave Laclau and Mouffe to drift off on the road to nowhere, and return to Class, the material and the economic as a basis for solidarity, a concrete vision for a different society and the social change to get there. As Gramsci himself noted, we may engage in a War of Position, but ultimately we also need a War of movement to make the change. And that, dear friends, is not a play of differences nor collective assemblages, it is a binary struggle, irrespective of whether you theorize as such or not.
Laclau and Mouffe' dismissal of determinism, economic reductionism and essentialism. Moreover, Lacalu and Mouffe's assertion that hegemonic articulation fail to stabilize all social identities into discursive domain paves the ground to the emergence of floating and empty signifiers potential of other and interchangeable Re-articulation.
Laclau try to explain the phenomena of PERONISM developed in Argentina in the 40's which basically is TRANSVERSAL POLITICS , while in Argentina it tried to enclosed the different economic sectors in Bolivia in the 50's enclosed the multiples CULTURAL segments of society. Is easily to see how TRANSVERSAL POLITICS is a practical answer to INTERSECTIONALITY . Get something from the 40's to answer a phenomena post 60's.
So I have embarked on this kind of a "know your enemy" style of self-education and I must say I'm shocked how well this explains what's going on at the moment in the West. Evil theory, very evil and destructive. Also naive
its very sad that something can grow so large when such fundamental problems are in it. The denial of rational thought as a base for political discussion evident in this understanding is almost as childish as saying "its subjective so it cant be debated" one of the laws in philosophy that plato built a lot of his work off, was that subjectivity is a spectrum based on an objective definition, there can be a deabte over when a pebble becomes a boulder, but only to a point, and when the objective definitions change than the idea changes. the marxist value of an entitlment to equality over a utilitarian outlook or individual property rights can be objectively shown to be bad but if this basic part is continuously denied then the marxist theories will develop through ignorant paths like this where it becomes increasingly void of reason.
I think you have misunderstood this video if you believe what you said. You say "rational thought" should be accepted as a basis for political discussion as if Laclau and Mouffe do not accept this but that's not what the video says. The video clearly says post-Marxists have to establish persuasive social stories which have to have a coherent storyline and build on hegemonic understanding. So, to begin, what constitutes a rational thought? For example, you might say "men and women should be equal" as a worthy rational thought but this "articulation" which distinguishes between men and women in a dichotomous manner and then assumes this statement to be countering existing hegemonic understanding of men typically exercising social power over women would be considered by post-Marxists as already exercising an emancipatory use of power in support of counter-hegemony. The question is therefore not whether or not to accept rational thought (you mean already established "hegemonic" thought?) but which ones to promote/disrupt, when, why and how. And, from this example, I cannot see how the emancipation of women by arguing for equality between men and women would harm economic development especially when you see Saudi Arabia, for example, has been increasingly getting rid of its traditional patriarchal social structure in order to widen its economic base away from just its massive oil industry.
Pity the question posed at the end wasn't answered. Frankly, I'm not surprised. The right to berate and berate and berate people until they finally relent and "admit" they're just as oppressed as is claimed is essential to the far left project.
Thank you so much for your beautifully articulated interpretation of LaClau & Mouffe's work. Since reading their work in the mid-nineties, their ideas have been core to my understanding of contemporary social movements. As a political anthropologist, I am indebted to them for their work and as an educator, to you for providing such a wonderfully instructive video.
Your video really improved my understanding of Mouffe and Laclau! Thanks alot :-)
I personally found Mouffe and Laclau’s book to be very dense and hard to grasp, and this video really helps me understand it so much better!
Thank you for this video! Very clear explanation, beautiful and helpful animation and a very pleasant voice-over! :)
The video was Crystal clear! Thanks.
Thanks so much, Starting an MA thesis and this video has really helped!
Beautiful. I was critizising in my mind to Laclau and Mouffe, and this helps me to consolidate it but with a wider view besides the lectures
thank you very much but how about critiques of their theory?
10:23 centre of democracy is empty
11:49 who decides just vs unjust; subjugation, oppression, domination
Merci beaucoup pour la vidéo. vraiment utile. 👏👏👏👏👏
The presentation helps us simplify complex ideas.
Thank you so much for this great video! It really helped me understand the ideas of Laclau & Mouffe
I found this video after searching 'antagonism politics' because I kept seeing so many incendiary conversations and headlines around the internet/media
I like this video, it helped me to prepare for my thesis. Thank you!
wonderful artwork, good explanation, soft nice voice
Good explanations. Where do I find the hypothesis that you are talking about? Couldn't find it in their book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy from 1985. Thanks!
fantastic! thank you.
23 Derece yayınından geldim. Bu videoyu hazırlayanlara ve Gökhan Özbek'e teşekkürler!
Super helpful
Thank You!
Very well done, thank you.
Wow, this really explains what we see around us in the modern world. I was aware of the Frankfurt School, which seems very similar in the idea to change the narrative from class struggle to wider minority oppression. I can't help thinking there's something terribly wrong with the idea of convincing people who don't feel oppressed that they are, in order to achieve a political outcome that has not been shown to be truly beneficial to the worst off. It's all very Hegelian.
Because it is wrong. Clearly once the would stabilizes a direct response needs to be made against the carelessness of these ideology.. namely, the threat of radical figerpointing that gets out of hand in modern civilizations amplified by social media wherein nothing is offered to replace what is currently being torn down because of an inability to meet the utopian idea of complete equality resulting in destruction alone.
what does minority opression have to do with the frankfurt school?
@@confusedarmchairphilosopher I haven't watched this video for years, so I'm not sure what it was about. I'm a little confused by your question? Are you claiming that you know something about the Frankfurt School, and they have nothing to say about oppression of minority groups? Or are you just asking what the Frankfurt School had to say about oppression? They are two different answers.
Thank u
To explain more, Laclau and Mouffe propound that identity construction is variable, unstable, and complicated, in endless process of articulation and disarticulation, and within wider political realms and discursive institutes variably operating in society.
Laclau-Mouffe’s vehement critique of identity determinism, objective situatedness of the self and necessity of history. The theorists suggest multi-dimensional character of subjectivity to be constructed in multiple discursive constructs in their plural political orientations.
beautiful work, thank you!
Interesting video. L&M's argument was not so much that Marxism was deterministic in the sense of the inevitability of the demise of capitalism - although that can be inferred. In fact, it is quite contestable that Marx himself held such a view (if he did, why did he bother writing the Manifesto?). Their main target was the the idea that social relations are determined by an economic base.
Great ! thanks
A good video from an explanatory perspective but as with a lot of Post isms, Laclau and Mouffe lead us down a blind alley with no return. The title of their book incorporates the word 'Socialist' but there is nothing socialist about their proposals. The Lefts abandonment of class since 1968, a direction that Laclau and Mouffe have re-inforced through their work, has fragmented the left and driven the working class into either an 'empty void' , withdrawn from the struggle for change or directly into the hands of the far right (as the current European electoral trend highlights - not to mention Trump). Since the cultural turn that the likes of Laclau and Mouffe have engineered there have few material gains for ordinary people. The social movements, they are fond of, burn brightly for a while and then fizzle out. The best and most recent example of the failure of Laclau and Mouffe's strategy is the movement to re-write the Chilean constitution. After an initial and important political success, the social movements cobbled together a potpourri of demands & proposals that - whilst well intentioned - were soundly rejected by a large majority of citizens - including ordinary working class people. After years of austerity and neoliberalism their failure to foreground material, economic based concerns condemned the draft constitution to defeat and emboldened the return of the right. A lost opportunity - wasted. The harsh reality is that the horizon of class antagonisms and struggle is still open. After 40 years of neoliberalism - exploitation, alienation, class oppression and domination (suppression of class based action) are all ever present. The lesson post 1968 is clear - Gender, sexuality, immigration, race or any other cultural construction will not overcome Capitalism. Those issues will be absorbed, defanged and weaponised by capitalism to subdue class. Class was, and remains, the only field of contest where Capitalism will fight to the death to prevent change. In the end the politics of Laclau and Mouffe is little more than re-hashed liberalism. So, let a thousand academic careers die, we are done with de-colonizing the syllabus, leave Laclau and Mouffe to drift off on the road to nowhere, and return to Class, the material and the economic as a basis for solidarity, a concrete vision for a different society and the social change to get there. As Gramsci himself noted, we may engage in a War of Position, but ultimately we also need a War of movement to make the change. And that, dear friends, is not a play of differences nor collective assemblages, it is a binary struggle, irrespective of whether you theorize as such or not.
Laclau and Mouffe' dismissal of determinism, economic reductionism and essentialism. Moreover, Lacalu and Mouffe's assertion that hegemonic articulation fail to stabilize all social identities into discursive domain paves the ground to the emergence of floating and empty signifiers potential of other and interchangeable
Re-articulation.
sirvan mohamadnezhad what does this say if you don’t use academic language. Sorry, just a young lad trying to understand what you’re saying.
9:56 someone's hungry
Laclau and Mouffe rejected social identities determined by their essential positions within economic relation of production.
Perhaps No political movement can get humanity out of this conundrum except antinatalism?
Laclau try to explain the phenomena of PERONISM developed in Argentina in the 40's which basically is TRANSVERSAL POLITICS , while in Argentina it tried to enclosed the different economic sectors in Bolivia in the 50's enclosed the multiples CULTURAL segments of society. Is easily to see how TRANSVERSAL POLITICS is a practical answer to INTERSECTIONALITY . Get something from the 40's to answer a phenomena post 60's.
so intersectionality, someone tell j peterson these are his postmodern neomarxists lol
he doesn't care. he's fear-mongering
So I have embarked on this kind of a "know your enemy" style of self-education and I must say I'm shocked how well this explains what's going on at the moment in the West. Evil theory, very evil and destructive. Also naive
What is evil? Questioning authority?
its very sad that something can grow so large when such fundamental problems are in it.
The denial of rational thought as a base for political discussion evident in this understanding is almost as childish as saying "its subjective so it cant be debated"
one of the laws in philosophy that plato built a lot of his work off, was that subjectivity is a spectrum based on an objective definition, there can be a deabte over when a pebble becomes a boulder, but only to a point, and when the objective definitions change than the idea changes.
the marxist value of an entitlment to equality over a utilitarian outlook or individual property rights can be objectively shown to be bad but if this basic part is continuously denied then the marxist theories will develop through ignorant paths like this where it becomes increasingly void of reason.
what is the rational thought instead?
yes, this is very much the problem, the post-modern core to this is rotten.
I think you have misunderstood this video if you believe what you said. You say "rational thought" should be accepted as a basis for political discussion as if Laclau and Mouffe do not accept this but that's not what the video says. The video clearly says post-Marxists have to establish persuasive social stories which have to have a coherent storyline and build on hegemonic understanding. So, to begin, what constitutes a rational thought? For example, you might say "men and women should be equal" as a worthy rational thought but this "articulation" which distinguishes between men and women in a dichotomous manner and then assumes this statement to be countering existing hegemonic understanding of men typically exercising social power over women would be considered by post-Marxists as already exercising an emancipatory use of power in support of counter-hegemony. The question is therefore not whether or not to accept rational thought (you mean already established "hegemonic" thought?) but which ones to promote/disrupt, when, why and how. And, from this example, I cannot see how the emancipation of women by arguing for equality between men and women would harm economic development especially when you see Saudi Arabia, for example, has been increasingly getting rid of its traditional patriarchal social structure in order to widen its economic base away from just its massive oil industry.
Pity the question posed at the end wasn't answered. Frankly, I'm not surprised. The right to berate and berate and berate people until they finally relent and "admit" they're just as oppressed as is claimed is essential to the far left project.
good video.