Review of Antonis Liakos's Αποκάλυψη, Ουτοπία και Ιστορία: Οι μεταμορφώσεις της ιστορικής συνείδησης [Apocalypse, utopia and history: the transformations of historical consciousness]

Review of: Antonis Liakos, Αποκάλυψη, Ουτοπία και Ιστορία: Οι μεταμορφώσεις της ιστορικής συνείδησης [Apocalypse, utopia and history: the transformations of historical consciousness], Athens: Polis, 2011. 478 pp

Beyond the Certainty Principle: Towards a Political Reading of the Modern Experience

It could be argued that today we are witnesing the dislocation of the dominant image in which modern society identifies itself. This image – the positive picture of a society which is founded on absolute certainties guaranteed by a scientific discourse which can master and control the totality of the real – is put into question by the resurfacing of uncertainty and negativity (empirically present in phenomena such as the Mad Cow disease scare, environmental crisis, the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear terrorism etc.). Certainty is revealed as a social construction which attempts to do the impossible, namely to fully symbolize and neutralize the real in the Lacanian sense of the word. With reference to the discussion on the legitimacy of modernity (Lowith, Blumenberg), the sociology of risk (Beck), and social constructionism, and within a broader Lacanian framework, I try to articulate a political reading of the inconsistencies of the modern project and introduce an alternative formulation of a modernity open to the constitutive nature of uncertainty.It could be argued that today we are witnesing the dislocation of the dominant image in which modern society identifies itself. This image – the positive picture of a society which is founded on absolute certainties guaranteed by a scientific discourse which can master and control the totality of the real – is put into question by the resurfacing of uncertainty and negativity (empirically present in phenomena such as the Mad Cow disease scare, environmental crisis, the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear terrorism etc.). Certainty is revealed as a social construction which attempts to do the impossible, namely to fully symbolize and neutralize the real in the Lacanian sense of the word. With reference to the discussion on the legitimacy of modernity (Lowith, Blumenberg), the sociology of risk (Beck), and social constructionism, and within a broader Lacanian framework, I try to articulate a political reading of the inconsistencies of the modern project and introduce an alternative formulation of a modernity open to the constitutive nature of uncertainty

Objects of Consumption, Causes of Desire: Consumerism and Advertising in Societies of Commanded Enjoyment

Today consumption, advertising and branding constitute central aspects of social life, shaping economic, cultural and even political identifica­tions. How can one make sense of this hegemony of consumerism in (late) capitalist societies? How can we account for the centrality of ad­vertising discourse, which is now emerging as our predominant fantasmatic horizon? Can psychoanalysis be of any help here? Drawing on the Lacanian theorizations of desire and enjoyment, this essay answers in the affirmative. It registers the symbolic coordinates of consumerist desire, traces the imaginary lure of advertising fantasies and locates the real support for consumer culture in the (partial) jouissance entailed in desir­ing and consuming products as well as advertisements. The last section of the paper attempts to map the implications of the consumerist admin­istration of desire and enjoyment on the way the social bond is political­ly instituted and morally justified in late capitalist societies

Review of Antonis Liakos's Αποκάλυψη, Ουτοπία και Ιστορία: Οι μεταμορφώσεις της ιστορικής συνείδησης [Apocalypse, utopia and history: the transformations of historical consciousness]

Review of: Antonis Liakos, Αποκάλυψη, Ουτοπία και Ιστορία: Οι μεταμορφώσεις της ιστορικής συνείδησης [Apocalypse, utopia and history: the transformations of historical consciousness], Athens: Polis, 2011. 478 pp

Europski populistički izazov

In today’s Europe, the word ‘populism’ usually refers to right-wing populism or the populist extreme right. Is, however, the concept of ‘populism’ the proper theoreticopolitical instrument through which such identifications should be perceived, categorized and debated? What are the implications (direct and indirect) of such a naming? And what are the risks for critical analysis and for democratic politics in the European context? The hypothesis explored in this essay is that sticking to a restrictive association between ‘populism’ and the extreme right poses certain dangers that have to be seriously taken into account, especially in times of crisis. For a start, it is often premised on a rather simplistic euro-centrism that reduces the broad conceptual spectrum covered by the category ‘populism’ in its global use to a very particular European experience and then essentializes the resulting association, over-extending its scope. In addition, the category ‘populism’ is aften used to describe political forces, identities and discourses in which the role of ‘the people’ is only secondary or peripheral, to the extent that it has to coincide with strongly hierarchical and elitist visions of society. What complicates things even further is that, within the context of the European (economic and political) crisis, whoever questions/ resists the austerity agenda – especially on the left – is increasingly discredited and denounced as an irresponsible populist. Indeed, it is not by coincidence that doubts are increasingly voiced both in the theoretical and in the political literature regarding the rationale behind such a strong association between populism and the extreme right. A series of points will thus be raised that may help us develop a plausible theoretico-political strategy in the new emerging conditions from a discursive perspective.*U današnjoj Europi riječ “populizam” obično povezujemo s desnim populizmom i populističkom ekstremnom desnicom. No je li koncept populizma ispravan političko-teorijski koncept na temelju kojeg se takve identifikacije trebaju percipirati, kategorizirati te o njima raspravljati? Koje su (izravne i neizravne) implikacije takve identifikacije? Hipoteza koju ovaj rad istražuje glasi da restriktivno povezivanje koncepta populizma s ekstremnom desnicom vodi do određenih teškoća koje treba ozbiljno uzeti u obzir, posebno u kontekstu postojeće ekonomske krize. Prvo, takvo povezivanje počiva na eurocentrizmu koji širok konceptualni spektar što ga koncept populizma pokriva u svojoj globalnoj primjeni svodi na veoma specifično europsko iskustvo. Uz to, koncept populizma često se rabi da bi se opisale političke sile, identiteti i diskursi u kojima je uloga “naroda” sekundarna ili periferna, što vodi prema izuzetno hijerarhijskoj i elitističkoj slici društva. Stvari dodatno komplicira to što se u kontekstu europske ekonomske i političke krize svakoga tko se protivi ili dovodi u pitanje politiku štednje – posebno na ljevici – proglašava i diskreditira kao neodgovornog populista. Nije slučajno što se u teorijskoj, ali i političkoj literaturi sve više javlja sumnja u opravdanost povezivanja populizma i ekstremne desnice. Bit će ponuđeno nekoliko argumenata koji nam mogu pomoći da iz perspektive teorije diskursa razvijemo plauzibilnu teorijsko-političku strategiju koja može odgovoriti na te izazove

Three challenges in contemporary populism research

Populism has become one of the most hotly debated topics in European politics, but how should academics seek to study it? Yannis Stavrakakis identifies three key challenges in contemporary populism research: the need for critical reflexivity, the use of minimal definitions, and the difficulty in capturing and accounting for different types or degrees of populism

PASSIONS OF IDENTIFICATION: DISCOURSE, PLEASURE AND EUROPEAN IDENTITY

U tekstu autor raspravlja o problemu europskog identiteta, koji se pojavio već u ranijoj fazi procesa europske integracije, sa stajališta teorije diskursa. Ovaj je pristup bio zapostavljen u prvim fazama razvoja europskih studija, kad je dominirao ekonomistički pristup koji je isticao samo ekonomske vrijednosti europske integracije, dok se danas pitanje europskog identiteta postavlja kao jedno od osnovnih pitanja što određuje uspjeh procesa europske integracije. Dugo vremena se pitanje europskog identiteta identificiralo s pojmom “povoljne slike Europe”, koja bi trebala biti privlačna za građane i političke zajednice koje su uključene u proces europske integracije. Po prvi put je pitanje europskog identiteta sustavno razrađeno u jednom dokumentu EZ-a, kao što je to u kopenhaškoj deklaraciji iz 1973., a odonda je rasprava o političkom i kulturnom identitetu Europe stalno na dnevnom redu, osobito u redovima euroskeptičnih političkih pokreta i ideja. Autor raspravlja o teoriji identiteta s aspekta najnovijih doprinosa, osobito s aspekta modernih socijalnih teorija, i nastoji dokazati da europski studiji moraju uzeti u obzir dvojnu prirodu identifikacije, diskurzivnu i afektivnu, kao i simboličnu i libidinalnu. Europski studiji moraju stoga razraditi svoj doprinos i strategije suprotstavljanja pojavama kao što su euroskepticizam i nedostatak pervazivnih identifikacija građana s Europom.In the text the author discusses the problem of the European identity – which emerged in the earlier stage of the process of European integration – from the perspective of the discourse theory. This approach was overlooked in the early stages of the development of the European studies, in which the economistic approach emphasizing only the economic benefits of the European integration prevailed; today, however, the European identity issue is one of the central questions, and the success of the process of the European integration depends on. The question of the European identity has for a long time been identified with the concept of “Europe’s positive public image” appealing to the citizens and to the political communities involved in the process of the European integration. The question of the European identity was for the first time systematically elaborated on in an EC document – the Copenhagen Declaration of 1973 – and since then the debate on Europe’s political and cultural identity has permanently been on the agenda, particularly of the Eurosceptic political movements and ideas. The author looks into the theory of identity from the perspective of the latest contributions, particularly from the perspective of modern social theories, and suggests that the European studies ought to take into consideration the dual nature of the identification, the discursive and the affective, as well as the symbolic and the libidinal. That is why the European studies have to work out how to thwart Euroscepticism and develop the strategies of countering the phenomena such as a lack of pervasive identifications of citizens with Europe

Teoría del discurso, crítica post-hegemónica y política de las pasiones de Chantal Mouffe

Uno de los méritos de Hegemonía y estrategia socialista de Chantal Mouffe y Ernesto Laclau puede ser claramente asociado a la crítica de la inmediatez, la que constituye uno de los ejes centrales del libro. Por ejemplo, el cambio radical desde la ilusión de inmediatez a un énfasis sobre la mediación discursiva y su papel constitutivo en la formación de la realidad política y social es claramente visible con respecto a la tradición política contra la cual el post-marxismo se define, esto es, la tradición radical en Occidente y su núcleo marxista. En efecto, la deconstrucción de la tradición marxista en Hegemonía y estrategia socialista es primeramente la deconstrucción de la pretensión de tener un acceso directo a y un control de la totalidad de lo real y de su desarrollo (escatológico) histórico predecible.[1] No es sorprendente, entonces, que la mayoría de las resistencias críticas encontradas por la teoría discursiva han emanado de los defensores de tal inmediatez. La crítica a la teoría del discurso frecuentemente ha tomado la forma de un retorno de la inmediatez, de una venganza de lo real.Este retorno puede tomar una variedad de formas; de hecho, como veremos, ha tomado notablemente diferentes formas. En este texto, nos enfocaremos principalmente en los argumentos que rechazan la teoría de la hegemonía y del discurso de Laclau y Mouffe sobre fundamentos biopolíticos; en particular, vamos a abordar críticamente los relevantes trabajos de Richard Day, Scott Lash y Jon Beasley-Murray.[2] Este conjunto de investigaciones destaca, de una manera u otra, la importancia de los mecanismos de dominación biopolíticos, ‘no hegemónicos’, en los que el poder está, supuestamente, no mediado discursivamente, sino que opera directa y exclusivamente en un real biopolítico afectivo. Sin embargo ¿cuán válida es está crítica? Sólo un cuidadoso examen puede, en verdad, evaluar su consistencia interna, así como la medida en la que se las ha arreglado para hacer justicia al desarrollo de la teoría discursiva desde 1980 hasta hoy. De hecho, como veremos, las inconsistencias de la crítica post-hegemónica limitan severamente sus implicaciones: en vez de invalidar la teoría discursiva de la hegemonía en conjunto, meramente destacan el aspecto afectivo de la política hegemónica. No obstante ¿no es precisamente este aspecto el que ha estado enfatizando Chantal Mouffe en su trabajo personal después de Hegemonía y estrategia socialista? ¿No es esto lo que exactamente está en juego en su ‘política de las pasiones’? [1] Laclau y Mouffe (1985).[2] En esta parte del argumento nos basaremos en las primeras secciones de Stavrakakis (2014)

The populism/anti-populism frontier and its mediation in crisis-ridden Greece: from discursive divide to emerging cleavage?

Along with other South-European countries, since 2008, Greece has experienced deep economic and social dislocation, leading to a crisis of representation and triggering populist mobilisations and anti-populist reactions. This article focuses on the antagonistic language games developed around populist representations, something that has not attracted much attention in the relevant literature. Highlighting the need to study anti-populism together with populism, focusing on their mutual constitution from a discursive perspective, it articulates a brief yet comprehensive genealogy of populist and anti-populist actors (parties and media) in Greece, exploring their discursive strategies. Moving on, it identifies the main characteristics this antagonistic divide took on within the newly contested, crisis-ridden sociopolitical field, highlighting the implications for a contemporary understanding of cleavages, with potentially broader implications