Jürgen Habermas: Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion: Philosophische Aufsätze. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 2005

Sin resume

Wendy Brown: Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2006

Sin resume

Introduction: Analytic, Continental and the question of a bridge

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Introduction: Analytic, Continental and the question of a bridge, which has been published in final form at 10.1177/1474885115582078. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with SAGE’s Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.In philosophy and political theory, divisions come and go, but some persist despite beingobviously problematic. The analytic and Continental divide is one such division. Inpolitical philosophy and political theory, the division has been particularly pronounced.Analytic and Continental thinkers are divided not only over substantial issues but also over the very nature of political theorising. In spite of this fundamental nature, theorists often seem to assume that, as a division, the analytic/Continental divide requires no explanation. We suggest that, as a central division within political theory, and despite being acknowledged as problematic for quite some time, it has persisted because it has not been adequately examined. Once examined, the division turns out to be operationally weaker than it once was. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in engaging thinkers from the other side. This has been accompanied by a corresponding tendency, among both analytic and Continental philosophers and political thinkers, to reflect on the nature of their own tradition and ‘philosophy’. Both traditions have entered a self-conscious period of meta-reflection. Such questioning indicates the possibility of transformation within both groups, in the absence of settled frameworks and divisions. However, it is also clear that such signs are the beginning of the possibility of a new relation rather than a sign of the eclipse of the division. The continued institutional separation and the space between their respective philosophical vocabularies suggest that, while the time is ripe for work here, there is still much to be done

Radical democracy and collective movements today: Hegemony and autonomy

The 2011 movements of the squares, the ‘aganaktismenoi’ and ‘indignados’ as they came to be known in Greece and Spain respectively, brought to the forefront old and unresolved debates on the Left. During the crisis it became evident that the traditional Left failed to capture the popular imagination. As part of parliamentary politics, and together with the rest of the political establishment, the left had itself lost legitimacy, at least among a large part of society, and non-representational alternatives started to be entertained. The debates emerging from the movements were a response to the failure of the existing economic paradigm and an alternative economic vision challenging neo-liberal capitalism took front stage. Yet, at the heart of the movements was the realization that, without a political alternative compensating for the democratic deficit in the respective countries, such an alternative would be impossible. Resistance to the economic programmes of the troika (the IMF, the EU and the ECB) had to come from the ‘people’, the political actor who had been excluded from the decision-making process. Although the crisis was identified as economic, there was a sense in which the crisis concerned politics as well – indeed the crisis was of a general character to the extent that it could not be limited to a particular part of society

Hegemony, populism and democracy: Laclau and Mouffe today (review article)

This review article takes the publication of four new volumes by, and on, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe as an opportunity to revisit their work and consider its contemporary relevance. After introducing the four volumes, I explain how Laclau and Mouffe’s work has developed since Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, highlighting three key developments: the incorporation of psychoanalysis, rhetoric and passions. Having done so, I turn to consider Laclau’s and Mouffe’s respective works on populism, connecting these to the emergence of left-wing populism in Europe today, with particular attention to the case of Podemos. Given the relevance of Laclau’s and Mouffe’s works for contemporary left populism, I show how the key elements from their theory on hegemony inform their argument that populist discourseis a fruitful strategy for the left today. It is because identities are contingent that a progressive collective will does not need to be articulated around class, but can be articulated around the figure of “the people”. Moreover, since rhetoric, antagonism and passions are inherent to politics, populism is not necessarily opposed to democracy, but can be articulated in a way so as to reinvigorate democratic politics.</p

From Protest to Party: Horizontality and Verticality on the Slovenian Left

This essay analyses the politics of horizontality—a key characteristic of recent forms of protest and activist citizenship—through the case of the 2012–2013 protests in Slovenia. The Slovenian case is illustrative because we can trace the emergence of the Initiative for Democratic Socialism and, subsequently, the United Left from protest through movement to party. Since we believe that horizontality and verticality are present in both movements and parties, we argue against a simple opposition between movements and parties. In particular, we focus on the reasons for the move from horizontalist ways of political organising to vertical structures

Hegemonía, entre teoría y acción política. Entrevistas a Iñigo Errejón, Lasse Thomassen y Yannis Stavrakakis

A treinta años de la publicación de Hegemonía y Estrategia Socialista, publicamos en esta Ventana Social una serie de entrevistas a tres figuras destacadas del debate contemporáneo en torno a la obra de Ernesto Laclau y Chantal Mouffe, y de su influencia política. Tras los cambios políticos y discursivos que conllevó la irrupción de las manifestaciones anti-austeridad en muchos países europeos, y el sucesivo ascenso de partidos políticos como PODEMOS en España y Syriza en Grecia, el objetivo es indagar el valor a la vez heurístico y político del concepto de ‘hegemonía’, así como la conexión que se da entre teória y praxis, entre la `radicalización’ de la democracia – en el sentido de Laclau y Mouffe – y el escenario político contemporáneo. De la mano de estas tres personalidades - Iñigo Errejón, Lasse Thomassen, y Yannis Stavrakakis – tratamos de dar respuestas a una serie de interrogativos centrales para este número de Relaciones Internacionales, y a la vez ofrecer caminos interpretativos de la realidad Europea