maanskyn

Abstract

Two major developments of the last two decades have radically undermined traditional justifications of leftist politics: the failure of twentieth century `socialist’ experiments, and what might be termed the de-essentialising movement in contemporary philosophy. However, the social injustices that animated revolutionary thinkers in many respects remain, and some have arguably worsened in the era of globalised capitalism. This paper investigates whether it is possible to articulate a new theoretical underpinning for progressive politics that nevertheless avoids the essentialist moves of Marxism. Ethico-political readings of Derrida – one of the most influential anti-essentialist thinkers – are compared to Ernesto Laclau’s attempts at formulating a post-Marxist progressive politics built around the notions of ‘hegemony’ and ‘radical democracy.’ Laclau’s intervention in the Marxist tradition is to deconstruct its traditional categories so as to take account of contingency; his intervention in deconstruction is to introduce what in this paper is described as ‘contestation,’ so as to provide a more coherent account of the political. The paper concludes that neither deconstruction nor radical democracy provides an adequate basis for poltical action, but that the latter’s account of the political is a meaningful development of the theoretical schema articulated by the former and does point to the possibility of a non-essentialist progressive politics.

keywords: aporia, contestation, contingency, deconstruction, Derrida, hegemony, justice, Laclau, Levinas, Marx, ‘the political’, responsibility, undecidability

A version of this paper was presented at the Stellenbosch University Philosophy Department’s postgraduate seminar series. An updated version has been accepted for publication in the journal Philosophy & Social Criticism. I can provide a pre-print on request.