In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Converging on an Open QuestErnesto Laclau (bio)I very much enjoyed the exchange in which Judith Butler and I engaged last year, through an e-mail correspondence between what Borges would have called the “unlikely geographies” of Berkeley and London. The points of convergence of our respective approaches are clear: as Butler points out, the process of gender formation that she describes and the logic of hegemony as presented in (...) my work (and in that which I wrote in collaboration with Chantal Mouffe) coincide in several of their assumptions. Neither we nor Butler see identities—political in one case, gendered in the other—as the expression of an intemporal mechanism or principle, but as products of the enactment of contingent norms; and both of us deny those norms a transcendental status, an a priori “hardness” which would reproduce itself unchanged in all historical instances. On the contrary, we see them as submitted to historical variations and as penetrated by a constitutive indetermination and ambiguity.I have used the word “transcendental” ex professo, because it is the status of the transcendental which is at the root of many of the most crucial problems in contemporary theory. Most people would agree that transcendentalism, in its classical formulations, is today unsustainable, but there is also a generalized agreement that some kind of weak transcendentalism is unavoidable. In the deconstructionist tradition, for instance, the notion of “quasi-transcendentals” has acquired considerable currency. But most theoretical approaches are haunted by the perplexing question of the precise status of that “quasi.” The problem touches on, on the one hand, the question of “metalanguage”; on the other, the status, in theory building, of categories that apparently refer to empirical events but that in practice have a quasi-transcendental status, operating as the a priori conditions of intelligibility of a whole discursive domain. What is the status in psychoanalysis, for instance, of categories such as “phallus,” of the “castration complex”? Because of the undecided status of the “quasi,” we are confronted with a plurality of alternatives, whose two polar extremes would be a total hardening of those categories, which would thus become a priori conditions of all possible human development, and a no less extreme historicism which sees in them only contingent events, products of particular cultural formations. The first extreme is confronted with the whole array of problems emerging from any transcendentalization of empirical conditions; the second, with the difficulties derived from not dealing with those conditions which make possible even a historicist discourse. The logic of the “quasi” tries to avoid both extremes, but it is extremely unclear in what that logic would consist of. These are questions which have not been dealt with enough, in either Butler’s approach or in mine; but they are issues to which both of us will have to return—perhaps in future exchanges.Let me now move to two central points contained in Butler’s latest piece, published in this issue of Diacritics as an addendum to our original exchange. They relate to the relationship between hegemony and iteration, and to the role of names in fixing meaning. I think that iteration belongs to the structure of any hegemonic operation, but that the latter stresses a double dimension of both repetition and displacement of meaning. To understand how these two dimensions interact with each other is crucial in order to grasp the [End Page 17] logic of the political. (I understand hegemony to be the central category in political analysis.) As Derrida has shown, iterability (the possibility of repetition in a plurality of instances) is something which belongs to the essence of the sign. What would something be which occurs in only one instance? It would simply not be a sign. But if the sign has to be the same, it also has to be different each time—and in that case the instance of its differential use has to be as part of its internal structure as the dimension of sameness. Now, in that case, it can only remain the same by becoming something constantly different from itself. This is the point where the usefulness of this analysis for a theory of the hegemonic becomes visible: for... (shrink)

The notion of ‘discourse’, as developed in some contemporary approaches to political analysis, has its distant roots in what can be called the transcendental turn in modern philosophy – i.e. a type of analysis primarily addressed not to facts but to their conditions of possibility. The basic hypothesis of a discursive approach is that the very possibility of perception, thought and action depends on the structuration of a certain meaningful field which pre‐exists any factual immediacy. A transcendental enquiry as an (...) investigation of the conditions of possibility of experience started with Kant, for whom space, time and the categories of understanding constitute the a priori dimension in the constitution of phenomena. And in the early twentieth century Husserl's phenomenology strictly differentiated an intuition of facts from an intuition of essences, and asserted that the latter is constitutive of all ‘givenness’. These classical transcendental approaches differ, however, in two crucial respects from contemporary theories of discourse. The first is that, while in a philosophy like Kant's the ‘a priori’ constitutes a basic structure of the mind which transcends all historical variations, contemporary discourse theories are eminently historical and try to study discursive fields which experience temporal variations in spite of their transcendental role – i.e. that the line separating the ‘empirical’ and the ‘transcendental’ is an impure one, submitted to continuous displacements. A second differentiating feature is that the concept of ‘discursive fields’ in contemporary approaches depends on a notion of structure which has received the full impact of Saussurean and post‐Saussurean linguistics. (shrink)

How to introduce 'politics' as a specific concept within a deconstructive style of thinking? In order to answer this question, this contribution compares Derrida with Laclau. According to the former the starting-point of a deconstructive style of thinking is différance. It links together the economic detour of homecoming and the relation to otherness. Laclau's analysis of politics as hegemonization within a situation of undecidability presupposes this notion of différance and can therefore be useful in introducing politics within a (...) deconstructive style of thinking. But there still is a major difference between Derrida and Laclau's decisionism: if différance as the relation without relation of economy and otherness cannot avoid decisions based on power in order to stabilize the social, these decisions are always marked by passivity and therefore deconstructible in the name of 'justice' that exceeds politics even if it takes place nowhere but within politics. Key Words: decisionism • . Derrida • . hegemony • . Laclau • . law. (shrink)

In this paper, the author maps three radically different visions of Marxism in educational philosophy. Each ‘register’ contains insights but also contradictions that cannot easily be resolved through internal modifications of the theory or through theoretical synthesis with other registers. The radical function of Marxist pedagogy is to create a constellation of Marxisms through which the outline of history can emerge. As such, the author ends with a new emphasis in Marxist education on the ‘exacting imagination’ of the teacher which (...) creates a constellational image of concepts and theories all of which hang in a precarious and historically specific configuration. (shrink)

A partir de las reflexiones de H. Bergson sobre la risa, nos preguntamos qué podría tener de específico el humor en la lógica populista de E. Laclau; cuáles son los vínculos afectivos que se construyen entre el líder y el pueblo a través de las estrategias cómicas; y en qué medida el humor podría ser utilizado como elemento movilizador para la construcción de un pueblo. Más que como atributos de una agencia política independiente, nos interesa pensar el humor como (...) atributo de la representación iconográfica en el sentido que le otorga E. Laclau. Si para H. Bergson la risa tiene una función social correctora, proponemos pensar la experiencia cómica desde una función intensificadora en la construcción de identidades colectivas. (shrink)

Este artículo se propone como objetivo problematizar los principales análisis que han abordado las relaciones posibles entre el populismo y el neoliberalismo. Aun cuando existe una extensa literatura sobre ello, aquí no atenderemos a cualquier concepción del populismo, sino sólo a las que se refieren a la razón populista de Ernesto Laclau; y, de la misma manera, no a cualquier concepción de lo neoliberal, sino a la gubernamentalidad neoliberal de Michel Foucault. Y, más en concreto, ponemos la mirada sobre (...) las reflexiones que atienden al vínculo entre la gubernamentalidad neoliberal y la razón populista, entendiendo ésta última como un horizonte de construcción política de un proyecto democrático, una forma de elaborar la voluntad política que tiene una pretensión emancipadora. Así, expondremos y desgranaremos las perspectivas que consideramos fundamentales al tiempo que las someteremos a diferentes consideraciones críticas. (shrink)

A concepção lacaniana de sujeito cindido e descentrado e suas consequências, implicada à linguagem e ao discurso, subverteu radicalmente significativa parte do campo de estudos concernentes à discursividade. Podemos inscrever a destacada Teoria do Discurso de Ernesto Laclau como um aprofundamento dessa subversão lacaniana, incorporada a uma abrangente investigação dos processos sociopolíticos e identitários. No presente artigo, promovemos uma analítica das implicações teóricas do dispositivo psicanalítico presentes em sua Teoria do Discurso a partir de três direções: (A) os pressupostos (...) de ‘irredutibilidade do sentido’ e a ‘lógica do significante’ como ponto de partida; (B) e a implicação da categoria ‘sujeito cindido e descentrado’ impostos a fundamentação do campo do discurso ‘para além das áreas da fala ou da escrita’; (C) O terceiro eixo, o mais explorado, articulamos a relação teórica entre ‘discurso, campo pulsional e o gozo (la juissance)’, repensado por Laclau nos limites e consequências do político. Por fim, propomos algumas formalizações como forma de demonstrar o jogo teórico explicitado. (shrink)

El artículo se propone definir y desarrollar los conceptos básicos para la construcción de una ontología política en la obra de Ernesto Laclau y Chantal Mouffe. Se parte del concepto de discurso como el horizonte ontológico más amplio que permite enmarcar el objeto específico, el cual es la política como articulación hegemónica, dentro de las tradiciones y disciplinas diversas que se ocupan de él. Dado que el concepto de discurso procede de las ciencias formales, se procura distinguir su significado (...) en el contexto de la filosofía y las ciencias sociales. También se explicita su relación con la tradición marxista que pone el acento en la praxis social. El concepto de discurso hace posible comprender cómo se determinan los objetos dentro de una totalidad significativa y, al mismo tiempo, cómo se constituyen los sujetos o agentes sociales. A continuación se procede a diferenciar las totalidades estructurales cerradas de las sociedades, cuyo cierre o sutura es imposible. Con ellos los autores se diferencian tanto de los estructuralistas como de los hegelianos. El concepto clave que hace posible comprender las sociedades modernas capitalistas es la dislocación. Finalmente, se procura determinar aquello que impide la constitución plena de los sistemas sociales, que los autores llaman “antagonismo”. Este concepto debe ser diferenciado de los conceptos de oposición física y de contradicción lógica. El antagonismo señala el límite de la sociedad. (shrink)

Purpose of this text is to present some critiques on the theories of Ernesto Laclau on populism, in particular way on those present in La ragione populista. The text is divided essentially in three parts, in the first one I will brefly illustrate the recent story of Argentina as it is fundamental to understand the development of the thought of the Latin American philosopher. In the second part of the essay I will present the main theoretical proposals within La (...) ragione populista. The last part of the text will be dedicated to a close examination of two central elements of Laclau's theory; the minimum unit of analysis chosen, and the relation between populism and institutions. Almost the whole texts that I will use, in order to underline some critical issues in the Laclausian's thought, come from the Latin American's framework, which in the last decade could experience merits and limits both on Laclau's thought and on populisms which really exist, or existed, today in Latin America. (shrink)

Ernesto Laclau (1935-2014) est reconnu aujourd'hui comme l'un des philosophes politiques principaux pour le XXIe siècle. Cet ouvrage poursuit les débats entrepris avec lui, et réunit quelques-uns de ses principaux interlocuteurs en France (Étienne Balibar, Toni Negri, Jacques Rancière), aux États-Unis (Judith Butler, Nancy Fraser) et en Argentine (Horacio González, Leonor Arfuch, Emilio de Ipola, Senda Sferco). Laclau a écrit des ouvrages devenus des références sur l'hégémonie, le populisme et l'émancipation. Longtemps ignorées par la philosophie institutionnelle et méconnues (...) du grand public, ses thèses originales ont su perturber la scène contemporaine de la pensée politique. Son activité citoyenne en Argentine a fait de lui un intellectuel familier du public hispanophone. Ce que disent ici les penseurs argentins éclaire d'un jour nouveau la contribution des épistémologies du Sud aux débats politiques français et européens, mais aussi au-delà, portant sur la question d'un populisme de gauche que Laclau appelait de ses voeux et qu'il nous laisse en héritage."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

The majority of those who comment upon the theories of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe - both supporters and critics - treat the work of the two authors as a coherent unity. I see acute differences that demarcate the ideas of Laclau and Mouffe: differences that impede any straightforward delimitation of the authorial identity `Laclau and Mouffe'. The purpose of this paper is to bring to the fore the incommensurate political differences that separate the work of the (...) two authors, and to establish the superiority of Mouffe's position. At its most basic both authors view politics as described in their co-authored Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: i.e. `as a practice of creation, reproduction and transformation of social relations' (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 153). This agreement, however, conceals the fact that the authors describe the political articulation of social relations in distinct ways, and that those descriptions are implicated in, and reinforce, contrasting ethico-political commitments and prescriptions. These differences reflect the differences between the politics of the Marxist tradition retained by Laclau - albeit understood as a negative apparition of its former (ultimately) fully positive self - and Mouffe's radical democratic pluralism. This latter perspective - in its more recent formulations - represents a political compound of civic-republicanism with a defense of liberalism; this is a political imaginary that retains little if anything from the Marxist tradition. (shrink)

A timeless critique holds that the radical is animated by a deep sense of certainty that leads to the worst excesses. By distinguishing essentialist and non-essentialist forms of radicalism, Ernesto Laclau offers a “coalitional” form of radicalism that, in effect, responds to this critique. Laclau deconstructs classical forms of radicalism, such as Marxism, to show how one can use some of their formal components, such as dichotomic rhetoric and a notion of utopia, without assuming that their particular content (...) (e.g., the figure of the proletarian or the socialist utopia) entails the permanent abolition of oppression. Laclau’s radicalism enables political actors to build their own radical front by politicizing and creating linkages between issues. Laclau thus avoids the epistemic certainty of classical radicalisms. However, in the interest of politically effective radicalism, he deploys a localized form of certainty that has an ambivalent potential for intolerance and violence. (shrink)

O populismo contemporâneo tem suscitado profícuos debates entre os teóricos políticos, tais como Ernesto Laclau, com a sua teoria do discurso atrelada à psicanálise, defendendo a ideia de que o populismo representa a lógica da política; e Nadia Urbinati, que compreende o populismo como a desfiguração da democracia. O desdobramento deste embate de ideias levará à análise de uma figura importante para o populismo: o líder populista. Se para Laclau a noção de _significante vazio_ expressa o sujeito coletivo (...) na figura do líder, resultado da lógica da equivalência e da diferença entre as diversas demandas sociais, para Urbinati o líder populista utiliza o regime democrático para atingir fins antidemocráticos, aviltando a parte da população que dele diverge. Pretende-se neste artigo analisar ambas as concepções e, a partir do confronto destas perspectivas sobre o populismo, apresentar uma hipótese de base psicanalítica sobre o que conduz os indivíduos a apoiarem uma representação política autoritária. (shrink)

Tomando como ponto de partida a noção de “psicologia das multidões”, desenvolvida inicialmente por Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), este trabalho procura refletir, num sentido amplo, sobre a dinâmica entre a política e as relações intersubjetivas, afetivas e imaginárias da vida coletiva. Além disso, buscamos estabelecer o confronto entre dois filósofos pós-marxistas contemporâneos, Antonio Negri e Ernesto Laclau, os quais, afastando-se da perspectiva de Le Bon, fazem leituras distintas das noções de povo, massa e multidão, propondo, cada qual a seu (...) modo, estratégias diferentes de atuação política, sem desconsiderar a dinâmica dos afetos que estruturam a vida social e política na atual fase do capitalismo. Frente a estas perspectivas, pretendemos mostrar que o conceito de multidão, de Le Bon, bem como as técnicas de propaganda e manipulação de massa por ele indicada, é uma ferramenta útil para compreender os fenômenos políticos contemporâneos, como é o caso do neofascismo, que surge em meio à crise da democracia representativa. (shrink)

Este documento analiza cómo se presenta la deshumanización en los conflictos armados e intenta demostrar que, en la mayoría de los casos, lo ‘discursivo’ y lo ‘violento’ coexisten de modo que el ‘otro’ es una construcción difusa que cambia según el contexto. Como consecuencia, no puede establecerse una división clara entre ‘enemigo’ y ‘adversario’, por lo que debe aceptarse que dicha relación es mucho más compleja. Para esto, se revisa la historia del conflicto armado colombiano desde mediados del siglo XX, (...) usando la teoría posestructuralista del discurso de Chantal Mouffe y Ernesto Laclau, y el concepto de lo ‘político’ de Carl Schmitt. (shrink)

In this paper, I intend to defend the following hypothesis: Foucault's definition of politics from 1979, i.e. the game between heterogeneous governmentalities, overdetermines the two other dimensions of the concept: the warlike or antagonistic relationship between subjects and the resistance of a form of subjectivation against a governmentality. To this end, I address the problem of the possible relationship between overdetermination and the Foucauldian concept of politics. In this sense, Laclau and Mouffe’s work and Althusser’s criticism delimit the field (...) of inquiry, although they do not exhaust it. This contrast will serve to bring to light the implications of a Foucauldian interpretation of overdetermination and thus describe Foucault’s critiques of the poststructuralist model for political thought. From this, I intend to state the fact that Mouffe’s latest writings seem to be oriented towards avoiding the risks that Foucault pointed out, bringing her reflection close to that of the French philosopher. (shrink)

O objetivo deste artigo reside em esclarecer a associação entre pluralismo e imanência na teoria política de William E. Connolly para, em seguida, trabalhar algumas implicações filosóficas sobre a sua concepção de democracia. Ao desenvolver uma contraposição entre o posicionamento do autor e os de Ralws, Habermas e Laclau, o artigo situa as contribuições e possíveis ressalvas de uma teoria política calcada na imanência acerca dos desafios presentes nas democracias contemporâneas pluralistas.

Este libro reúne el trabajo de algunos docentes e investigadores de diferentes facultades españolas, que escudriñan el potencial pedagógico y educativo que encierra la obra de algunos filósofos considerados contemporáneos –no siempre por las fechas en que escribieron, aunque este criterio juegue– para pensar nuestro presente y reflexionar sobre nuestro tiempo educativo. Sean cuales sean los ámbitos de conocimiento en los que se mueven, normalmente profesores de filosofía y educación, cada uno de los colaboradores del texto eligió el filósofo considerado (...) por ellos más relevante según el criterio expuesto, y seleccionaron algunos de los conceptos claves en su filosofía, haciéndolos “sonar” para ver de qué modo pueden contribuir a pensar el discurso educativo y aquellas prácticas educativas que normalmente se materializan cotidianamente en el aula. Por lo tanto, el presente libro está atravesado por la libertad que preside cualquiera de sus capítulos, a la vez que mantiene una estructura común: presentar unas breves consideraciones introductorias sobre el autor y su filosofía para, a continuación, articular sus desarrollos en torno a los conceptos o ideas más significativas desde un punto de vista pedagógico, labor compleja que necesita de un profundo conocimiento sobre la obra del autor y una cuidada elaboración para facilitar su lectura. Así, se ha propiciado el encuentro con filósofos como Deleuze, Badiou, Ranciére, Bauman, Laclau, Arendt, Derrida, Benjamin, dejando claro que no están todos los que son pero sí son todos los que están. (shrink)

Este artículo aborda el concepto de lo político de Carl Schmitt y la teoría populista de Ernesto Laclau. Se ofrece, primero, una crítica de la literatura sobre la supuesta recepción del pensamiento de Schmitt en Laclau, en relación a sus nociones de antagonismo, representación, unanimidad, e identificación. Luego se reconstruyen y comparan los argumentos de los dos autores sobre el enemigo, la referencia al pueblo como sujeto político y el carácter existencial de lo político. Sin pretensión de elaborar (...) un análisis conceptual exhaustivo para no exceder el espacio aquí disponible, se señala que a lo largo de su trayectoria Laclau ignoró a Schmitt (a excepción de un artículo sobre la guerra) y que, si bien Schmitt no fue una influencia intelectual en Laclau, hay algunas similitudes en sus modelos teóricos. (shrink)

¿Por qué construír al pueblo es la principal tarea de una política radical? -- Una ética del compromiso militante -- ¿Vida nuda o indeterminación social? -- ¿Puede la inmanencia explicar las luchas sociales? Crítica a Imperio.

This article discusses the character of hegemonic subjectification as it is seen by Ernesto Laclau. By explaining the concepts of the constitutive features and form of a hegemonically acquired political identity, such as antagonism, undecidability, overdetermination and decision, I define the social fields and dynamics of subjectification. At the same time, I adopt that such subjectification occurs within the boundaries of the particular –universal, i.e., the ideologically assigned view of identity as totality. Besides, in contrast to Laclau, I (...) juxtapose the dialectically conceived form of the particular–universal relation with its poststructuralist Laclau’s version, and I try to prove that—contrary to Laclau—the idea of hegemony enjoys its vitality thanks to Theodor W. Adorno’s concept of negative dialectics. To determine the points of similarity of the two methods of constructing and deconstructing identity and subjectivity, I reject Elmar Flatschart’s incomparability argument. Lastly, I point out the earlier mentioned points of convergence: on Adorno’s part—the concept of proper names and the concept of constellation; on Laclau’s part—the concept of undecidability and decision which keep discourse ontologically and epistemologically open. (shrink)

Starting from the author’s critique of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, this essay offers a comprehensive interpretation of Slavoj Žižek’s political theory. ŽiŽek’s position drives a wedge between two concepts foundational to Laclau and Mouffe’s ‘radical democratic theory’, namely ‘antagonism’ and ‘anti-essentialism’. Anti-essentialism, it is argued, carries with it a residual utopianism - i.e. a view of political theory as offering a vision of a desirable radicalized society or a ‘radical democratic imaginary’ - that the more radical concept (...) of antagonism forbids. Effectively, anti-essentialism is shown to produce a new kind of ideology, an ideology that Žižek, deeply critical, associates with the shortcomings of multi-culturalism and political correctness. The essay ends with a critical consideration of Žižek’s claim that he himself produced a systematic political theory based upon the insight of antagonism. Having constructed (by way of return to Marx and Engels) a version of Žižek’s project that makes sense of his derision for anti-utopianism by positing a utopian theory without any ‘imaginary’ support, the article closes with critical comments about the effectiveness of such a position. Žižek is seen to offer us a powerful political theory, one that unmasks the hypocrisy in much contemporary work, but also a theory whose limits must give us pause. (shrink)

This work brings together trends of current thinking - Lacanian psychoanalysis, deconstruction, neo-Hegelianism and political philosophy - to illuminate the question of identity in the contemporary world. It also examines some of the new political identities which have emerged in recent decades.

In this hugely influential book, Laclau and Mouffe examine the workings of hegemony and contemporary social struggles, and their significance for democratic theory. With the emergence of new social and political identities, and the frequent attacks on Left theory for its essentialist underpinnings, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy remains as relevant as ever, positing a much-needed antidote against ‘Third Way’ attempts to overcome the antagonism between Left and Right.

Deconstruction and pragmatism constitute two of the major intellectual influences on the contemporary theoretical scene; influences personified in the work of Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty. Both Rortian pragmatism, which draws the consequences of post-war developments in Anglo-American philosophy, and Derridian deconstruction, which extends and troubles the phonomenological and Heideggerian influence on the Continental tradition, have hitherto generally been viewed as mutually exclusive philosophical language games. The purpose of this volume is to bring deconstruction and pragmatism into critical confrontation with (...) one another through staging a debate between Derrida and Rorty, itself based on discussions that took place at the College International de Philosophie in Paris in 1993. The ground for this debate is layed out in introductory papers by Simon Critchley and Ernesto Laclau, and the remainder of the volume records Derrida's and Rorty's responses to each other's work. Chantal Mouffe gives an overview of the stakes of this debate in a helpful preface. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Diacritics 31.4 (2001) 3-10 [Access article in PDF] Can Immanence Explain Social Struggles? Ernesto Laclau Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2000. In a recent interview 1 Jacques Rancière opposes his notion of "people" (peuple) 2 to the category of "multitude" as presented by the authors of Empire. As is well known, Rancière differentiates between police and politics, the first being the logic of (...) counting and assigning the population to differential places, and the second the subversion of that differentiating logic through the constitution of an egalitarian discourse which puts into question established identities. "The people" is the specific subject of politics, and this term presupposes a sharp division in the social body which cannot be led back to any kind of immanent unity. Empire, on the contrary, makes immanence its central category and the ultimate ground of the multitude's unity.The main lines of Rancière's critique provide a good starting point for what we have to say about the book. The immanentism of Hardt and Negri would be linked, according to Rancière, to their Nietzschean/Deleuzian ethics of affirmation, which does away with any reactive or negative dimension. Empire would belong, in that respect, to the whole tradition of modern political philosophy, which is profoundly metapolitical: "the kernel of metapolitics is to lead back the precarious artifices of the political scene to the truth of an immanent power which organizes beings in a community and identifies the true community with the grasped and sensible operation of this truth" ["Peuple ou multitudes" 96]. From Hardt and Negri's rejection of any inherent negativity in political subjects, it follows that the power inherent in the multitude has to be a disruptive power, "lodged in all states of domination as its ultimate content, a content destined to destroy all barriers. 'Multitudes' have to be a content whose continent is Empire" ["Peuple ou multitudes" 97]. Disruptive forces operating through a purely immanent movement are what Marxist theory called "productive forces," and there would be, according to Rancière, a strict homology between the place of productive forces and that in which multitudes, as described in Empire, act. Rancière points out that productive forces should not necessarily be understood in any narrow productivist sense: there has been a constant widening of the concept from the strict economism of classical Marxism, to the recent attempts to introduce in it the ensemble of scientific and intellectual abilities, passing through the Leninist attempt to supplement via political intervention a role that productive forces refused to fulfill.I think that Rancière has rightly stressed what I see as the main source of several weaknesses of Empire, including a central one: that within its theoretical framework politics become unthinkable. So I will start from a discussion of its notion of immanence and move later to various other theoretical and political aspects of the book. [End Page 3]Let us start with the authors' discussion of the origins of European modernity. While the usual insistence is on the secularization process, that process would be, "in our view... only a symptom of the primary event of modernity: the affirmation of the powers of this world, the discovery of the plane of immanence. 'Omne ens habet aliquod esse proprium'—every entity has a singular essence. Duns Scotus' affirmation subverts the medieval conception of being as an object of analogical, and thus dualistic predication—a being with one foot in this world and one in a transcendent realm" [Empire 71]. Duns Scotus's insistence on the singularity of being would have initiated an assertion of immanence that the authors describe as a process whose representative names would have been Nicholas of Cusa, Pico della Mirandola, and Bovillus—other names quoted are Bacon and Occam—and whose point of arrival is Spinoza. "By the time we arrive at Spinoza, in fact, the horizon of immanence and the horizon of the democratic political order coincide completely. The plane of immanence is the one on which the powers of singularity are realized and the one on which the truth of the new... (shrink)