Post-Structuralist Discourse Theory analyzes political ideas and action from a Marxist direction. However, while classic Marxian sociology is rooted in economic processes that “structure” society and ideas, Post-Structuralist Discourse Theory emphasizes the absence of any determinative principle. Thus, it radicalizes an ongoing shift in Marxism away from economic essentialism towards indeterminacy, contingency, and openness. The ideological superstructure becomes ever more important at the expense of the economic base; class struggle and relations of production lose analytical and strategic purchase in favor (...) of a complex and integral form of politics; there are no deeper, natural foundations determining how society is organized and structured. Post-Structuralist Discourse Theorists argue that this orientation leads to a more satisfactory analysis of political practice than is possible through positivist research. Assessing this claim requires a survey of the hermetic terminology in which Post-Structuralist Discourse Theorists express their ideas—the discourse, as it were, of Discourse Theorists—exploring their use of sociology, structuralist linguistics, psychoanalysis, and the political theory of populism. (shrink)

Poststructuralist discourse theory is enjoying increasing recognition for its potential to contribute to the study of institutional change and continuity. Yet the most fruitful approach to realizing this potential has hitherto not been found. The main proposition so far has been to operationalize DT’s insights and concepts by adopting them into the framework of discursive institutionalism. However, an ongoing debate about the compatibility of the ontologies underlying DT and DI has cast doubts over whether such a combination is theoretically feasible. (...) The critical literature review in the first part of this article indeed finds insurmountable ontological differences between the discourse-theoretical and the discursive-institutionalist traditions, as their clashing notions of what is understood as a ‘discourse’ result in diverging views on power, agency, and subjectivity. Instead of merging DT into DI, I suggest to empower the former as a self-sufficient paradigm for institutional analysis. To achieve this, the second part of this article re-articulates the ‘logics framework’ proposed by Jason Glynos and David Howarth into a middle-range theory for the study of institutionalization and politicization in a discourse-theoretical fashion. The purpose of this re-articulation is to dispel various arguments against the viability of an autonomous poststructuralist approach to institutions. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Ever since an intense theoretical debate over a decade ago, the concept of heterogeneity has had a well-established place within poststructuralist Discourse Theory. It captures the interactions between the heart of the space of representation and its margins, between excluded excess and manifest presence; and conceptualizes particularities, differential remainders, and discursive exteriority. The analytical implications of heterogeneity remain underexploited, however. This contribution makes the case that one way to operationalize the notion of heterogeneity in empirical research is by tracing (...) its strategic effects. Since heterogeneity constitutes ‘the primary terrain within which homogeneizing logics operate’, heterogeneous dynamics like the ‘incorporation of new demands’ and ‘the exclusion of others who were previously present’ affect and shape the availability and feasibility of political strategies. This contribution first provides an extensive definition of heterogeneity drawing on the original debate that gave the concept prominence. An approach that captures and explains the strategic effects of heterogeneity is then developed through the integration of heterogeneity into the logics framework. Finally, this approach is illustrated through an exploration of the politics of international trade. (shrink)