¿Hegemonía o post-hegemonía? Discurso, representación y la(s) venganza(s) de lo Real
Palabras clave:
biopolítica, teoría del discurso, hegemonía, marxismoResumen
El objetivo de este artículo es centrarse en los argumentos que descartan la teoría de hegemonía y discurso de Laclau y Mouffe por razones biopolíticas; en particular, se involucrará críticamente con el trabajo relevante de Richard Day, Scott Lash y Jon Beasley-Murray. Este cuerpo de investigación destaca, de una u otra manera, la importancia de los mecanismos de dominación biopolíticos, no hegemónicos, en los cuales el poder, supuestamente, no está mediado discursivamente, sino que opera directa y exclusivamente sobre un real biopolítico y afectivo. Esta crítica se ubicará primero dentro de una larga tradición de críticas de la teoría del discurso basada en alguna noción de lo real, inicialmente de lo real materialista de la economía.
Citas
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Arditi, B. (2007). Post-hegemony: Politics Outside the Usual Post-Marxist Paradigm. Contemporary Politics, 13(3), 205–26.
Beasley-Murray, J. (2010). Posthegemony. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Biglieri, P. and Perello, G. (2011). The Names of the Real in Laclau’s Theory: Antagonism, Dislocation and Heterogeneity. Folosofski Vestnik, XXXII(2), 47–64.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In Other Words: In Praise of Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity.
Clough, P. (2008). The Affective Turn: Political Economy, Biomedia and Bodies. Theory, Culture and Society, 25(1), 1–22.
Day, R. (2005). Gramsci is Dead. Londres: Pluto Press. Derbyshire, P. 2011. Romanticism of the Multitude. Radical Philosophy, 169. Disponible en http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/web/romanticism-of-themultitude
Elias, N. (1991). The Symbol Theory. Londres: Sage.
Elias, N. (2000). The Civilizing Process. Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Second revised edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.
Freud, S. (1991). ‘Why War?’, in Civilization, Society and Religion, Book 12. Londres: Penguin Freud Library.
Geras, N. (1987). Post-Marxism? New Left Review, 163, 40–82.
Geras, N. (1988). Ex-Marxism Without Substance: Being a Real Reply to Laclau and Mouffe. New Left Review, 169, 34–61.
Geras, N. (1990). Discourses of Extremity, Londres: Verso.
Glynos, J. (2012). Body, Discourse and the Turn to Matter, in Language, Ideology, and the Human: New Interventions, edited by S. Bahun, and D. Radunović. Farnham: Ashgate.
Glynos, J. and Stavrakakis, Y. (2003). Encounters of the Real Kind: Sussing out the Limits of Laclau’s Embrace of Lacan. Journal for Lacanian Studies, 1(1), 110–28.
Gordillo, G. (2011). Affective Hegemonies. Disponible en: http://posthegemony.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/gordillo_hegemonies.pdf
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, R. (2007). Post-hegemony? I Don’t Think So. Theory, Culture and Society, 24(3), 95–110.
Kalyvas, A. (2005). The Sovereign Weaver: Beyond the Camp, in Politics, Metaphysics, and Death: Essays on Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer, edited by A. Norris. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kordela, K. (2007). Surplus: Spinoza, Lacan. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Laclau, E. (2001). Can Immanence Explain Social Struggles? Diacritics, 31(4), 3–10.
Laclau, E. (2003). Discourse and Jouissance: A Reply to Glynos and Stavrakakis. Journal for Lacanian Studies, 1(2), 278–85.
Laclau, E. (2004). Glimpsing the Future: A Reply, in Laclau: A Critical Reader, edited by S. Critchley and O. Marchart. Londres: Routledge, 279–328.
Laclau, E, (2005a). Philosophical Roots of Discourse Theory. Centre for Theoretical Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Essex. Disponible en: http://www.essex.ac.uk
Laclau, E. (2005b). On Populist Reason. Londres: Verso.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Londres: Verso.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1987). Post-Marxism Without Apologies. New Left Review, 166, 79–106.
Lash, S. (2007). Power after Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation? Theory, Culture and Society, 24(3), 55–78.
Lazzarato, M. (2012). The Making of the Indebted Man. New York: The MIT Press/Semiotexte.
Ozselçuk, C. and Madra, Y.M. (2005). Psychoanalysis and Marxism: From Capitalist All to Communist Non-all. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society, 10, 79–97.
Prentoulis, M. and Thomassen, L. (2012). Political Theory at the Square: Protest, Representation and Subjectification. Contemporary Political Theory 1–19. Disponible en: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/cpt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/cpt201226a.html
Stavrakakis, Y. (2007). The Lacanian Left. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Thoburn, N. (2007). Patterns of Production: Cultural Studies After Hegemony. Theory, Culture and Society, 24(3), 79–94.
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational Theory. Londres: Routledge.
Wood, E. M. (1986). The Retreat from Class. Londres: Versο.
