![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
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.
Notes
1 Laclau and Mouffe ([1985] 2001, 111, 122; Laclau Citation1983) did famously say that society is impossible, but this ill-famed quote is in fact nothing more than a poetic way of reiterating their point that it is impossible to fully “suture” the social fabric, closing it without threads, imperfections, or exclusions. It is most certainly not an endorsement of the worldview behind Margaret Thatcher’s claim that “there is no such thing as society.” Rather, their point is precisely to remind us that there is always an alternative (Dean Citation2013).
2 The difference between both statements is best captured by Heidegger’s distinction between “existence” and “being” (Townshend Citation2004, 271-73).
3 Which effectively makes the signifier/signified distinction redundant. Indeed, PSDT scholars usually speak only of signifiers (Laclau Citation2004, 316). But for the reasons elaborated here, maintaining the Saussurean distinction is helpful.
4 Strictly speaking, this is not really an “introduction.” Since subjects are theorized as structural phenomena, they too are dislocated, imperfect, incomplete, and contradictory, like any other discursive structure. However, the notion of a “lack” does not apply to other structures, and hence, it is still fair to speak of the introduction of psychoanalytic theory, although it is arguable to what degree this introduction is in fact warranted (Cederstrom 2007).