Intellectuals and political strategy: hegemony, posthegemony, and post-Marxist theory in Latin America

ABSTRACT

Recent work on posthegemony has sought to displace the theory of hegemony as the primary mode of understanding politics, particularly with respect to Latin America. However, this work has yet to address the history of the theory of hegemony in Latin America itself. The present article traces the history of the theory of hegemony as a reference point for Marxists in twentieth century Argentina, working through key texts from the theory’s regional introduction by Héctor Agosti, through the work of Pasado y Presente, to that of Ernesto Laclau. I argue that the theory of hegemony in the Argentine context has historically served to place intellectuals and their productions at the centre of history, and has conceived of political strategy and organisation from this perspective. Understanding this limitation and its history, I conclude, will give posthegemony theory the strategic and conceptual bearings by which to surpass the problematic of hegemony.

KEYWORDS:

• Posthegemony
• post-Marxism
• hegemony
• Argentina
• Pasado y Presente
• Laclau

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Robert Cavooris is a Ph.D. candidate in the History of Consciousness department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he studies Latin American political thought. He is a member of the Viewpoint Magazine editorial collective, and is active in the UAW Local 2865 Academic Student Workers Union.

Notes

1. The first reference points for the discussion are Larsen (1990), Yúdice (1995), Moreiras (2001), Valentine (2001), and Williams (2002). While all of these texts posed the issue of whether hegemony is a useful concept, the work of theorizing posthegemony in earnest began with Beasley-Murray (2003), conceived as a response to Moreiras (2001).

2. Chodor (2014) and Emerson (2013) have both suggested a return to some elements of Gramsci’s work as a resolution to certain problems within posthegemony theory, but the Latin American reception of Gramsci falls outside of their analysis.

3. All translations from Spanish are my own.

4. I employ the term ‘vanguard’ here in a descriptive sense, and I am specifically trying to capture its ‘cultural’ character in this context. This colloquial usage is related to but does not strictly adhere to Lenin’s understanding of a vanguard party insofar as here the status of the party is in question. The term here is being used in a more general way, insofar as intellectuals were trying to act as cultural leaders without clearly defining the organizational strategy which would support them in that position.

5. Clasista in this context refers to a specific union movement in post-1969 Córdoba that sought to establish a class line for labour, as opposed to a corporatist one either linked up with the State or Peronism.

6. I have based this summary of the views of Laclau and Mouffe on their seminal and systematic elaboration of the theory in Hegemony and socialist strategy (1985/2001). Other pertinent texts from that time period, in which some key points are developed in more depth, are Laclau (1983/1990), Laclau (1990), Laclau and Mouffe (1987/1990). See also Laclau (1977/2011) and Laclau (2005).

7. Though these papers were delivered in 1980, they were not published until 1985.

8. More specifically, Beasley-Murray notes that ‘Laclau conflates apparatuses and discourses, presenting an expanded concept of discourse that fails to distinguish between signifying and asignifying elements’ (2010, p. 60). And, indeed, Laclau and Mouffe, in contrast to Foucault, from whom they draw their concept of discourse, explicitly decline to make any distinction between ‘what are usually called the linguistic and behavioural aspects of a social process’ (1985/2001, p. 107), specifying instead that all action is only social insofar as it has meaning produced within a discursive field (Laclau & Mouffe 1987/1990, pp. 106–109).