5: Deconstruction, Pragmatism, Hegemony Emesto Laclau am writing here asa politcal theorist rather than a philosopher inthe strc sense ofthe term. My main purposes to show how and why the to ‘urrents of thought whowe comparzon ithe main am ofthis Bonk, ‘levat for central apes ofa contemporary theorzaton of politi. This ‘elevancecanbe shown think in connection witha whole range of se ‘which have ald an increasing significance both in advanced indi {ral soetes an Third Word countries Ihave sustained ny own work ‘hat "hegemony isthe central category fora theorizaton of politics” The ‘masons for this aim wll become cet hope, nthe course ofthis es) will approach this Issue, however, in an indict way, through 2 towhat woul ala loge’ of hegemony Lets stat with deconstruction. A deconstrucive approsch is highly ‘evant to two dimensions of the polical ~ as oppose to the ‘social’ ~ ‘which have acquired a increasing centrality in curent debates. The Sst {is the notion of the politcal as the instituting moment of society. The ominant vision of te political inthe nineteenth entry proenged nto the twentieth by various soclologistie tendencies, had made of i 2 ‘subsystor or superstructure submited othe necessary I of oct) This vision Ulumphed with postive, and sanctioned the cumulative resus of more than a century of decline of Pollical Piesophy. Today, fon the contrary we tnd to desediment the social nd to reactivate’ by ‘eferring it back tothe pital moment of riginayinstetion. Now, this process of deseimentation i atthe same ine o process of de {otalztion ofthe sca. Why i this 27 Beste, given hat society 80 Jones conceived a unified by anendogenousunderying log and given45 Emesto Laclaa also the contingent characte ofthe acs of politi institution there sno Jocusfrom which sovereign fat euld be pronounced. This consti {ncompletion ofthe socal is crucial to waderstand the woeking of hes ‘monic loge. This the second dimension ofthe palit: the Icom ‘pletion of al acts of pital instution. Seen fom this perspective he ‘polio’ of society appear as operating a double displacement: on the one hand theres certainly an expansion othe politcal atthe expense ‘ofthe socal; but on the other hand paliizaton involves also contingent production ofthe social ink nd, in this sense a decentring of sci. To Put the mater in other terms il tat eich makes the pital posible tne cntingancyof the acts of nition = s also what mates Jmposibs, 2 ultimately no instituting acti fully achievable (This ‘ncn shows the pai othe argue the pl ‘tsi elon Totaltarian dan don exit the ee which encase ll ‘Pirate contin of potbilty of something is abo ts cent of mpoeiility. Ae you ee, we ar already in the train of decostraction ‘Te later makes posible aerial turnin Pia! They by (a) widening {held of stractaral unceidaby nd ()clering hs he Bed Kor ‘theory ofthe decison as taken nan undedable eran, As far theft ‘mension s concerned, we have te lerain of the undecdables a 2° ensemble of quas/-transcendental logics (achestace, diac, supple ‘mentanity, trablity remark). This isthe ld which hasbeen system abelly presented by Rodolphe Gasche? As forthe second dimension the ‘ery plurality of moves which are posse in that undewidable tral ‘eu a hoor ofthe desl ~ amare to which the work of Deri Tas been onented toa considerable extent in rent years Undecidability Decision [will now succewively explore the relevance for polite of these ‘0 ‘mensions of deconstruction ~ undacidablity and decision. Undecis ‘bly Bt Iwill roach the discussion by concentrating onthe ier op ‘tthe concep cea to contemporay poll theory representation. {oteration and power 1 Tihave attempted elaewher” to deconstruct he logic of representation. Let me summarize here the maln points of my argument The condition ofa good representation sapaentythat theres perfecto transport itansnason, by the representative, of the will of those whom He represents: A good representation would De one invehihthe will move> Inenly one direction, This presupposes, ofcourse ha a the pi or ‘which the relation of representation tarts there afl etifato™ Deconstruction, Pragmatism, Hegemony 49 ‘ofthe represented with his wil. The transparency of the relation of tion would be tvestned i he ve “upon the wills of thse that he i to represen! lowever what this approach tothe robles leaves aside ‘elation of representation neds abe etablished inthe fist place, The answer obviously that it is because the presented ae abet iors the place in which the representation lakes place and tha decisions affecting them are to be taken there, And these decisions as any ‘ecsion — invave negations whose results indeterminate But this the rlton of fpreenis avi by Gs west opal rend comtacney impure ee ‘movement rom represented to representative will neces have to besupplemented by a movement inthe oposite dsstion, ‘Why is this important at all orth understanding of the poiticl working contemporary sci? The importance es in that allows 1s to understand ~ a posatties that ae internal to the logic of ‘epresettion - many developments that had tational been con ‘sidered as perversions or distortions ofthe wepresentaion process For instance it has usally been considered thatthe more democratic» process the more transparent the taramisson of the will of the rpresened by their representatives. Now this ays the case? No Soult many wxmples could be quoted sn which there has been ‘manipulation of people's wll athe hands of his repreentatves. Bat there are oer instance hich the privileging ofthe movement ors representative to represented ste very condition of democratic pt "Sipton. In many Third Word counts, for example, unemployment and socal marginalization leads to shattered soil denies a the evel ‘of iil society and to situations in which the most dicult hing is hove to conse an Intowst, awl tbe represented within the poi! ‘sje In these situations, the aso the popular leadersconsit gue eguerly, of providing the marginalized masses with lou Ot of ‘which it Becomes possible for them to reconstitute apolitical iden fn poll il The latin epee npn si liao Inthe sn way ereninedeance mara soci the fragmewiation of denis sound ae politics rues forme of Palical gregaton whose cotton vcs that poll pre natives pry an acve rl nthe formation oe cole wlan not Fath pate mothe precosnd inesateele Seesi Emesto Laci ‘Ths, these intemal ambiguities ofthe relation of representation, the _undecdablty betwean the varios movement that ae possible ea § teansfoem it into the hegemonic bated between pray of Possible decisions Thie does ot mean tht a any time everthing that {© Togicslly posble becomes, automaticly, an actual plical pos “Silty There ate inchoted possiblities which are going be blocked, ot because of any logical ration, but os renal the Nstorieal ‘inte in which the representative stitutions operat. We should ot forget, however that there has been a general tendency to sce the "torical tions resuling fom those contexts as theoretical its ofthe logic of represanttion as such. From there there was ony one ‘step= which in most cases was unprobleaticaly taken to transform those limits into canon and to consider any departre from i a5 perversion and distortion. All for of thnacentros have developed Jn the wake ofthis operation. Deconstruction makes i posible 10 tk ths nk between Nori and logical ints and to reinscibe "he appareny deviant cases inthe very gla structure ofthe relation under analy. The result can only be what Ido not hesitate calla tceing ofthe transcendental horizon of pits (and by tis am not ‘only speaking about a copptive level changes in performatiity recess accompany all tanscendental chang. Let us now move to our second concep, ‘toleration’ An Identical ‘undecdablty canbe found with In order tobe considered a5 3 ‘concep lose in sl, toleration has to exclude that which consis itsother ifolerace. An unambiguous toleration would be one which has within self no room all for intolerance, Nov is such a concept ‘ofteeration logically achievable A fist answer would be to argue tat total iniseriminate toleration would be sell datenting because: (2) ‘one acxpt eating the iflerant beyond a certain bit one ald ‘end up wth the talon ofa eniely intolerant society under he ‘auspices of toleration; (b) quite apart from the case ofthe intolerant, there are practices which repugn the moral snge of the community and that most people woud agree must ot be oleate. Thislaesatement which would probably Rnd general assent ~ confronts us, however, with anew problem. Becust It seems now tht the condition for toleration to be an unambiguous concept shat we have some norm tive principle which cannot be provided by the notion of toleration isa discriminating between what should sn what should nt be tolerated If such a norm could be found, we would have apparerty solved our problem, because what has to be tolerated would be ‘anambguous and certain, even f the abstract category of toleration ie Unable to provide us with cuch acterin of certainty. "Thin solution, However falls to deliver te goods Because it has een Deconstruction, Pragmatism, Hegemony 51 bleto consolidate the fronter between the olerable and the intolerable, nly by tansfoming that fonter inthe one between the morally Sscceplable andthe morally unaceplable. And this ethical recasting of the use does much more than grounding toleration it simply dissolves ‘leat’ a¢ 2 meaningful concept Ifwhat crates what meray dope osha ha st wih an moral era SE ee Semana eae Ts ey ta pst, Tae sa then say EE SE ay SS nt ote cy of tern ont with wo ang te one ia ‘onc Wet logan nanan orcnen eo ac $f colees ra meaningfl category Bot ths Genk sad ports {othe way in which can Be overame by inverting the sesmpsons {mich ba Gnadoate) ams soliton ere Psd. rom the fant vow ofthe cent tron ta mening clgory if! do ot moalyapee wih what Iam lang Tis rates tht Suspend, afro alraton goes ll Kind of chi fadgement onthe tebe practic in question Wt would nha case the round fe toleration? Simpy the need for soley onc in ay thats compatble mith etn dee of tema dfeeniaton. sty tha te to impose asic conception of the good inal ares fie ‘ould beconstaniy ance wer The eu o Sat nto ‘she rval conception of the god is a eguiement of any scety that hn emcbnds nan lee t copsty Bet fox te vy ome ‘son ifthe ound fo tation ae be found inthe ayo Communiasanerangenent lows tha tematon = reap fr Sierence ~ cannot be ime. An Miata toleration would bes destructive of the sol fac sa tatiana wnt, That iS tobe inlerant of somethings isthe very eondion tbe ora of Othe intranet the sa tine he onion of poss and Imposshty of toleration. We ae inthe same poison se wih the ‘lear of tepeenaton Whee the dvdngine between anion ‘nd intlerance wl as Carly undeible in terms of he Gualty tration imrane. Aso rad der, Lam prepare cope veh many mor fleeces han fo intanc, spn othe orl ‘mop but these ae diferent decison taken Ih an undecable teain and consequent perfetiy compatible with the ater A hegemonic sgl fone wha shuld sou ot ele i pose precy because eration hs no ecnay cote ‘oven What should In any cae be dear stat he day flraon?