Allan Dreyer Hansen

Polity as Politics: Studying the Shaping and Effects of Discursive Polities

Traditional governance research tends to treat political units of governance, such as the polity, as pre-given. The polity is perceived as the framework for governance processes rather than its outcome. This traditional perception of the role of the polity in governance processes is closely linked to core ideas of the traditional research approach of the ‘old’ institutionalism, according to which governance is perceived as the activities that take place within formal governance institutions (March and Olsen, 1989, pp. 1-2). The image of the polity as pre-given is also found in traditional theories of liberal democracy, which are concerned with the regulation of governance processes that apply to a clearly demarcated people.

Governance Networks and Participation

In this chapter we shall take a closer look at governance networks from the perspective of participatory theories of democracy. The aim is twofold: First, to contribute to the overall debate regarding the democratic legitimacy of governance networks. What are their potentials and shortcomings when viewed in light of participation? Second, the aim is to specify and reformulate the participatory tradition in ways that help specify concrete analyses of the democratic quality of governance networks.

Radical democracy, agonism and the limits of pluralism: an interview with Chantal Mouffe

In this interview, Chantal Mouffe discusses her theoretical endeavour since the publication of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy; the theory of politics via the combined critique of Marxism and liberalism; Carl Schmitt and the formulation of an agonistic politics; as well as the limits of pluralism and the necessity of exclusion.

Discourse, the political and the ontological dimension: an interview with Ernesto Laclau

In this interview, Ernesto Laclau discusses his theoretico-political endeavour from the publication of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy; questions of radical democratic subjectivity; the social order, sedimentation and change; and finally his relationship to the work of Michel Foucault.

Dangerous Dogs, Constructivism and Normativity: The Implications of Radical Constructivism

This article argues that although there is no necessary link between constructivism and particular sets of norms, constructivism opens up a space for normativity and can be articulated through particular normative or political programmes. In the article it is shown how Laclaus deconstructive constructivism can be articulated within the framework of an ethos of democratisation. The article takes its empirical point of departure in recent Danish debates on dangerous dogs.

Qualitative Interviews: Studying Network Narratives

The present chapter will discuss the strengths and limitations of qualitative interviews in comparison to other methods used when studying governance networks. We will do it on the basis of the 65 interviews that we, in the framework of the labour market policy pilot study, conducted in six different research settings on local and national levels.

Laclau and Mouffe and the ontology of radical negativity

In this article, I introduce and argue in favour of Laclau and Mouffes ontological dimension in their post-structuralist discourse theory. Their ontological thinking is contrasted to Luhmanns claim of remaining within epistemology to show how the notion of radical negativity brings Laclau and Mouffe beyond an ‘old European metaphysics of substance’. Ontological negativity is then contrasted to Foucaults ‘modest positivism’. The problem with such a positivism is not that it overlooks ‘deeper’ layers, but rather the absence of the dimension of negativity is needed in order to grasp a discursive logic of articulation. Having established the necessity of including an ontological dimension of negativity, however, I question the claim that negativity equals antagonism and that the political may therefore be granted a primary ontological status. This claim is ‘one step too far, and the theory must be rethought accordingly. I point out some of the theoretical implications of a ‘de-ontologization’ of antagonism and the political, and show that they can take place within the general framework of Laclau and Mouffes discourse theory.

Introduction: thematic section on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe

The idea for this theme section and for the two interviews with Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe came about as a wish to take stock of the trajectory of their extraordinarily successful and influential book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). The initiators of the theme section, Oliver Marchart, Carsten Jensen, André Sonnichsen, and Allan Dreyer Hansen, all agreed that it would be a useful endeavour to revisit the book with Laclau and Mouffe almost 30 years after its publication: what was the original aim, how have they assessed its reception and impact, which revisions have they thought necessary, and what are the tasks today in the light of what has been achieved? As is now well known, Ernesto Laclau sadly passed away on 13 April 2014 aged 78. Whilst the interview printed here is not the last interview he gave, it does stands as one of Ernesto Laclau’s last direct reflections on his seminal work with Chantal Mouffe. For this reason, those who have been engaged in the preparation of the theme section wish to dedicate the theme section to Ernesto Laclau and to thank Chantal Mouffe for generously sharing her time and ideas with us. In doing so, we give our deepest sympathies to Chantal Mouffe. Today, supporters and critics alike will probably agree that the work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe is amongst the most significant theoretical work in recent decades, for two main reasons: Firstly, Laclau and Mouffe contributed significantly to the internal critique and ultimate decline of Marxist thinking in Western academia, and, secondly, Laclau and Mouffe proposed a theoretically grounded, progressive alternative for the Left through the elaboration of the concepts of hegemony, populism, and radical democracy. Although highly controversial for the left-wing orthodoxy of the time, their work has showed considerable durability, continuing to generate theoretical debate and inspire practical research in a range of sectors across the social sciences and humanities. As early as the 1970s Laclau and Mouffe challenged ideas that formed the backbone of the practical Marxism of many Left parties as well their theoretical counterparts at the universities. Economism was attacked using theoretical weapons originally formulated by Antonio Gramsci, and class reduction was later attacked using post-structuralist philosophy, which was gaining prominence in the 1980s. Bringing these currents together, Laclau and Mouffe sought to escape the theoretical rigidity of the orthodox approach and to grapple with the concrete political challenges which the proliferation of new social movements presented to classical left thinking. But their intellectual break from orthodoxy was motivated precisely by the political aim of remaining loyal to the impetus of a radical social critique and the political commitment to transcend neo-liberal hegemony.