Last month Ernesto Laclau passed away at the age of 78. I came to his work fairly late in my studies, only reading Hegemony and Socialist Strategy in my second year of grad school. Prior to that, it would have been fair to say that I read more about Laclau in other sources. But although today I have an ambiguous relationship to his post-Marxism, both critical and appreciative, at the time it had a large influence on my thinking about the possible strategies of Left politics today.
Since I’m planning to write a chapter on the post-Marxist turn in my dissertation on Marxist theories of the state, here is an excerpt from the interview specifically on that:
In approaching politics, do you think we should understand capitalism as representing a historically specific, reified form of social relations that poses a challenge to the greater social control over production? In confronting the ubiquity of the commodity form in capitalist social relations, should we think of our politics in terms of a radical break with capitalism, or should we look toward other forms of social organization for the root of the problem, and possible solutions?
There are several questions there. Firstly, social control is control by whom? Because if it is an instance that one calls the state, the question is to what extent this state is a representative of the social will or to what extent this state is some kind of institutional excrescence which is separated from the social will, because the question is how to constitute a social will, and how to have this social will crystallized in an institution. The attempt to think that automatically the state represents the social will lead to the whole disaster of the Soviet experience. So if one thinks of a more democratic mediation of the social will, the problem is how particularity and universality can be combined in such a situation. I completely agree that savage capitalism, in which the mechanism of the market controls everything is a disaster as much as the bureaucratic state of the Soviet system. But the whole problem, which is the problem we have been discussing from the beginning, is how this social control is going to be constituted: through what kind of institutional mechanisms, how the will of the people will act, how you supercede the opposition between the particularism of the different wills and the different social elements. So we are in the center of a hegemonic project.
Here I think Laclau is mostly correct in trying to get away from the liberal/republican idea that the state represents a social will. But what exactly does he mean by “institutional excrescence”?
I suspect that here he is getting close to the Poulantzian notion that the state is an entity irreducible to its specific institutions, but which nevertheless only exists by virtue of those institutions. This is a position made possible by the structuralist epistemology that allows for the existence of real abstractions such as the state without at the same time needing to put forward a concrete empirical referent for the concept.
Pursuing this question further, this afternoon I read Laclau’s essay “The Specificity of the Political” (1975) reprinted by Verso in the volume Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory. The article was Laclau’s intervention into the debate between Poulantzas and Ralph Miliband on the capitalist state and its relation (of relative autonomy) to the mode of production.
Laclau engages with both Poulantzas and Miliband, although the former is the target of a more sustained critique. Recall that one of Poulantzas’s main objections to Miliband’s The State in Capitalist Society was that its theoretical problematic was insufficiently removed from a bourgeois framework. As Poulantzas saw it, Miliband’s attempt to theorize the capitalist state amounted to an empirical refutation of the elite-pluralist model in order to show that there was a connection between the state and the ruling class. But for Poulantzas, who in 1969 was still writing from a point of view heavily indebted to Althusserian structuralism, attempting to refute bourgeois analyses by pointing to empirical evidence still operated on its terrain and reproduced its dominant form of thought–empiricism–without first elaborating a different theoretical model and its own set of concepts necessary for a materialist critique of the state.
Laclau agreed on this point. But he also found Poulantzas guilty of an excessive formalism, in which his “taxonomy is set at a level of abstraction so high–without always being justified–that the symbolic functions of the concepts necessary tend to predominate; these symbols enter into relationship with each other and create in turn symbols of these relations, and all contact with the original meaning is lost” (70).
Laclau also saw the same tendency occurring in Etienne Balibar’s attempts in Reading Capital (1965) to theorize the relationship between the different levels of practices in a given social formation–the economic, the political, and the ideological. The Althusserian idea of “determination in the last instance,” meaning that the economic level was always structurally determinant of the other levels, even if not always dominant, was found by Laclau to be conceptually confused and metaphorical, rather than theoretical. “This distinction between the determinant in the last instance and the dominant role seems to be no more than a series of metaphors which attempt to resolve through symbols of little theoretical content, an artificial problem created by the metaphysic of instances” (77).
In other words, Laclau saw Althusser, Balibar, and Poulantzas all falling short in their attempts to outline a theoretical analysis of a capitalist social formation. When working on their degree of theoretical abstraction, one could no longer operate on a strictly logical level without at the same time invoking a symbolic, metaphorical dimension. The unclear relationship between “the political” and “the economic” in their analyses led Laclau to increasingly abandon the idea that these terms were anything more than contingent signifiers, and ultimately to end up at the argument of Hegemony that the social order was a single discursive formation rather than divided into three (or however many) levels.