Social Theory: Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe

30th Aug 2022 by Simon Mabon

By Betul Dogan-Akkas (PhD Candidate Gulf Studies Joint Degree PhD Program Durham University SGIA & Qatar University Gulf Studies Centre)

Argentine political philosopher Ernesto Laclau was renowned for his ideas about hegemony and crisis that influenced politicians and scholars around the world. In his highly original writings, he revisits Antonio Gramsci's work on hegemony and power and probes Marxism's assumptions as he explores in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy with Chantal Mouffe. Laclau's writings offer a devastating critique of Latin American politics by examining political populism and radical democracy. 

Laclau was born in Buenos Aires and later studied history at Oxford with Eric Hobsbawm in the 1970s. He started teaching politics at the University of Essex in 1973, where he met his wife Mouffe, and together they founded a school of poststructural discourse theory (PDT or discourse theory). 

Key Argument

According to Bassel F. Salloukh, in his previous piece for the series on social theory, Gramsci's work has been incorporated into MENA studies from a variety of perspectives. With Gramsci's initial writings on hegemony and organic crisis, Laclau and Mouffe's seminal book examined hegemonic struggles, hegemonization, hegemonic practices and a new definition of power amid all these conceptual discussions. Laclau and Mouffe were inspired by Gramsci’s alternative ontological and epistemological foundation that constructs a non-deterministic and well-grounded explanation of social change (Germain & Kenny, 1998). Human subjectivity is being brought to international relations with the approach of avoiding deterministic and ahistorical structuralism in assessing politics. Gramsci’s understanding of social class, institutions and the power of ideas were also critical elements in PDT.

To depict the power struggles among the political forces, discourse theory originally incorporated post-structuralist concepts mostly ignored in international relations and politics (Stengel & Nabers, 2019). There are several other books that enrich the theory of hegemony (Nabers, 2015; Stengel & Nabers, 2019) and use it to define hegemonization in emerging discourses (Howarth & Stavrakakis, 2000), in imaginaries (Smith, 1998), in subregional hegemonization struggles (Nabers, 2010), and in post-crisis hegemonic and discursive interpretations (Nabers, 2009).   

Discourse theory depicts hegemony as a fundamental concept with a unique definition of power and crisis. Laclau and Mouffe differentiate emerging hegemonic moves and their outcomes, the first, hegemonic practice, being “the articulation of identity and subjectivity into a common project” (Howarth & Stavrakakis, 2000, p.14). A hegemonic formation, or institutional version of a hegemonic or counter-hegemonic practice, is a result of these projects’ attempts to create new forms of social order from dispersed or dislocated elements (Howarth & Stavrakakis, 2000). 

The common definition of hegemony in mainstream international relations is based on the distribution and mobilization of power resources (Nabers, 2010, p.933). In its realist definition, the concept is a powerful tool for power relations among states and in its structural form (Gill, 1986). Whereas for Laclau and Mouffe (2014) the definition of hegemony is beyond the interest and survival of nation-states containing five main approaches to power and hegemony. Firstly, in the pursuit of hegemony material capabilities are significant for building up power of a state, a political institution or a network of alliances but they are not enough to be a leader without non-material assets such as alliances, power of institutions, and norms and values that dominate given political structure (Laclau and Mouffe, 2014; Nabers, 2010). In this way, we can include the forms of power articulated in the Middle East through tribal relations and non-state actors, religious identities like sects, or political Islam movements. Transnational nature of Shi’a and tribal politics is not explained in other theoretical perspectives other than their relations to identity. Nevertheless, discourse theory encompasses all forms of power relations between political actors (states and non-states). Secondly, determinancy of power in a hegemonic struggle represents continuously constructed and re-articulated elements and articulations. Power is an uneven tool in the cycle of hegemonisation and any emerging counter-hegemonic practices can be the dominating discourse and then again other and new forms of counter-hegemonic myth could occur in a political context. Power struggles and the pursuit of hegemony are in constant transformation. 

The third element of power and hegemony in the discourse theory is the argument that defines all forms of political elements as discursively constituted. For any political actor, the meaning of its power capabilities, whether material or non-material are entirely constituted by discursive practices (Nabers, 2010). For Laclau and Mouffe, discourse is not only linguistic materials. Rather, it “includes all meaningful practices, objects, subjects, and so on, then a whole new ontology of the social can be formulated” (Stengel & Nabers, 2019, p.255). This comprehensive approach to discourse is vital for understanding the nature of politics in the Arab Gulf monarchies, because the symbols and traditions of these rentier states are displayed in political moves, but unrecognized in the realist interpretation of power. 

Fourthly, discourse theory maintains that after an organic crisis, the sedimented (dominant) hegemonic power is dislocated and the emerging hegemonic interpretations transform into counter-hegemonic myths, mediating the interaction between particularisms and universalities. An emerging hegemonic practice that brings together more social and political forces to represent the post-crisis hegemonic narrative becomes the new imaginary in society. Therefore, power is relevant to reaching an institutional level of discursive recognition that comes with political actions. But if the emergence of a narrative remains as a particular interpretation rather than becoming a historic bloc and moving towards a universal narrative, it will still be a counter-hegemonic myth. Specific particularities that are able to comprehend equivalences and differences in themselves will fix the meaning of empty signifiers and transcend into universality (Nabers, 2019, p.104). The logic of equivalence refers bringing together common content of different demands, but differences are points that the narratives contradict over the hegemony. Power as a relational element of leadership is the final factor in defining power and hegemony in discourse theory. As a post-crisis interpretation becomes imaginary, it passes through the competitions and antagonisms of trench war. According to Laclau and Mouffe, hegemony is an exercise of leadership at the nexus of crisis and change to maintain dominance. 

The literature on hegemony, populism and ideology - that Laclau and Mouffe discuss in their joint works or individually - criticises the overtaking or idealisation of the concepts (Critchley and Marchant, 2004; Sinnerbrink, 2010; Borriello & Jäger, 2020; Kouvelakis, 2021). Laclau was primarily critized for the role of electorate processes, the lack of ideology, and the idealisation of social movements in the conceptualisation of populism. Another criticism of his views on hegemony and power in the Middle East concerns the role of authoritarian states or the lack of social and political arenas that influence policy. Laclau’s focus on the Left and the role of politics might seem like his work is irrelevant to the political realm where decision-making is the exclusive domain of elites hater than political parties or social movements. While his writings provide a theoretical description of concepts such as hegemony and power which are deeply ingrained in Middle Eastern politics, his terminology remains useful.

In application 

Discourse theory is highly relevant for both meta-theoretical discussions and practice of theory in the Middle East and the GCC providing a seminal theory of hegemony, crisis and power. As the viral letter sent by K. N. Al-Sabah to Financial Times indicates, the post-Arab uprisings Middle East became more complex, intricate and elusive to elaborate than before:  

Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad! Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sissi. But Gulf states are pro-Sissi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood. Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood! Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US! Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sissi. And General Sissi is being backed by the Gulf states! Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day. 

The Arab Gulf Monarchies and so the Gulf Cooperation Council are sub-regional complexes with unique political practices.The discourse theory's comprehensive interpretation of power and hegemony, as well as its definition of hegemonic struggle, could be used to describe intra-regional and sub-regional strains. Hegemonization that is initially defined by Laclau and Mouffe (2014) and later structured by Smith (1998) has more main overlapping stages and processes that could be used to define intra-(sub)regional power struggles. In a nutshell, hegemonization refers to the transformation of hegemonic power and the emergence of new (counter) hegemonic narratives following an organic crisis. This is the very first stage called dislocation of sedimented hegemonic narrative. For instance, Middle East politics after the Islamic revolution in Iran can be defined as a new era of hegemonization after an organic crisis in representation of dominant interpretations in the region. Furthermore, the regional and sub-regional rivalries that emerged in the Middle East and the GCC after the Arab uprisings- the organic crisis- have the potential to be seen as emerging counter-hegemonic struggles. Discourse theory defines dislocation as the primary precondition for freedom because it opens windows of opportunity for emerging discourses against the sedimented practices in which foundations are cracking (Nabers, 2015). After opening a new era in power relations with an organic crisis, the conjunctural crisis can emerge amid the antagonism and competition of trench war. 

This second move introduces 'empty signifiers,' which act as horizons for political 'articulations'. Amid this competition, specific systems of narration, particular interpretations, represent themselves as the only framework to exist as a hegemonic formation in the new era (Smith, 1998). Sectarian interpretations, proxy wars, and armament in the Middle East since the first organic crisis of 1979 are examples of articulatory practices used to reach an institutional interpretation of hegemonic narrative. Referring back to the comprehensive interpretation of power and alliances, discursive and non-discursive elements are not working against each other, rather they jointly constitute a structure of articulations in these competitions (Stengel & Nabers, 2019).  

In the third phase, particular interpretations of a post-crisis era start identifying themselves with specific hegemonic projects (a Sunni bloc under Saudi Hegemony or Iranian proxies) to become predominant and to strengthen their institutional bonds. The historical bloc is the key to understanding this era of hegemonization. As Smith (1998) states, “as the movement begins to act more and more as a hegemonic agent, redefining its demands in the light of other demands, and offering its discourse as a nodal point that symbolically sums up the interests of the other movements…” (p.165). Here the questions of regional threat perceptions and alliances can be answered using the hegemonisation framework around rising nationalism, sectarianism, and the role of political Islam. Although identity dimensions embedded in regional tensions are highly relevant and have been used in studies on the region, discourse theory reads regional competition into a more complex and promising mechanism of power relations, one including both material and non-material parts. For instance, Iran's nuclear enrichment or democratic tendencies in the region are not only a threat to hegemonic narratives because of identity politics or regime security. Rather, the complex map of alliances, military and political power, economic projections and the nexus of leadership and crisis needs to be elaborated and the discourse theory offers a conceptual base for this.

In the last phase, emerging hegemonic or counterhegemonic practices convert into hegemonic structures that go beyond the myth of being 'other' discourse and become institutionalized. Institutionalization refers to the outcome of a contest between competing forces in which one of the historic blocs dominates the narrative by declaring itself the only possible interpretation of the post-crisis era and producing new types of political actions (Nabers, 2010). The Saudi-Iran rivalry, the role of non-Arab powers like Iran, Turkey and Israel, the impact of non-state actors and terrorist groups and sectarian politics are the titles that might be elaborated using post-structural discourse theory’s rich conceptual outlook. Does the region or the subregion have an institutional hegemonic power? Or are there multiple hegemonic practices that haven’tturned to an imaginary yet? In the MENA, what are the counter-hegemonic narratives or articulations? These are the initial questions that the discourse theory could answer for the Middle East studies literature.

Suggested Reading

Butler, J., Laclau, E., Žižek, S., & Zizek, S. (2000). Contingency, hegemony, universality: Contemporary dialogues on the left. Verso.

Germain, R. D., & Kenny, M. (1998). Engaging Gramsci: international relations theory and the new Gramscians. Review of international studies, 24(1), 3-21. 

Gramsci, A. (2011). Prison Notebooks Volume 2 (Vol. 2). Columbia University Press.

Howarth, D and Stavrakakis, Y (2000) 'Introducing discourse theory and political analysis.' In: Howarth, D and Norval, AJ and Stavrakakis, Y, (eds.) Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change. Manchester University Press. 

Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. Verso.

Laclau, E. (2012). Glimpsing the future. In Laclau (pp. 289-338). Routledge.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2014). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (Vol. 8). Verso Books.

Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political (Vol. 8). Verso.

Nabers, D. (2010). Power, leadership, and hegemony in international politics: the case of East Asia. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 931-949.

Nabers, D. (2015). A poststructuralist discourse theory of global politics. Sprin

Smith, A. M. (1998). Laclau and Mouffe: The radical democratic imaginary. Routledge.

Stengel, F. A., & Nabers, D. (2019). Symposium: The Contribution of Laclau’s Discourse Theory to International Relations and International Political Economy Introduction. New Political Science, 41(2), 248-262.