Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left by Judith Butler

Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left Reviews

• 
  Buck

  This book is a great introduction to the debate that has plagued the Left since the arrival of the cultural turn, the main question being summed up in: "How do we come to terms with the possibility of a Universal political project with the current proliferation of identity and "issue oriented" struggles like those of Decolonial efforts, LGBT rights/emancipation, Feminism and Anti-Racism"
  
  The juxtaposition and staging of this debate between Butler, Laclau and Zizek is perfect as an introduction to the affinities and differences of their projects. The sometimes veering on "confrontational" attitude of each of the theorists in their round of essays adressed to each other is great at articulating the network of readings and misreadings that are produced within the ensemble of their responses to each other. To put it in terms that Zizek may be privy to, it is in the particularizations of the "project of universality" within the theories of Butler, Laclau and Zizek that allow an "oppositional determination" to emerge between them, each theorists view of their project and the differences they project onto the others tend to not overlap with how the others read themselves and the differences the others espouse.
  
  To dive into each of the theorists main formulations. I would describe them as such:
  
  Butler seems to me to want to emphasis the role of "parody" or "iterability" in the language game of universality. Noting how political projects that claim to be universal rely on exclusions of political subjects deemed to be(to put in Laclau's terms) a general crime against the ideal holism of the social order, and ideality which is only sustained by the hegemonic presence of a particular social interest that has claimed the role of expressing a universal project that guarantees social cohesion(think of the Nazi ideal of an organic social whole, this whole relied on the exclusion of the Jew as a that threatens this "ideal order"). Butlers main claim is that the language of "universality", by the very fact that it is always contaminated by a rhetorical/particularistic remainder(interest of a social agent) it creates the possibility for that universality to negotiate its very own practical existence. The formerly excluded agents of this universality could try and articulate their own particular interests as something that merits inclusion in the universal.
  
  
  Laclau, while noting this, gives this play a different theoretical grounding. The tendency to universality is fundamentally an index of an irreducibly political dynamic in society to institute hegemony. It is only by making the particularistic demands of a specific social agent into the axis by which other different particular social identities can view their emancipation that these projects acquire normative/political force in society.(think of how minority movements may coalesce into unified projects in resistance to present forms of opression like state sanctioned violence, systemic inequality or capitalism as such). This process should not be seen as purely a "linguistic" game but also in the actual practices that constitute or challenge existing social institutions. What Laclau gives emphasis to however is that this "universality" and its concomitant function of indicating a "social wholeness" untained by antagonism is what the process of radical democracy must put into question. The point is that all the struggles between particular social sectors/agents/identities can never be superseded in toto. Any instantiation of a hegemony will always rely on exclusions of a social sector deemed to be a constitutive threat to this social order. This very "hypostasization" of the obstacle to social wholeness is an inalienable part of the very process of hegemony in the political realm. This process of particulars universalizing their interests through equivalential links with other particular interests indicates for Laclau a "Real Antagonism". The point is to recognize that "Universality" is both impossible and necessary. There is no such thing as a social wholeness that we could ever achieve, all we can do is employ this dimension of politics to solve partial problems in society in a self aware way.
  
  
  Zizek i think is the most provocative, because while he accepts Laclaus notion of Hegemony, he seeks to historicize the very centrality that hegemony has acquired in modern politics. The very proliferation of multiple identity formations and the decentering of what have been deemed the traditional marxist focuses on the universality of the proletariat and capitalism. Zizek does not question that hegemony is an undeniable reality the left must inquire to, but he is suspicious of the lack of a questioning of the conditions that allow the modern terrain of hegemony to be shaped. This term has to be sought in Capitalism and the forms it has acquired in the post-industrial era. Zizeks thesis with regards to this is unfortunately left to his final essay response, his point being ultimately that "class struggle" has ended up creating its own non-centrality in postmodern life. It is the very processes and failures of the proletariat in the 20th century that have been marked in the ever increasing stratification of the proletariat(into the middle classes, the increasing stratified line between skilled and deskilled labour, the effects of unevene development and the offshoring of hyperexploited labour in the third world) this is opposed to the tendency of proletarianization which was seen as the axis by which the universality of the working class in the early marx(seen through the lens of the increasing concentration of workers in factories and in the expansion of the density of workplaces)
  
  
  I could not go on with the more particular debates enmeshed within these summaries since it covers alot of ground(which include to name a few, the debate over what can be considered formalist, the structure or historicity of "historicism" as a paradigm of analysis, the coherency of the employment of thinkers such as Hegel,Lacan, Derrida and Foucault for an analysis of subjectivity, etc, the relation between theory and practice, description and normativity) but i would like to end by positing that I think Butlers project fares the worse out of the ones presented here, and i mostly relegate it to her very weak responses to Laclaus and Zizeks correct insistence that historicism needs a practical/pragmatic internal limit without which all historicism would end up contradicting itself.
• 
  Chris

  This book will be difficult for people who are not at least decently familiar with the theoretical work of each of the authors engaged in dialogue here. At minimum I would recommend reading at least a couple of books by each author, including at least "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" (Laclau), "The Ticklish Subject" (Zizek), and "Bodies that Matter" or "The Psychic Life of Power" (Butler). Indeed, I myself postponed reading this book for several years until I had done enough prepatory reading, and my patience was amply rewarded.
  
  So, presuming familiarity with the theoretical positions at stake here, this is actually a fascinating and engaging conversation between three theorists who are trying to articulate theoretical concepts useful to the project of a radical emancipatory leftist politics at the dawn of the twenty-first century. In a rather innovative experiment, each author contributes three rounds of essays that comment on and critique the work of the other two. Zizek advances the thesis (elsewhere) that the history of philosophy is the history of (productive) misreadings, and this volume emphasizes that what we are dealing with here is not so much a philosophical dialogue as a series of (more or less) productive misreadings of each other: it is clear that Butler persistently misreads Lacan's notion of the Real, Laclau misreads Hegel, Zizek misreads the history of (post-)Marxism, and so on... But in the gaps and lacunae that separate these three thinkers and their ability to understand each other, they reveal the stakes of theory, and why the rigorous articulation of theoretical categories is useful and essential to the practice of radical politics. Some may accuse these thinkers of accomplishing nothing more than the splitting of increasingly fine hairs--but if these debates prove anything it is that one's theoretical orientations can have a dramatic impact on one's political activity.
• 
  Torgeir Fjeld

  let me know the reason for not incluing an index
• 
  ػᶈᶏϾӗ

  This was not an easy book. More than once I was extremely lost. Philosophy, especially at this level, not only uses extremely specialized language to deal with concepts, but argues about the language as well as the concepts. Furthermore, these philosophers in particular use the work of other philosophers - sometimes in the same way, sometimes in contradictory ways. For example: What is the Lacanian Real? Is it the same thing at all times in history? Is there always something that escapes us, even if we don't believe in "always"? That kind of thing.
  
  That being said, this book was extremely illuminating. Reading all three philosophers debating about where they agree and disagree helped get three perspectives on each writer. With writing as dense as Zizek's or Butler's, this helped round out my understanding a bit. It was also interesting to read Laclau for the first time. He not only has some extremely provocative ideas about "chains of equivalents" as the way to unify social movements, but also manifested some really astute criticism of Zizek that had crossed my mind reading Z's previous works. At times I also found Z a little out of touch responding to Butler and Laclau. To me, Butler's true strength was in her analysis of the struggle for gay marriage and the broader Left alliance. It's pretty clear to me that to call for inclusion in the State is to break alliance with those who don't want any part of the State. Alliances are extremely important. Wanting to be "included" in the "mainstream" is participating in some kind of illusion/violence, I think. A spectacle - a fantasy that there is even a mainstream to which one can belong.
  
  Anyway, I digress. This was on the whole a good book, despite its many difficulties. I will probably be mullin' it over for a long time to come.
• 
  Аnna Beria

  How to act between necessity and impossibility. Between politics and ethics. Between - contingency, and universality ?
  
  Dialogue and oppositions in the form of 3 rounds of essay exchange between Laclau, Zizek and Butler.
• 
  Jon

  In her final essay of the book (which, in my opinion is easily the best and most rewarding of the nine essays), Judith Butler begins, "This volume runs the risk, since it is not clear which of two projects it seeks to fulfill. On the one hand, it is an occasion for some practitioners of theory with convergent commitments to think together about the status of the political domain; on the other hand, it is an occasion on which each practitioner defends his or her position against the criticisms of others, offers his or her own criticisms, distinguishes his or her position. There appears to be no easy way to resolve this tension, so perhaps the interesting question will become: is the irresolution that the text performs a particularly productive one?"
  
  A few sentences later she posits, "It would be bad, I think, if our efforts devolved into a point-by-point rejoinder to criticisms […] while the status of universality, contingency and hegemony somehow fell by the wayside."
  
  Well, given the latter criteria criteria, this book has failed. It seemed to be that the status of the three political concepts often fell by the wayside amid many pages of squabbling. Though I wonder if the format is at least partially to blame, I read another book with the same setup (three essayists write three essays each, responding to each consecutive round), and the result was essentially the same.
  
  That being said, in the end the most interesting question really did become, "is the irresolution that the text performs a particularly productive one," particularly for the purposes of this review, and the answer to that is yes, absolutely! I suppose if I had to boil the whole books down to two words, they would be: productive failure. All three philosophers were insightful and, since my thinking about our current situation has been altered from its enrichment, I have gained from reading them. They (mostly) rose above their squabbles when it counted; and their differences, which seemed like chasms at times, actually tended to overlap in the most illuminating and fruitful ways, even when unacknowledged.
  
  And probably the largest takeaway I have from this book is the one fissure that has dominated the political left since the 2016 election: identity politics versus class-based politics, was just as dominating an issue in 2000 when this book was published (and probably was for at least two decades prior as well). Ours is a hidebound lot; perhaps it isn’t such an obscure thing to see why the left has been blown politically off course for so long after all.
  
  Overall I had difficulty choosing three stars and four. I chose four because:
  1) the book's insight
  2) I didn't want to give the "score" much thought
  
  The book's benefit certainly outshines it limitations, and it should be given consideration.
• 
  Jim

  Read this book and you will come to a complete understanding why some people cannot stand intellectuals, and think their work is an utter waste of time. It is that difficult to read AND understand, and transferring their theories to real world scenarios (of which there are hardly any here at all) takes a level of effort few people are willing to apply, and additionally a level of intelligence and deep thinking not many have at their disposal. This book is well nigh unintelligible for anyone not familiar with the three author's styles, academic backgrounds, and manner of presentation of their thoughts, ideas, and concepts. I won't try to fool anyone with ambiguous commentary. I had a difficult time understanding a lot of what was being discussed and argued by the trio. I have read other books by all three and even so I struggled to see how their increasingly dense ideas could be taken from theory to practice, but that probably says less about their smarts and more about my lack of them. Still, I got a decent enough amount of brain food from this, but I won't say I enjoyed the book. But reading, learning, and understanding is not supposed to be easy, if you ask me, so while I wouldn't know who to recommend this book to, partly because it is impossible to summarize and partly because much of what it covers is just out of reach of my knowledge foundations, I still think it is an intriguing way to get three respected intellectuals to discuss how their ideas overlap, coincide, and diverge.
  Or pointless navel-gazing, if you prefer your Marx more Groucho and less Karl.
• 
  Janice Feng

  Really not good..
• 
  akemi

  yea yea, this is how cool and all, but when are zizek and laclau gonna drag race?
• 
  Patrick H

  It's in poor taste and undermines the warm, incisive and productive spirit of the proceedings, but... Laclau wins.
• 
  Livan Garcia

  Zizek wins…
• 
  Matt Sautman

  The premise of this text is fascinating- 3 scholars with similar views lay down three different philosophical tracts that contain similar notions but contradict about particular premises. Observing Butler, Laclau, and Zizek engage with one another and defend themselves is interesting, but their arguments can sometimes be esoteric, especially Butler's within her first essay. Had the scholars focused more upon their readers and less upon each other, I feel as if some of the argumentation would be more compelling because there would be less ambiguity of what is meant when the scholars refer to particular concepts with the conviction that their readership will already know everything they mean. Despite the title, there appears to be less of a focus upon contingency and more so upon semiotics. This is not a bad thing necessarily, but it can catch someone off guard easily. I wouldn't recommend this volume to people who do not have a decent grounding already within philosophy, but the Laclau and Zizek entries are far more accessible than the rest. For those who trek through the text, the mental reward is worth it, even if the 3 authors cannot come to a complete consensus about the nature of hegemony and its relationship to universality.
• 
  adam

  Uh... I only made it through the first 3 pieces in this (Butler, Zizek and Laclau's initial arguments). This book is helpful in outlining the importance of the concept of universality in contemporary left discourse. If nothing else, this book presents the clearest articulation of each of the three authors theoretical positions (and since they are three of the most important contemporary thinkers, it is helpful for that). However, I would say that a basic understanding of Lacan and Hegel is a necessary prerequisite.
• 
  Aelia

  read it together with a book club of other PhDs at my university; it was interesting, but the three authors unfortunately got too carried away by trying to distinguish themselves from each other, very peculiarly responding on what the other actually meant by saying this and that.. still some interesting concepts are discussed, e.g. universality..
  
  I would not suggest to read it, if you are not familiar with their works separately.
• 
  Siti Enha

  I don't even find this book in some libraries in yogyakarta, but when one of my friend cited Laclau to criticize the theory of discourse by Foucault I come to underline that I have to read this book..
• 
  Nuit

  A comprehensive conversation between Laclau, Butler, and Zizek that covers the central categories through which they envisage social change. Lots of repetition, but useful as a companion piece to their other texts.
• 
  Adam

  Bedtime reading fo sho!
• 
  Adam Henne

  I just looked at the other reviews for this book, and I wonder what it means that like half of the people listing it on GoodReads are named Adam..
• 
  Andrew

  If I had to pick a winner: Laclau.
• 
  Vince

  yummy threesome!
• 
  Earl Lagunsad

  10/10 didn't understand shit.
• 
  Jason

  Ernesto Laclau is impenetrable. What is that guy on about and was he high while writing his sections...?
• 
  Florin Buzdugan

  „what did you think” - that I should go through it all over again