Laclau vs Zizek
Channel: A New Conversation
Date: 2020-04-10

This is the second half of 'Laclau's On Populist Reason', and covers the argument between Laclau and Zizek in 'Contingency, Hegemony, Universality'. It begins by outlining Laclau's positions, in which he claims that the notion of class in Marxism is not nuanced enough for the complexity of capitalism today, and that it is an imprecise fetish; that Zizek ignores both this material reality and also the philosophic developments that have occurred in the post-war period; and that Zizek ignores the impossibility of realising the Real, that all we can deal with is the ever partial symbolic; finally Laclau argued that universalism could exist alongside particularism. Zizek, then, argued that class and postmodernity are not a dichotomy; that 'total' change has happened in the past, so why not again?; Zizek feels that Laclau is not ambitious enough; Zizek fears a focus on hegemonic struggle might divert efforts from something more radical; he argues that, while class exists alongside other antagonisms, it presides over them as a structuring condition and that attempts to diminish the importance of class is class war; and finally, Zizek suggests we disregard what might seem impossible and subvert the dominant ideology by pursuing unrealistic aims, that is, to refuse the terms capital sets us. The discussion concludes by questioning if capitalism is not a tool used by society's elites to maintain their status, as, despite its allusions to human emancipation, bourgeois society resulted in mimicking aristocratic society.