political science
Mohammad Ali Tavana; Farzad Azarkamand
Abstract
Hegemony and socialist strategy; towards radical democratic politics of Laclau and Moff (1985), in the face of the confusion of the new left proposed the theory of radical democracy. This theory is progressive in at least two respects: 1. Democracy based on antagonistic politics. Laclau and Muoffe stated ...
Read More
Hegemony and socialist strategy; towards radical democratic politics of Laclau and Moff (1985), in the face of the confusion of the new left proposed the theory of radical democracy. This theory is progressive in at least two respects: 1. Democracy based on antagonistic politics. Laclau and Muoffe stated that controversy is a part of politics and hegemony is the only way to control it, but in contingent situations, the demands of opposing discourses can be articulated around an empty signifier and a new hegemony can replace previous hegemony. This process opens the way beyond Hobbesian pessimistic realism (and its authoritarianism) and Kant's moral idealism (and its conciliatory democracy); 2- Positive postmodernism in the form of the idea of post-fundamentalism. By accepting open and temporary hegemony, Laclau and Muoffe not only supported pluralism and its accompanying particularism, but also established an authority (reference) for political decisions and actions, thus it moves beyond universal fundamentalism to the Habermasian type and specifical anti-fundamentalism to the Deleuze type. The former implies accepting the authority of reason to eliminate differences in the process of communicative action, and the latter implies the separation of minorities from the majority and the rejection of any general authority for political action. Nevertheless, there are still fundamental criticisms of Laclau and Muoffe's intellectual project, including the superiority of the political over the economic and the social; the weakness of the subject's action; Western-centerism, and the Tendency to neo-Kantian transcendence.
political science
Hamid Malekzade
Abstract
Carl Schmitt’s concept of political was first published in 1932 in Germany. This book was translated in Farsi and published in 1392 by Sohail Saffari. It is almost clear that Schmitt’s article plainly shows the boarders of the political in the ontological antagonism which is made to determine ...
Read More
Carl Schmitt’s concept of political was first published in 1932 in Germany. This book was translated in Farsi and published in 1392 by Sohail Saffari. It is almost clear that Schmitt’s article plainly shows the boarders of the political in the ontological antagonism which is made to determine a group of people as friends against the enemy out of which we are identified as political subjects. Subjects which are called to fight to save the unity which is made by the name of the political to gather friends against enemies. In this paper, I would like to discuss Schmitt’s theories by providing the readers with the basic concepts to challenge Schmitt’s postulations.