The political game called "hegemony"

 

Started reading works of Antonio Gramsci many years ago back in college, including compilations of selected essays from Prison Notebooks, and other books about his life and ideas written by other authors.  The latter materials often reflected on what Gramsci as a Marxist thinker and a practicing communist in Italy said about particular aspects of the workers' struggle against a post-industrial capitalist system that was on the cusp of another global conflict.  Never got to finish a single title though (based on my vague recollection now).  Except for this one by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe that I recalled reading at a time when the Berlin wall was being torn down, the Soviet Union was collapsing, and the communist regime in China was violently putting down student protests in Tiananmen square.  A bleak state of affairs for most socialist movements, parties and activists everywhere.  Here in the Philippines, a number of independent Filipino socialists that followed the orange banner of the Union for the Advancement of Socialist Thought and Practice (BISIG), a loose aggrupation of left-leaning intellectuals, trade unionists, community organizers, local feminists, and student leaders - fallouts and renegades from traditional leftist groups and failed coalition-building efforts across these organizations - struggled to sustain its discourse around a local brand of socialism that purportedly forged a middle ground between state socialism of the Soviet and Maoist brands, and the hybrid welfare state models being peddled by the local social and liberal democratic groups.

But even BISIG's Socialist Vision, I think, was not quite what Laclau and Mouffe had in mind when they talked about a notion of hegemonic practice towards a radical and pluralist democracy that was shorn of any presumptions or ideas about which social antagonism was "determinant in the last instance", who or which actor had a decisive and primary role to play at this historical juncture, and what revolution as a deep transformative break from the old order should look like.  While it did carefully outline a broader (and in most cases, more nuanced) line of march for transforming the various aspects and sectors of a capitalist Philippine society that was stunted by its dependency on the world market, its articulation of social ills and vision for an alternative future was still heavily along the mold of its anti-capitalist paradigm.  It would have been such a good research topic then, along Laclau's and Mouffe's line of thought, to look into the history of local struggles that were able to frame their own relations of antagonism, define their own vision of a transformed social order, and articulate how they could contribute to a new progressive path working with other groups including socialists without any proposition for a totalizing strategy (e.g., a vanguard role for a particular class or group) and a decisive rupture from the old order.

Been out of touch with such discussions for decades now.  Perhaps the only threads connecting me now with any related ruminations would be my own reading life (and encountering or re-encountering these leftist tomes like Hegemony and Socialist Strategy), these electoral exercises every three years when I go out to register my vote for this pluralistic party-list group (but which unfortunately has not shown any clear socialist or anti-capitalist legislative agenda, much less positions in relation to key issues of the day for quite a long, long time now), and my current work with a development and humanitarian organization that continues to toy with ideas around "broader systemic change".  Almost half a century ago, I recalled reading this book on the German Greens by Fritjof Capra and Charlene Spretnak (Green Politics: The Global Promise) at about the same time that I was poring over Laclau's and Mouffe's work.  Thought then that the West German Green Party's (Die Grünen) formation, with indefatigable leaders like Petra Kelly helping to forge bases of unity across a diverse set of groups (radical feminists, old communists, deep ecologists, religious groups, retired military officers, local activists, etc.), exemplified Laclau and Mouffe's notion of hegemonic practice albeit in its early less sophisticated stage.  But definitely leading to quite radical convergences and positions (federated economic models inspired by the Swiss cantons, zero economic growth, nuclear-free citizen defense, party-run pubs as community-building spaces) and quite unorthodox political practices and actions.

With the hegemonic blocs that the ultra-right has been able to forge and continue to strengthen in recent years, in the Philippines and other parts of the globe, Laclau's and Mouffe's opus around the hegemonic game should be required back reading for radical activists.  Found a PDF version here.  The work has spawned a whole collection of essays and other books representing both sympathetic and more critical reviews of the authors' positions and political project.  I have yet to read any of them though.  Here's one that promises a comprehensive assessment of both the work's intellectual impact among academicians, as well as its more practical legacies.