tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post112192673363543542..comments2023-12-08T08:34:54.615-08:00Comments on Posthegemony: discourseJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14637452970276655064noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14632740.post-1122576947029322882005-07-28T11:55:00.000-07:002005-07-28T11:55:00.000-07:00I don't think I'm all that unfair on "poor old" Ba...I don't think I'm all that unfair on "poor old" Barros, though you have indeed very eloquently put the case for the defence. Indeed, you go beyond defence by advancing a case for the subjective experience of hegemony that seems never to occur to discourse analysis--perhaps because even suggesting that "discursive injunction" could be "at one with the subject's immediate experience or affects" is to acknowledge that at other times experience or affect might exceed (or fall short of) discourse.<BR/><BR/>I maintain, moreover, that discourse analysis has a significant problem with the concept of "power." This is, you'll admit, something of a liability for a theory of the political. Specifically, discourse theoreticians would seem at a quandary as to whether to affirm or deny any distinction between hegemony and domination.<BR/><BR/>As for affect, interestingly in <I>On Populist Reason</I> Laclau gives affect a central place in his schema, without really explaining what he means. I think that is because by "affect" he really means "desire" (libidinal cathexis).Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14637452970276655064noreply@blogger.com