Post-Foundational Political Thought
Political Difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau
A wide-ranging overview of the emergence of post-foundationalism and a survey of the work of its key contemporary exponents
This book presents the first systematic coverage of the conceptual difference between 'politics' (the practice of conventional politics: the political system or political forms of action) and 'the political' (a much more radical aspect which cannot be restricted to the realms of institutional politics). It is also the first introductory overview of post-foundationalism and the tradition of 'left Heideggerianism': the political thought of contemporary theorists who make frequent use of the idea of political difference: Jean-Luc Nancy, Claude Lefort, Alain Badiou and Ernesto Laclau.
After an overview of current trends in social post-foundationalism and a genealogical chapter on the historical emergence of the difference between the concepts of 'politics' and 'the political', the work of individual theorists is presented and discussed at length. Individual chapters are presented on the political thought of Jean-Luc Nancy (including Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe), Claude Lefort, Alain Badiou, and Ernesto Laclau (including Chantal Mouffe).
Overall, the book offers an elaboration of the idea of a post-foundational conception of politics.
1. The Contours of 'Left Heideggerianism': Post-Foundationalism and Contingency
2. Politics and the Political: Genealogy of a Conceptual Difference
3. Retracing the Political Difference: Jean-Luc Nancy
4. The Machiavellian Moment Retheorized: Claude Lefort
5. The State and the Politics of Truth: Alain Badiou
6. Political Difference and Ontological Difference: Ernesto Laclau
Conclusion: Founding Post-Foundational: A Political Ontology.
You must log in or register to request an inspection copy.
Marchart fruitfully illuminates the political difference and clarifies the overlaps and variations among what he designates 'post-foundational' political thought... Marchart has done a fine job in exploring and clarifying what has become a buzzword in radical theoretical discourse. This is a book that deserves to be read by all those who wish politics could be just that bit more political.
What Marchart does extremely well is to highlight the traits and lines of force that structure (or overdetermine) the extent to which so many thinkers are both indebted to and responsive to Heidegger, even when they claim to take (or rather to keep) their distances from him.
Oliver Marchart's work is a welcome contribution to the tradition as it offers a cohesive account of post-foundationalism... Combining an insightful and at times critical investigation of the philosophy and concepts behind this perspective, he makes a compelling case for what post-foundationalism is and how it should guide political thought and action... this is an excellent monograph, recommended to all those interested in critical theory. Furthermore, it is an invaluable resource for both newcomers and those more familiar with the approach.
Very convincingly Marchart succeeds in systematically presenting the approaches of the "Links-Heideggerianer" (Heidegger’s disciples from the left). He portrays in a positive light what is most commonly criticized as their normative fault: The impossibility to derive a particular political system from the theory of politics.(translated from German)
Marchart is to be praised for rescuing the notion of post-foundationalism from the accusations of nihilism and anti-foundationalism as well as political difference and the political itself.
Marchart is to be praised for rescuing the nation of post-foundationalism as well as political difference and the political itself.
This book will make a valuable contribution in engaging students and academics with important debates in contemporary political theory… it is a clear, well-written and sophisticated introduction, one that will be welcomed by students and university teachers alike.
There is a real need for a book like this. Marchart is a patient author. He explains things slowly and clearly to his reader. And what he explains is surely of interest to those of us who work in the interstices of political theory and Continental (especially post-Heideggerian) philosophy.
