Ernesto Laclau and the Persistence of Panarchy

Ernesto Laclau was here @ UMich and gave a delightful talk that gave me some key insights into the long-term stability of panarchy.

Basically, the hegemony that is the state (and state-system) cannot distinguish between potentially anti-systemic social movements for particular purposes (e.g. weaker copyright law, gender equality, poverty reduction) vs. social movements that are anti-systemic in intent (e.g. revolutionary). State insecurity demands that the two types be equated in order to avoid unintended anti-systemic cascades. Thus, the recent use of the term ‘terrorism’ as an umbrella that now includes everything from environmentalists to open-source software programmers.

Since particular movements are concerned with their particular interests, as long as they are not anti-systemic, they will not be compelled to unite against the state. They do not share some unifying theme, and the entire social space remains heterogenous with respect to the state, instead of the homogenous anti-systemic unity that would be required to resist the state.

But, the very origin of the state is a construction stemming from a unifying singularity of a people. In this origin, one particular axis of difference assumes the representation of the totality, and all other forms of difference remain outside the system.

However, with the new heterogeneity of global social movements, Laclau makes the point that as the state-system declines, there is no possibility of the emergence of a new state-like form because the diverse multitude possesses no single criterion of difference around which a new state could crystallize.

Thus, there is no possibility of a state which could satisfy the heterogenous values of the diverse multitude. What is significant here is that according to this logic, once panarchy arrives, it can never coalesce into some new stable unified entity.

In other words, panarchy is autopoietic as is. As new criteria of difference emerge and vanish, the complex un-whole that is panarchy will never rigidify into something that can be opposed, i.e. it will never become a new hegemony.

2 Comments Ernesto Laclau and the Persistence of Panarchy

  1. AvatarMichel Bauwens

    Hi Paul,

    Interesting points, but just a few comments from my perspective.

    – I agree that new movements in general are very diverse, and that we are no longer in a situation of simple binary hegemony and counter-hegemony

    – At the same time, peer production and its governance, does not indeed create a state

    However, there are 2 counter-arguments insufficiently taken into account in theory

    – First of all, the state already exists, and has existed since the dawn of civilization; while potentially, the emergence and growth of peer governance will diminish the role of state forms, this can only be a very very gradual process, with no certainty of an end point towards an evolution of no-state. Hence, it is much more likely that the state will evolve, and that since, the continuing existence of an infinite-growth capitalism is a logical and physical impossibility, the state could change from an agent of corporations reflecting the balance of social forces, to an entity that is a reflection of civil society and acts as a meta-regulator towards the 3 modes of production.

    – Second, the whole work of the P2P Foundation is based on the premise that there is in fact a unifying logic to the emerging informational movements around the 3 paradigms (open/free, participatory, commons), as well as with environmental strugges against pseudo-abundance in physical production. The logic is not necessarily revolutionary, but certainly anti-systemic.

    But as I said, I see it operating as changing the state, rather than abolishing it or replacing it.

  2. AvatarBob Haugen

    Hey Paul, very interesting essay, as usual.

    And Michel, good comment.

    I continue to think we will need bioregional governance if we are to evolve as humans (as opposed to devolving into warlord domains). Here is a prototype: http://www.crawfordstewardshipproject.org/
    Some of what they do: http://www.crawfordstewardshipproject.org/CSP-Weekly-News.htm

    If they evolve into a bioregional government, they will need some degree of hegemony, to stop ecocidal activities.

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.