Introduction

Since the publication of Hegemony and socialist strategy in 1985, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe are widely acknowledged as leading representatives of post-Marxism and ‘radical democratic’ theory. They have sought to transform the left political imaginary beyond the impasses characteristic of traditional Marxist categories (Sim, 2000; Wenman, 2003). Both Laclau and Mouffe in their single authored works have developed distinct and original contributions to political theory. Mouffe has engaged with mainstream political theory and developed her own agonistic approach (Mouffe, 1993, 2000, 2005; Wenman, 2003). Laclau has reworked of a range of concepts drawn not only from Marxism, but also in part from other traditions across political theory and political science. This is evident not just in Hegemony and socialist strategy, but also in his subsequent publications: New reflection on the revolutions of our times (1990), Emancipation(s) (1996a), and On populist reason (2005). In these texts, Laclau creatively rereads key concepts – such as hegemony, populism, emancipation, and representation – through the lenses of poststructuralism, and to further develop and re-signify these ideas in innovative directions. He sought specially to augment the legacy of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, and to further develop the Gramscian emphasis on politics, or the realm of the ‘superstructures’, that is, against reductionist or ‘economistic’ readings of Marxism. For Laclau, this was an effort to explain the growing diversity of struggles – not only socialist struggles, but also feminism, environmentalism, and so on – from the late 1960s onwards. In so doing, he fashioned a range of innovative concepts – for example the idea of a struggle over ‘empty signifiers’ and the need for a ‘chain of equivalence’ between alternate demands – each designed to explain the dynamics at play in the struggle for emancipation and freedom. Of course, these accomplishments have not been without controversy. They have, for example, provoked a hostile reaction from those committed to traditional Marxist forms of analysis (see Geras, 1988; Eagleton, 1991). Despite these responses, however, Laclau is arguably the foremost post-Marxist of the late 20th century and the influence and impact of his work is gradually growing. Eight years after his death, Laclau’s legacy is flourishing.