Department of Media, Communications and Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Br J Sociol. 2020 Sep;71(4):644-657. doi: 10.1111/1468-4446.12751. Epub 2020 Mar 30.
This essay, based on a "militant ethnography" of the attempts of the small radical grassroots activist group, Our London (a pseudonym), to mobilize a collective oppositional politics through activities around an election campaign, engages critically with E. Laclau and C. Mouffe's arguments on discourse and collectivity in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (London: Verso, 1985). I argue, on the basis of my findings, that while their model does provide insights that help describe the process of building collectivity from among disparate perspectives and identities, we need to go beyond a focus on discourse alone and consider the ways politics is shaped by material contexts. This is necessary if we are to understand the continued appeal of class politics as well as the difficulties in mobilizing collectivity in highly unequal and fragmented cities. From an activist perspective, the essay also highlights how developing a conception of collective interests and a critique of overarching systems of exploitation can be important in building political unity.
这篇文章基于对小激进草根行动团体“我们伦敦”(化名)试图通过围绕选举活动开展的活动来动员集体对抗政治的“激进民族志”,批判性地探讨了 E.拉库和 C.莫菲在《霸权与社会主义战略》(伦敦:Verso,1985 年)中关于话语和集体的论点。我认为,根据我的发现,虽然他们的模式确实提供了一些见解,可以帮助描述从不同视角和身份构建集体的过程,但我们需要超越仅关注话语本身,考虑政治如何受到物质环境的影响。如果我们要理解阶级政治的持续吸引力以及在高度不平等和碎片化的城市中动员集体的困难,这是必要的。从行动主义者的角度来看,这篇文章还强调了如何发展对集体利益的概念和对总体剥削制度的批判,这对于建立政治团结非常重要。