JonesDiscourseLaclau

8/3/2019 JonesDiscourseLaclau

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jonesdiscourselaclau 1/17

Why Organizational Discourse Analysis Doesn’t Need Ernesto Laclau

Campbell JonesUniversity of Leicester Management Centre

University RoadLeicester LE [email protected]

Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Organizational Discourse, Amsterdam,26-28 July 2006.



1

That objectivity called Laclau

The rejection of privileged points of rupture and the confluence of struggles into a

unified political space, and the acceptance, on the contrary, of the plurality and

indeterminacy of the social, seems to us to be the fundamental bases from which a

new political imaginary can be constructed. (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 152)

One of the central efforts in the first half of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy is a radical

critique of the categories of objectivity and necessity. Against the tendency towards

objectivism, homogenisation and determinism that they argue has characterised the Marxist

tradition, Laclau and Mouffe outline the emergence of a new logic of the political and with

this the need for a new analytic of the political. Thus we find in the emergence, or if you

prefer the creation, of the concept of ‘hegemony’, which brings with it a radical critique of all

essentialisms and in their place categories of contingency, impossibility, antagonism,

overdetermination, articulation, the dissolution of the subject, difference, plurality and

heterogeneity.

If this is the landscape we now inhabit, then in what sense can we speak of objectivity or

necessity? These are now cast as results of hegemonic articulation, contested struggles

towards temporary closure of the forever open wound that is the social. In this case, we put

on hold – or at the very least recognise as partial political attempts to suture or hegemonise a

field – any appeal to necessity. And in this paper, I propose that this also applies to Laclau

and to Laclau and Mouffe. I propose to inquire into that purported objectivity and wholeness

that is Ernesto Laclau, and suspect the idea that the encounter with that objectivity would

impose itself upon organizational discourse analysis with the force of necessity.



2

One might rightly ask what agency it is that will do this inquiring and suspecting. Within the

terms we inherit from Laclau, refusal does not come from a single privileged point, such as

the subject or the economy. As Foucault puts it, ‘there is no single locus of great Refusal,

source of all rebellions, or pure law of the revolutionary’ (1976: 95-96). But still we do, and

we must refuse. We reject categories of thought, and just as importantly the social is caught

in a multiplicity of refusals, which Laclau designates as antagonism, or later in New

Reflections on the Revolution of our Time as ‘dislocation’. Due to the fundamental and

moreover constitutive nature of antagonism, Laclau argues that ‘Society never manages fully

to be society’ (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 127), ‘ “Society” is not a valid object of discourse’

(Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 111), ‘ “society’ as a unitary an intelligible object which grounds

its own particular processes is an impossibility’ (Laclau, 1990: 90).

As we will see shortly, refusal is crucially important for Laclau. But what does it mean to

refuse? To refuse is to break with a fusion, to disjoin from a presumed or hoped for

connection. While confusion is mistakenly joining two things together, refusal splits apart

things that have been mistakenly conjoined. As will hopefully become clear, my intention

here is not to refuse Laclau. It might be to shift the grounds for asking what it might mean to

refuse him, or to join with him too quickly. Because I hope that we will soon be able to see

that, as much as society is not a valid object of discourse, so too we will find that ‘Laclau’ is

not a valid object of discourse, and that, as we might put it, Laclau never fully manages to be

Laclau.



3

To Market

Perhaps the most persistent effort to bring the discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau into

organizational analysis can be found in the work of Hugh Willmott and his colleagues (see

also the important work of Böhm, 2006, which is assessed elsewhere, see Jones,

forthcoming). The claims made by Willmott on behalf of Laclau are far from modest:

Laclau’s discourse theory ‘presents a rich source of inspiration and guidance for interrogating

and changing social relations that are unthinkable within orthodox analyses and prescriptions

for change’ (Willmott, 2005: 748). While other competing positions such as critical realism

remain fixated with science and are guilty of dualism, one benefit of Laclau’s discourse

theory is that we can now, according to Willmott, ‘refuse dualism’ (p. 762ff), presumably

without inconsistency or contradiction. But further, Laclau’s discourse theory ‘departs

radically from contemporary social science’ (p. 763) and ‘offers something new and

challenging – an innovative approach’ (p. 750) which ‘is guided by a self-consciously ethico-

political project’ (p. 753).

We find similar claims in the work of other proponents of Laclau. According to Todd

Bridgman we find in Laclau insights that are ‘fresh’ and ‘novel’ and that ‘This approach is

useful for understanding processes of identity struggles and change within organizations’

(2005: 17). For Alessia Contu, ‘Laclau and Mouffe offer a political answer to the crisis of

dominant, rationalistic narrative[s] of the social, and try to propose a fresh view of political

struggle and social change’ (2002: 160-161). And Orlikowski and Yates concur that ‘The

discursive approach proposed by Bridgman and Willmott is a welcome addition to the

theoretical toolkit available to organizational scholars’ (2006: 132).



4

There are particular tropes at play in this language, and if we had more time then we might

unpick these line by line. This is what is required of any discourse analysis and of theoretical

discourse that is attentive to the complexity of language and thinking. But we do not have

time for this here today, and also in the interests of making some more general comments on

organizational discourse analysis I propose a somewhat more conceptual and also more

polemical set of considerations. I will organize my discussion around three themes that can

be extracted from this language promoting Laclau, themes relating to tradition, resolution and

messianism.

Tradition

The first remark relates to the division of Laclau from tradition and from existing work. This

is a common strategy in the promotion of a new theorist, as I have tried to show elsewhere in

my analyses of the reception of Foucault in organizational analysis, in a way that exaggerated

the distance between him and earlier writers in order to maximise the benefits of this new

thinker (Jones, 2002). For this reason, before introducing his novelty, it might be important to

locate Laclau within the various traditions out of which his work emerges. Obviously this is

going to be difficult, first of all because of the partiality of his own efforts to locate himself

and second because he locates himself differently on different occasions. Recognising the

impossibility of our task, let us consider some of these attempts to locate Laclau.

To start, in the introduction to the second edition of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Laclau

and Mouffe (2001: xi) locate their work as drawing principally on deconstruction (Derrida)

and psychoanalysis (Lacan). This is later expanded, in ‘Philosophical Roots of Discourse

Theory’, where Laclau suggests that his work ‘has its roots in the three main philosophical

developments with which the XXth century started’ (2005: 1). These all relate to a critique of



5

the illusion of immediacy, that is, the illusion of the referent (analytical philosophy), the

phenomenon (phenomenology) and the sign (structuralism). In the movement away from

these positions Laclau draws on the critique of analytical philosophy (late Wittgenstein),

phenomenology (Heidegger) and structuralism (Barthes, Derrida, Lacan).

In case these positionings bring comfort, and as a third attempt at positioning Laclau, we

might recall Žižek’s famous rejection of the ‘poststructuralist’ reading of Laclau and Mouffe,

and his argument that:

The real achievement of Hegemony is crystallised in the concept of “social

antagonism”: far from reducing all reality to a kind of language game, the socio-

symbolic field is conceived as structured around a certain traumatic impossibility,

around a certain fissure which cannot be symbolised. In short, Laclau and Mouffe

have, so to speak, reinvented the Lacanian notion of the Real as impossible, they have

made it useful as a tool for social and ideological analysis. Simple as it may sound,

this breakthrough is of such novelty that it was usually not even perceived in most

responses to Hegemony. (Žižek, 1990: 249).

As a final effort to locate Laclau, we might also speak of the complex and often contested

relationships between Laclau and the Marxist tradition. Here we must deal with the well-

known charges of anti-Marxism and ex-Marxism put to Laclau (Geras, 1990), and on the

other hand his innovative readings of Althusser and in particular Gramsci, and his own claims

that ‘our analysis keeps within the field of Marxism’ (Laclau, 1990: 55), and that ‘as far as I

am concerned, the deconstruction of Marxist tradition, not its mere abandonment, is what

proves important’ (Laclau, 1990: 179).



6

If Laclau is set in (admittedly complex) relations with all of these strands of thinking, which

run from late Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Derrida, Lacan and Marxism, then one might start to

wonder how it is that all of this is somehow radically foreign to organizational analysis and in

particular to organizational discourse analysis. This is not to defend organizational discourse

analysis, which has of course shown an incredible negligence in dealing with theory, as is

shown by the decontextualisation and superficiality of theoretical work appearing, for

example, in the recent Handbook of Organizational Discourse (Grant et al., 2004). If

organizational discourse analysis has failed so incredibly to take seriously the major advances

in philosophical reflection on signification, has distorted structuralism and poststructuralism

beyond recognition and has all but ignored Marxist thought altogether, then this might be

read as a sign for the need to read Laclau. Or alternatively, it might more radically call into

question the very grounds of organizational discourse analysis and its ignorances, and require

not the addition of one more theorist but a wholesale reconstruction of the theoretical grounds

of a project of organizational discourse analysis.

Resolution

Which leads me to the second set of concerns, which relates to the casting of Laclau as one

that will bring solutions or resolutions to problems. In short, will Laclau solve our problems,

or will he cause them? We see the idea of resolution, for example, in the way that Willmott

proposes that, following Laclau, we can ‘refuse dualism’ (2005: 762ff). This apparently

enables us to sidestep dualism altogether, whether this be the dualism of agency and structure

(Willmott, 2005: 763), or between the physical and the social (Bridgman and Willmott, 2006:

113). On this view, discourse theory enables us to bridge the gap between the material and

the meaningful, by conceiving of discourse as material practice.



7

Famously, and controversially, this is one of the bolder claims of Hegemony and Socialist

Strategy, where Laclau and Mouffe write that ‘Our analysis rejects the distinction between

discursive and non-discursive practices’ (1985: 107). The famous example here is taken from

Wittgenstein who conceives, at the start of the Philosophical Investigations, of a language

game as ‘the whole, consisting of the language and the actions into which it is woven, the

“language game” ’ (1953: 5, see also Laclau and Mouffe, 1985: 108).

In Willmott we face the odd idea that it might make sense to speak of ‘refusing’ dualism.

This is a crucial strategy in Willmott’s argumentation, and as we know this talk of the need to

escape dualism is widespread in organization studies (see Knights, 1997, 2001, Beech and

Cairns, 2001, cf. Borgerson and Rehn, 2004). The particularly strange thing in of this talk of

refusing dualism is the recurrence and reinstatement, often at a higher level, of dualism. This

peculiarity is expressed in Willmott’s very language of refusal, of breaking with, of not being

joined with dualism. This is a difficulty that the best thinkers of dualism have been aware of,

and here I am thinking of course of Derrida, who reminds us again and again of the dangers

of the enclosure of dualism (and other things) but at the same time reminds us that the effort

to leap out of, to refuse or to eradicate dualism (Knights, 1997), leads not to the escape from

metaphysics but its reinstatement.

Relatedly, we have the other question, which is whether or not Laclau is actually able to

provide a solution to the kind of difficulties that Willmott and others have. Let us take one

example, relating to the ontological status of linguistic construction. In their analysis of an

information and communication technologies outsourcing contract, Bridgman and Willmott

are concerned to avoid the ‘commonsense, naturalized differentiation of the materiality of



8

technology and the discursive field’ (2006: 110). In doing so, and to demonstrate the

superiority of Laclau’s discourse theory over institutional theory, they write that ‘Laclau and

Mouffe are “anti-constructionist” insofar as they understand objects to exist independently of

language and thought’ (Bridgman and Willmott, 2006: 115). Then, six pages later we learn

that ‘A discourse theoretic conceptualization of technology and institutions as discursive

structures recognizes that the material properties assigned to ICTs, whether conceived as

“affordances” or instantiated capabilities, do not exist independently of the discursive field

through which they are constituted’ (Bridgman and Willmott, 2006: 122).

I do not want to conclude that this is an isolated contradiction, which might be excusable or

punishable in its isolation. Rather, this is not so much a failure of the effort to apply Laclau’s

resolution of the ideal/real division as it is a failure that recurs in Laclau. Note that Laclau has

emphasised again and again that, as he puts it in the debate with Bhaskar ‘discourse theory is

opposed to various forms of ontology and epistemology, but the main philosophical approach

it is opposed to is idealism’ (in Laclau and Bhaskar, 1998: 9). Given this opposition to

idealism perhaps we should be surprised when we find, throughout his work, positions

recognisable as textual and conceptual idealism. About half way through his most recent

book, for example, he finds that ‘rhetorical mechanisms, as I have asserted from the

beginning of this book, constitute the anatomy of the social world’ (Laclau, 2005a: 110)

But why, if we accept Laclau’s positions on antagonism and heterogeneity, would we find

discomfort in this inconsistency between his professed anti-idealism and the recurrent textual

and conceptual idealism? Why would be need to find, in this thinker of the incomplete and

the impossible, a final formulae that will resolve and complete thinking? This is not to excuse

these inconsistencies in Laclau’s work and in those who have and will apply his work in



9

organizational discourse analysis. Rather, perhaps the effort to apply his work will be

stronger not by glossing over these difficulties and contradictions in the Laclau’s text, but

rather by traversing them.

Messianism

This brings me to my third and final remark, on messianism. This relates to the previous

remarks on tradition and resolution, and here in the figure of the coming of the messiah who

breaks with the past and brings redemption. This messianism echoes throughout the claims

that Willmott makes in the name of Laclau’s arrival. We have heard these announcements

before, in for example the efforts to introduce Foucault into organizational analysis and to

defend him, against whatever the charge (see Knights and Vurdubakis, 1994), and to want,

beyond all reason, for what he says to be true (see Brown, forthcoming). If Foucault is now

found wanting, or has simply passed his use-by date, then is Laclau the new messiah?

As I indicated above, one of the great ironies surrounding the celebration of Foucault is the

fact that Foucault was so committed – not always, but often – to a thoroughgoing critique of

the cult of the individual (Jones, 2002). The point here being that one of the key lessons of

Foucault is that any statement (enoncé ) is ordered and coordinated within complex rules of

discursive formation, enunciative modalities, the formation of concepts and the formation of

strategies, all of which participate in producing, as much as they issue from a subject

(Foucault, 1972, part II). But still there is a desire to insist on the originality of Foucault

rather than the radical contexualism and socialisation of discourse that he call us to.

This setup reads as a form of messianism, in which the table is set for the arrival of the one

who will redeem. This language of messianism bears the mark of the evangelism of the good



10

news of the predicted end of history, which in Specters of Marx Derrida notes ‘is essentially a

Christian eschatology’ (1994: 60). Against this language of messianism, Derrida

counterpoises the image, found in Benjamin, of a ‘weak messianic power’. Benjamin writes:

There is a secret agreement between past generations and the present one. Our coming

was expected on earth. Like every generation that preceded us, we have been

endowed with a weak messianic power, a power to which the past has a claim. That

claim cannot be settled cheaply. Historical materialists are aware of that. (Benjamin,

1968: 254)

Derrida therefore speaks of a ‘messianicity without messianism’ (1994: 181). This theme is

taken up in Laclau’s (1996) review of Specters of Marx. Here Laclau follows Derrida’s

deconstruction of the objectivist, ontological, determinist and eschatological aspects of the

Marxist tradition while refusing to abandon the promise of emancipation. For Derrida, ‘What

remains irreducible to any deconstruction, what remains as undeconstructible as the

possibility of deconstruction is, perhaps, a certain experience of the emancipatory promise’

(1994: 59). This is the messianicity without messianism. Laclau writes:

the messianism we are speaking about is one without eschatology, without a pre-given

promised land, without determinate content. It is simply the structure of promise

which is inherent in all experience and whose lack of content – resulting from a

radical opening to the event, to the other – is the very possibility of justice that gives

its meaning to the democracy to come. (Laclau, 1996: 74).



11

This all might make us pause at the moment that ‘Laclau’ become the determinate content

that has, or will soon, arrive. Perhaps we cannot not want this arrival, but moreover we might

remind ourselves of the dangers of imagining his arrival. This is why I want to insist on a

certain undecidability about the prospects of Laclau which is notably absent in the work of

Willmott and colleagues. This involves the need for critical responses such as those we have

just heard from Armin Beverungen (2006), although I do not imagine that Laclau would call

for balanced assessment, the liberal weighing the good and the bad in his work. Rather it is a

matter of recognition of the inconsistencies, flaws and failures in his work. Without this we

persist in messianism. Which is perhaps unavoidable. We cannot do without promise, we

cannot do without hope, but let us not think that, one fine day, once and for all, the messiah

will come, will break with tradition, will bring resolution and will redeem us. The messiah

will not come, but must come. But if the other as event arrives, then all will not be as was

planned. In the name of absolute hospitality we must also recognise the possibility, as Derrida

has reminded us, that the other as Other may wreak havoc. As Derrida writes: ‘Without the

possibility of radical evil, of perjury, and of absolute crime, there is no responsibility, no

freedom, no decision’ (Derrida, 1997: 219).

At last, the crisis of organizational discourse analysis!

In the previous paper presented in this stream, Spicer and Cederstrom (2006) spoke of the

contribution that Laclau can make in responding to what they call the crisis of the

organizational discourse analysis. In a way, they have a bit of explaining to do, first of all in

demonstrating the existence of this crisis. There are many outward signs that suggest that

organizational discourse analysis is far from crisis. We are now at the 7th International

Conference of Organizational Discourse, and well attended it is. We carry under our arms a

weighty Handbook of Organizational Discourse. The journals are full of organizational



12

discourse analysis, and it will only be a matter of time until the launch of the journal. What

will it be called: Organizational Discourse Analysis or Discourse and Organization?

Beyond these institutional signs and artefacts, there is a remarkable consistency in the

language that is currently circulating in the name of organizational discourse analysis. Does

this conference propose to radically change the way organizational discourse analysis is

done? It will be applied to new areas – this time identity, what next? – but is change on the

programme? One might legitimately ask: what crisis?

Let me therefore conclude somewhat polemically. Laclau is a thinker who has argued again

and again against necessity. There is almost always – but not always, note, Laclau’s is an

inconsistent and fractured text – a recognition that things do not have to turn out this way or

that. This is expressed in the early critique of essentialism, through to the contingency of the

articulation of demands in the construction of populism. Things might be in the way we hope,

but they could also turn out differently. If the title of this paper needs any explaining, then, it

is in that there is something comically implausible in suggesting the need for someone who

has worked so far to distance himself from the idea of necessity. Organizational discourse

analysis doesn’t need Laclau. But it might chose to take him on. If it did then, very quickly,

what might happen to organizational discourse analysis?

First, organizational discourse analysis would definitively break with any idea of the

transparency of communication, the privilege of the signifier and the ease of movement from

the signifier to the signified. Second, organizational discourse analysis would embark on a

thoroughgoing critique of idealism, sensing the materiality of signification, the force of the

‘extradiscursive’ and the determinations of economy. Third, it would limp away from the



13

anti-theoreticism that has all but crippled it, and attempt some credibility as a project engaged

with the theoretical debates of our times. As a corollary to the second and third points, it

would overcome its ignorance of Marxism. Fourth, organizational discourse analysis would

be called to radically revise its careless misplacement and underestimation of

poststructuralism and begin to see that poststructuralism implies not the valorisation but the

radical critique of, as Derrida puts it, ‘the moment when language invaded the universal

problematic’ and when ‘everything became discourse’ (1978: 280). Fifth, and perhaps as a

result, organizational discourse analysis would sense the absolute and radical limits of

discourse, by which I do not mean cheap talk about polyphony or plurivocality. It would

recognise that discourse is not simply a matter of exchanging signs but is shattered by the

‘bone in the throat’ of impossibility of expression that Lacan designates the Real. Sixth,

antagonism and political contestation would be recognised as basic and constitutive of the

social, not as something that is to be done away with but as basic to the deepening and

broadening of democracy.

None of this is necessary. But it certainly is possible.



14

References

Beech, Nic and George Cairns (2001) ‘Coping with change: The contribution of

postdichotomous ontologies’ Human Relations, 54(10): 1303-1324.

Benjamin, Walter (1968) ‘Theses of the philosophy of history’ in Hannah Arendt (ed.)

Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn. New York: Shocken.

Beverungen, Armin (2006) ‘Antagonism and the labour process, or, why resist?’ Paper

presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, 11-16 August.

Böhm, Steffen (2006) Repositioning Organization Theory: Impossibilities and Strategies.

Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Borgerson, Janet and Alf Rehn (2004) ‘General economy and productive dualisms’ Gender,

Work and Organization, 11(4): 455-474.

Bridgman, Todd (2005) ‘Theorising organizational identity: The contribution of Laclau and

Mouffe’ Paper presented at the 21st European Group for Organization Studies

Colloquium, 30 June – 2 July.

Bridgman, Todd and Hugh Willmott (2006) ‘Institutions and technology: Frameworks for

understanding organizational change – the case of a major ICT outsourcing contract’

Journal of Applied Behavrioral Science, 42(1): 110-126.

Brown, Steven (forthcoming) ‘After power: Artaud and the theatre of cruelty’ in Campbell

Jones and René ten Bos (eds) Philosophy and Organization. London: Routledge.

Contu, Alessia (2002) ‘A political answer to the question of struggle’ ephemera: critical

dialogues on organization, 2(2): 160-174.

Contu, Alessia and Hugh Willmott (2005) ‘You spin me round: The realist turn in

organization and management studies’ Journal of Management Studies, 42(8): 1645-

1662.



15

Critchley, Simon and Oliver Marchart (eds) (2004) Laclau: A Critical Reader . London:

Routledge.

Derrida, Jacques (1978) ‘Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences’ in

Writing and Difference, trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, Jacques (1994) Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and

the New International, trans. Peggy Kamuf. London: Routledge.

Derrida, Jacques (1997) Politics of Friendship, trans. George Collins. London: Verso.

Foucault, Michel (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. A. M. Smith. London:

Routledge.

Foucault, Michel (1976) The Will to Knowledge: History of Sexuality Volume One, trans.

Robert Hurley. London: Penguin

Geras, Norman (1990) Discourses of Extremity: Radical Ethics and Post-Marxist

Extravagances. London: Verso.

Grant, David, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick and Linda Putnam (eds) (2004) Handbook of

Organizational Discourse. London: Sage.

Jones, Campbell (2002) ‘Foucault’s inheritance/Inheriting Foucault’ Culture and

Organization, 8(3): 225-238.

Jones, Campbell (forthcoming) ‘The end of organization theory? Review of Repositioning

Organization Theory by Steffen Böhm’ Organization.

Knights, David (1997) ‘Organization theory in an age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender and

postmodernism revisited’ Organization Studies, 18(1): 1-19.

Knights, David (2001) ‘Hanging out the dirty washing: Labor process theory and its dualistic

legacies’ International Studies of Management and Organization, 30(4): 68-84.

Laclau, Ernesto (1990) New Reflections on the Revolution of our Time. London: Verso.

Laclau, Ernesto (1996) ‘ “Time is out of joint” ’ in Emancipation(s). London: Verso.



16

Laclau, Ernesto (2005a) On Populist Reason. London: Verso.

Laclau, Ernesto (2005b) ‘Philosophical roots of discourse theory’ Centre for Theoretical

Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Online at

http://www.essex.ac.uk/centres/TheoStud/onlinepapers.asp Last visited 20 July 2006.

Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London:

Verso.

Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (2001) ‘Preface to the second edition’ in Hegemony and

Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.

Laclau, Ernesto and Roy Bhaskar (1998) ‘Discourse theory vs critical realism’ Alethia, 1(2):

9-14.

O’Doherty, Damian (2005) ‘David Knights and Hugh Willmott: The subjugation of identity

and…and…and organization-to-come’ in Campbell Jones and Rolland Munro (eds)

Contemporary Organization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Orlikowski, Wanda and JoAnne Yates (2006) ‘ICT and organizational change: A

commentary’ Journal of Applied Behavrioral Science, 42(1): 127-134.

Spicer, André and Carl Cederstrom (2006) ‘Addressing the crisis in organizational discourse

analysis: The contribution of Ernesto Laclau’ Paper presented at the 7th International

Conference on Organizational Discourse, Amsterdam, 26-28 July.

Willmott, Hugh (2005) ‘Theorizing contemporary control: Some post-structuralist responses

to some critical realist questions’ Organization, 12(5): 747-780.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953) Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Žižek, Slavoj (1990) ‘Beyond discourse-analysis’ in Ernesto Laclau New Reflections on the

Revolution of our Time. London: Verso.

Documents

JonesDiscourseLaclau