PHRONESIS rs Laces ogi taken pce Some of ter ally bro the hope that : ep firth exe aed “Epon of dancers coro emai ei eth Dhani were came ety nd wba ve waned wa he eke ad ‘Gheading er Left ey. Aeconing Yo th idvocate of the third way and withthe aden of trepenei ik a elf cy : hres ete et etch» alg frique of euenains, i ote perinent than ev dee, weal aleve at tot pra et ontemporary tery deconstrcioo ahaa the pilnoply of lngenge at inte by the later ‘Wiagenien and posHeieggeran heck are af scat strughs characteristic of the prevent stage of the Lattin ere of rad pal emery Contingency, Hegemony, Universality Contemporary Dialogues om the Left ——+ JUDITH BUTLER, ERNESTO L and SLAVOJ ZIZEK VvRestaging the Universal: Hegemony and the Limits of Formalism Fucith Butler Enso Lack, Sas) Ziek and have had several eomenstions et cet years prung to porcine pola poet of the chorea margin of & Let politcal projec, and have various nd movement. Certain key concepts of piogressve social theory have gsriculatos nour work and we areal en ry mies pehaps fir and rent in. oor approaches ta th he sje in considera of hegemony, adn the states errata! nals of poi Srmationia elation eo My underauning of the view of hegemony exablhed by Eneso aca and Chantal Mou in Hagen nd Siti Say (189) i that dernocrae pl are constituted hou excuse haunt the polities predicated opon ther absence. That haunting Secomeepalcally fective precly ino fara the rture of th ‘Serncraey tel One lai that Lac aed 2dek mae in deed acy particular subject poson within tha poly snoreincomplete re, ees det wy of adermang ht ‘oma tuncot he nen he ern {ere te ppunon repre a ery sg or tudinal ant wh probed ay cae Fiera verte ahi mane Lake oi ‘Por eta ae amtanenal ditcece bese ih Newer Frc wool Lav and Molen ror Hen eyo the mein wich ler lin ret ese ely tae irate ineral one] ‘One ae yo pling hi nolo’ ofthe maj cuba n-ne eough eu to &Laasen pcm Sun ie hs gee an aceboy ape hove Lace eau mane hom and joc yin, fer of te ell apd Hae cc ier eae THRE BSP one ware preinoy neces ‘arly fnelwed to st experience of isle a subj. That founding ‘cing in thos fone te sobeesaanecestar and severe Altanc om the enon own taba emergence hve indicated o both 2k and Lac tht Twa he o hao moe prechely whether the Lacanan view onthe constton of the ‘abject fly ornate with the natn of hegemony Tundersand thatthe noo a the uncompleted or bared subject appear 0 a= fsnie cern iompletinn of iaterpaatio. "You ell me this, but Srhat Iam elas the seule reach of any such lngainie elle to Cape me rts elaing of thecal of the ether accomplished ‘rongh de istallition of bar the conon and sracare of all fuljectconsittion? Is the incompleteness of subjeceforation dat eemonyvequtes ane in which the sajetn-prcrs& snomplte ‘preciely Deans ti cnsinted Youd exclusions that ae potealy ‘sn, no strctraly stato fosndatona? And this dition ‘mg headed ware we oth hove conning exch that ‘tyctoral and oundatonal oeer wih hoe we et be polly Salient tothe meme of hegemony? In eer word, should not he incorspleion of subjeerformation be Tinked to dhe democrat contestation oer gir? Can the air recoure to he Lacaian| bar be recone wih the seat quion that hegemony pores oes itatand ae a quatranscendetlintaton onal pone jee Formations and wemegie an, ence, fndareelly eet pola ld at eondiion? TF the sabjec aways eet it limi inthe selfame plac, ten dhe ‘jee fdamenally exterior othe history in whi ind oe ‘here i oii to the subject, lini it atl, Moreover ise accept she notion tha all historia strug nothing othe ng vain effort oder «founding ln tat strata in saan doe ‘hen commit ounces om distinction beeen the hvala the seructural domains tat sabequenllyexcues the historical domain. fom the understanding of oppmson? Tht problem af «sect! approach tthe founding iit of the subject Becomes important when onside possible os of ppt "oe If hegemony denotes the hoc pales for isan ha emerge wis given poll horizon, then will make sige tiference whether we understand that Geld as stil eae and transformable cr whetherit is gven a eld whose mtg ecred Iyrcorainercturaly deinen and eons Ifthe terme of oth dominance andl opin are constsinel by such a eld of arte sli the very pony of expanding the pomble shes aration fone, cai very wl be decried in par by whether we amen hill ae sujet change hh se My onderanding of egeteny tha i nro ai optim tne cons pect inthe pois or expending be deme {rote ponies fr the ey te Hr, sending hr ore Inlshe, more ayaa pl more cones It the pote fo such Chonge presi by a there owedeerminnon of the sc tural contains on he Held of pti arnlabity then becomes sccnary to ecm the elton betsn Biter ad seve prove the pola prc of hegemony belive hat however dae we may dagen aca, ie an do ape the ees of ail democracy and on the conning plial promise of te Gramcan ston of rgemony Distinct on view ta caste operon ower eh politcal ell exif ems of eacee Hoes whichvie wih one another fr contol af poley questions hegemony empha Ter the maj in which power operates to form our every tnderctanding of sacl lations and to orestate the ways in which tev conse to (and repredac} thon ai ad cover ations of owe: owe snot stable or stat, bot remade a various junctures within ‘hoya eit contest enous sense of common ens, and is cotta the prevailing epee of a calor. Moreve, social trofomaton ours ot eel by eli mass abe in fone of umes rel toga the way which diy socal ae Feartcloted and ew conceptual horizons pened up by anomalous or obuersive peace, "The thor of perforata ar rm he dheory of hegemony ‘hs cepts both emphasize the way in whic he soil world rhode and now wc! pies tege~nvaroulees nc ‘on daa carte hi th ps : Thlan approche questions ough oo vent tes The Gost wilbe conte ple of conv exon or iin Hasan presen om te Tero andre pos in oar n Th Phra opt The eon wl bo owrat tv the ation enero labored by aca, ight be further coged nae celta radon. Lope beable 0 {hay fren ty sbecquentconsibuson co hr wl, bow T truant he rateipBewcen prcosna, seal hor ad the projec of hegemony. Along 1m rial reat appro tho of poehoanays for thoking best the finite of ple ‘hit ieniicaion, Ll hope oak arin ny next contrat the ‘Stuy of pyoanaystonoy prj hat se to understand Sthancpory pec in bth thr prec and soi ean Tina on topic of uve bec one te st con teed opis win recnt oo theory Ender, many have Ysed the fs ducomacs and psec ccont era i tiaretsenssjects wibio te domain of ple open here aril some plea eri who wat o kao a paca ‘evant fetes of human beng might Be exe fo ll an igs ese spec deers Seen shen ob: thes AusTAGING THE UNIVERSAL ro acemative views of wht pital oder ought 0 be on tht univers desription. Sela Benhaia har shown us how both Rawls and Habermas in elifernt ways, offer an account of unieraity whic! cschew he question f human nature and a mstantve account of Univermlzalefenturesin our a «procedural method which tae Tstes univers a errno jusiiing the normative ims of any dal and poe! programme. Although the poctderal method purports to tothe substantive cls about what human Tings ae i dace mpi eal upon » certain rational capaci, ad sebutes to hat ational capaci erent relation funeral Abaty The Kanan presumption hat when T reason I patipate na ration tha is tanspersnalclinae a tela that yeas ingpresuppose the unteczalabity of my aime Tos the proces approach presupposes the priory af auch a analy, ae abo pe fippaie he upectcharacir af ete mon-aignal Features oF human conduc he domain of pale The question of universality his emerge pean most xsl in ‘houe Let cose which have noted te se ofthe date of a ‘erent in de service a calonlrn snd perl. ‘The fan, of our i tht what i ard stoners the parol property of ‘dominao utr, and tht “uveatliabily oct fom Snsperal expansion. The procedural vw ser ode thi pr fem by ting ths emake no suave cs abo naa nares butts eacusierelaace on rational to make claim bse ths ey stertion The iby ofthe procera slaton sees np om the ‘atu of formal ins and indeed, whether one cat exch» prc formal method for ajutinting poll cla, Here the gsi x= tigue of Kanian formation worth reconsidering, eainlybecaie Hrgel called into question whether such formal are ever realy a6 formal as they purport wo be Tr Hoge Lower Logic, Past Que of his Endep of he Phinsplra! Sie (180° be ink the relorlcon of unverayy wih hs etiqu of frmalom, When he introduces he Wetiaton of Universality with abseat thought ia the section ented “Presiminay CConeeprion (paras 19-83) he proceds by way’ of several revisions of the notion of unerslty sell AU Hst he res tote proc, the' sort aera foxn, at she character of though together a-oniver, whi hee flere servant tothe ara. He then proceed to esngeregate nevis definition, noting ha thinking ana act, the ete Grier, and the deed, proc, what brought fort, ir univer (pre 20 These ich eprsiethrough the ronnie ab th nies otha sees of rons or bth the ont recely pod di rl ado yer anoter becomes eatin the ben paragraph {hac Hegel sting Xanuan oe, when Ke fnaly bg hp the Kanan vew exc 'Kant employed the avvard ths dese action, ccs oo. isthe unreal nad fal, aed ormmuoaliy sone moe fre although an external ene of exer Sal paa. 20, I seme mpormct to asks Hegel meas ese by ‘sternal frm, ine appears that e wl sn ivoke an inter tie ad bt the internal wil be precy the ene at Kast overrides, “Te meaning of “eral er? i home ike stray hy pe elon tan which bration i mace rm representa ted sain, em vy ea wel fe every pecan of Whatever the internal form’ of nivel wil prove to be i hubs be relate the concrete oan of univer as well mis toast overt the bifreaton ofthe pera Cs he Since Tam atthe [thet category (para. 20; brackets in translation). The posing of the bribes thus rier te econ of wht i specie an sng from the self for it dfn. Una in ts abyract form thas egies cating the pert of rm suai hich he ov she ay well share with otbern ut which do not ris to te level af buescon ‘Whats univers is their what pertain to every pron, but it steering that petane 6 every person Indeed, we ca ay that ‘conceptions sates of conscious eng, what speci ing tbo pein every pero, we have apparety denied a univer featare wich does noe Hc ander the ube f nivel. Ty tae ‘erly elf beomes doubled in he rs nstance i ‘cond ts onerete “eel poreves thi ine neon to empl and me judgement, ing hom incach intance when the neal cone sare ff though shy dent eparaced om de work ela go kao houghtundentod to have within ee te rest ex in oder ao ngs ro esha to atin ean to them, The things scives are not germane tothe problem af Knowledge, and thinking become not only src bse referent To the extn dh th vrai of though guarantee, eed eelned precily over pon, ony o ma is depatre ous cathe expion was meshing tha iether ray Being oit-el a in atthe ssi tne, only tm the aatir ) and in i spl then proces to asncnte this conception of abst edn intrinsic othe act of thought with cena hubris ilo ste vee might ada, that mon be countered by “humility and "mode With respect os comer he wre:suorra senses, [Peto et does ot make lar ia wht hs ‘wer aeton” cons bu be ite that isnot "the at of ehe subject we am Bede Se ‘dor Tn ede Sbelt| and ut it something ke the reverse of Any el nthe ats theater “To consider elit of thi or, he writes, ‘Sons preiely in the ivng op ital) of our prilar opinions and ble and in alloying the esl oho sway ver (nee x era) a, 2) Thus Hegel objet tothe friaiion of abstract universality by lang tht sop and that denies the frame act of Dans or that jst what ‘rerminant esd in dh abet sense] i only present whee there fs no othe forme hat not mel pr. 24, Zt 2). Th io Hoge view asoeely rma feedom. Fo eeom ‘Sete thous mt mere elf the mate Sule thing to dhe objes, but merely aces the manent fates a i Tegel wl concade that not oly the hiking el fon tool elated to wha i sseke to know, bu he fra ef lus the toncrete ia aecewary precondition for the fabrication of the ually wala dstvow te at of coin eat dlrs the ge ie cron of Kantian formal underscores a number ‘ot points tha ae well o usa ne conider whether Hegel oun pi yan he delivered a formal sch thing ite ends ‘cl frmaom ~ sething ek, Lack and Tha allcomecese to ding Inde Gt nance, seems crcl ose that formalin fn method that comes rom nowhere ans argu applied to concrete "Stations orate through spc exampen On the conta for ‘malin el product af abrasion, alti abet action re Uhisseparaton in he very werkng of abstr el In oter word abstraction cannot remain rigoonly abet without exlibiing sone thing of wha tims ech onde to comtitcitelf a absracton Heelies eso ight which are conieered aber nites tthe objesve [dn Babe Caste Olesen hae aa. 25) Abseaconf hus conainatd prey bythe concretion ‘Bom which teks dierent iaely Secon the ery poi utrating an abstract point by a canere example presippose th separation of the abarat and the concrete ~ deed, peseppes dhe [rodcion ef an epee el dened by da inary opposition. I the lsat ive produced though separating af and denying the con fete, andthe concrete clings to the abuvac as its necesary illo that he aaa andarentaly dependent telly cided by the ponerior appearance of the concrete sy a0 iluadve exatpl of a aba formal, Tn the Greater Lag Hetel gv the example ofthe person wo think tha he might lear bw t si by lenring what reed lor entering the water The peron dct elie that one eee a ofthe acy et Hoge! impli Hee the Kantian «one who sc to know howto svi bere actualy swzsng and he enters thisimeda of a n-poseed cognition with one that ies elf over ‘the atv el form of Inowing at given oe to the wo seeks to know Alkough Hegel ir often dubbed a pisoier a nae tery wo a Se here ~ adit Nane's rencha book on Hegel inde’ ~ Ua the esate potion ofthe self ovasd sd loos cognive maser? Hegel own perstenteleencs fo Yosing ‘nese? and giving oneal! over only confirm the point thatthe kno ng ubjot cannot be understood as one who impose rend-moace20 yori aurick categories ona peginen world The categorie ate shaped bythe wel ites to kno, jot ae he wold isnot Enon witoot the poration (toe estore And jut as Hegel ston revng eeral ne is ‘ey dentin of univer he mak plain ha the eategoies by Tnich the worl bonus avaale os are contnally remade by ccouneer with the word tha hey faite We do not rewain the Sime, and ncker do our coat categories, at We enter nto a nw Jing encoutee withthe we Beth the knowing wbjet andthe word fe undone td done Wythe ac of kone Inthe scton of The Phe of Sit” caed “Reson, Hegel nae lear thet iva snot ete of sbjetive cogniove pci but ned tothe plea eto recognition, Morrow ‘eeomton il i dependent on custom o Senin the wars Sabetance the vil has thi frm of subsistence toy fr bi ‘vy tw, bat no les alo forthe csi of that avy; wat he hoes the il cman practice ofall (para 351. Reengion ‘ot pone spar rom the coxomarypracies in which fe aes lice and ono forza coats of recognison weil rae, Simla exe tht what Hege eal eure Substance’ een (duces at ctor, In Heels word “Use ndvidual in his el ‘rok aleady sana performs x meal work. i Tae mplaton of thevew han foto eben universality 4s tnncendentof otal norms seems tobe msponible Aloogh Hegel cary understands eatomary patie ethical order an the ration a simple wii does ot fon eat the universal which Crome etre or eergr ct af clurally heterogeneous mations therfore uanscend entre tel Tn fie, f Heel notion of universal ity isto prone good under coniions of bd euures and vein ‘nal boundaie,evlhve ohecome a ninety Forged ou the work of cultural ansaon, And wl not be owsble se the Tours of the clues in question, if one ere notion of un ‘elit ould be tnd ato anther’, Caltres are not bounded ‘ey the mode of ther exchange Bt, const of thei en tity If we ae tobe to eh nies nerf thi cone devof earl wandaton, which usomueting Thope a sake cla le con in my reas, then niter a presumption o gui or cognitive ‘ommonne nor ieeslgeal postulate ofan olsate fin all ‘aural horas wl bea poe rote for the univer clan What mplatons ows th rico formal verte think ing of universality in pon! erm Tie important to rererner tht for Hegel, the key term of his plowphialvoabulry are ebeased several aes, and Ua peasy ery ie hey are utered ey accra a (fret meaning or revere for one That empecialytra of words tc at univers? and ac’ but alo of ‘consumes? and et Conecloumer? The section entded Absolte Pedown snd Tero The Pht of St crates pon prior conception the deed as it considers precy what an lvidual can do under canis of tate eror Drawing onthe Pench Revolution, Hegel understands te evidual as inenpble of acon wich act pan an eee, nd normof acon tha governed Hegel previous disci of work a he ‘Lortip and Bandage’ secon: Unies contins af at ery no inlviualwonks for no individual able a externaie anche hich ‘aries his sgnatine: consumes has los capaci for meld ‘eleexpesion, end it lets nothing beak lose to became af nt ading ener ngui i pam, 38 ‘Although the nied works an Tives under a regime which el ie ‘univer’ and ‘able Geedon, the individual aont find hue i the neta wrk of abst edn, Indeed, this lie of tinal to Bnd a place in hs abate em equ of he Terror tat atcptesKierhegar crite of Hegel il exposes te nto this noon of univer and ene bles clan to ‘she universal eed, deinviuate, cannot perform a deed. Al dition of ablat ero, actual elconsiousnes becomes the opposite (univer ised, ad the unreal empeed equaled hh tary hat the uve proven o bea fe unease ee i {nd because no deed can be permed that conforms wh the noe a mediated velexpresion, ay "deed that does appear i radically