Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Trent Brown
School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales,
Australia;
trentpbrown@gmail.com
Introduction
In May 2014, international media reported on two new scientic reports indicating
that the Antarctic ice sheet had begun an irreversible process of disintegration. The
reports by Rignot et al. (2014) and Joughin et al. (2014) suggested that a sea-level
rise of between 3 and 4 m over the coming centuries is now inevitable, casting
doubt over the future survival prospects of humanity. Despite the magnitude of
the ndings, international media outlets reported them as just another news item
indeed, worse, they were relegated to a relatively irrelevant position, presented
only after the usual commentary on political scandals, economic growth trends
and so on. It appears that, at a very fundamental level, we are unable to signify
climate change in a way that reects the true magnitude of its implications.
It is the contention of this paper that when this inability to adequately signify our
future challenges is perceived as unacceptable, we have the origins of sustainability
politics. I argue that, when there is a collective recognition that dominant discursive
frames have failed to incorporate the future as a meaningful factor, sustainability
can behave as what Ernesto Laclau described as an empty signiera signier
that gestures towards the failure(s) of signication itself. Furthermore, where previ-
ous authors have seen sustainability as being, at best, a reformist concept and, at
worst, inherently reactionary (Swyngedouw 2010:229), I argue that in function-
ing as an empty signier, sustainability holds potential as a tool for radical politics,
expressing the need for fundamental recongurations.
Antipode Vol. 48 No. 1 2016 ISSN 0066-4812, pp. 115133 doi: 10.1111/anti.12164
2015 The Author. Antipode 2015 Antipode Foundation Ltd.
116 Antipode
I begin this paper by briey examining how sustainability has been referred to as
an empty signier in previous scholarly literature. I show that this literature exam-
ined how sustainability functions as an empty signier in very specic contexts,
rather than drawing out the full set of social, historical and political implications
of empty signiers, as developed by Laclau. Thus, in the next section, I go on to
explain Laclaus concept of empty signiers in more detail. I then highlight how
the historical context under which sustainability emerged as a key organising
principle for society supports the idea that it may be considered an example of an
empty signier in the full sense of the term. In the latter part of the article, I explore
the various contexts in which sustainability has been applied and suggest that, in
many settings, sustainabilitys radicalism is subverted, as it has been hegemonised
by the narrower concept of sustainable development. Finally, I consider
whether the historical conditions under which sustainability was able to function
as an empty signier are now eroding, and consider the likelihood of its future
re-emergence as a powerful political concept.
process, including traditional antagonists, under the pretence that they are all
working on issues of sustainability.
Both Gunder (2006) and Davidson (2010) are quite sceptical of the prospect that
sustainability, in its function as empty signier, will be able to create substantial
change. For Gunder (2006), the unifying function of sustainability can serve to
obscure irreducible conicts. What one group calls sustainable might be highly
inimical to the interests of other groups. He suggests that in the context of neolib-
eral hegemony, this is frequently the case. The fact that sustainability is devoid of
inherent content allows its meaning to be contested, and those who speak the heg-
emonic language are better able to temporarily x its meaning. As such, he shows
that, internationally, planners regard sustainability as, rst and foremost, providing
growth opportunities for future generations. This may involve treating certain peo-
ple in the present in an unjust manner, overwriting plannings traditional emphasis
on equitable social effects. Gunder is happy with the use of the term ecological
sustainability, which has a more precise and socially important designation, but
argues that the way in which it has been used to unify ecological, social and
economic concerns has left it open to neoliberal co-optation.
These studies provide useful insights into how sustainability functions as an
empty signier in specic institutional settings. This paper aims to go beyond this,
by providing a greater exposition of the broader conditions under which sustain-
ability has been able to emerge, develop and operate as an empty signier. This
requires a more historical analysis. Indeed, Laclaus (1996, 2005) major discussions
of empty signiers follow the Gramscian tradition of conceiving a dialectical rela-
tionship between historical conditions of emergence and ideological function. In
what follows, therefore, I explore how the contemporary societal condition allowed
sustainability to emerge as a powerful concept within the public imagination, and
why, in more recent years, it appears to have undergone a decline in relevance.
Laclau had explored similar themes in his previous writings on dislocation and
antagonism. Examining the structure of antagonistic relations, Laclau (1990) em-
phasises that antagonism per se does not emerge as a mere by-product of a logical
contradiction in the formal structure of a relationship (as in some orthodox Marxist
analyses of the wage relation). Instead, antagonism is generated by the intervention
of discourses exterior to that relationship: the agitations of a union, demands for
civil rights, and so on. Antagonism emerges when the mutual incompatibility of
two discourses becomes apparentwhen the presence of one prevents the other
from constituting itself as an objective reality. As such, Laclau (1990:16) conceptu-
alises antagonistic relations as a clash between two objectivities and a point at
which the impossibility of objectivity becomes visible. In the wage relation, for
example, the discourse of capital is unable to constitute itself as an objectivity of prot
maximisation as long as workers continue to assert the importance of other factors
within the realm of production. Likewise, the objectivity of workers rights cannot
be constituted as long as the discourse of capital has ascendency. Such a limit to ob-
jectivity indicates a failure of the signifying system, which Laclau (1996) would go on
to discuss in relation to empty signiers. Antagonism itself occurs because there is
something the discursive system is unable to grasp. The moment one discourse is able
to fully incorporate the perspective of the other, the relation ceases to be antagonistic.
The effect of an antagonistic relation is that the identity of those who constitute the
relation will be dislocated: the presence of the Other threatens their objectivity
and prevents their constitution as discursively determined entities. Yet, as we shall
see, this very threat provides the ground upon which new discourses and modes of
identication can be constructed (Laclau 1990:39).
Laclau argues that empty signiers have their conditions of possibility in the dis-
cursive effects of dislocation on the identity of signiers. Dislocation suggests a fac-
tor that cannot be incorporated within a particular system of signication. Laclau
(1996) argues that this causes the identity of all signiers to become split. On the
one hand, signiers retain their attachment to specic signieds, which implies
the differences between each signier and all others within the signifying system that
gives each their concise designation. On the other hand, these differences are col-
lapsed, insofar as they are articulated as having an equivalent relation to the
dislocating factor, which threatens to undermine the discursive closure of all signi-
ers within the system. In this way, the dislocating factor effectively denes the eld
of signication, by allowing the articulation of these equivalent relations between
all signiers. When a particular signier is so positioned that it articulates this rela-
tion of equivalence to all other signiers to the extent that its differential function
is almost inoperative, it can be said to occupy the place of empty signier, standing
in for the pure Being of the signifying system itself. In this case, the empty signier
represents the eld of positivity. The other possibility that Laclau discusses is an
empty signier standing in for pure negativitya pure expression of the threat to
discursive closure. This implies that the various factors excluded from a signifying
system, which pose a threat to its objectivity, may be articulated as equivalent from
within that system. In this case, differences are again collapsed, but under the head-
ing of an empty signier that represents the pure threat posed to the system as a
whole. It is only through reference to this generalised threat, external to the
signifying system, that it is possible for the system itself to be coherently repre-
sented as a positive order of Being.
In Laclaus framework, the selection of which signier becomes empty in this
process is assumed to be arbitrary. In determining which signier is to stand in
for the breakdown of objectivity that evades signication, Laclau (2005) reserves
primacy for the gesture of naming. There is no inner conceptual core to any
particular signier that determines that it is better equipped for this function. Every
signier within a discursive eld is equally positioned with relation to the outside,
which both threatens and constitutes the system. The specic signier that is
assigned to signify the limits of signication is therefore arbitrary; any signier could
equally stand in for the pure being of the system or the pure negativity that stands
beyond it. Furthermore, Laclau (2005) follows Lacan in arguing for the retroactive
nature of this arbitrary gesture: in being named, the empty signier gives meaning
to each of the previous moments of dislocation and, indeed, denes the system as a
coherent (though threatened and incomplete) whole. In other words, the empty
signier posits its own presuppositions (Butler et al. 2000:225230).
The arbitrariness in designating empty signiers introduces some ambiguity to
Laclaus theoretical framework. Laclaus point is that there is nothing inherent in
the structure of the signifying system that guarantees which signier will be able to
empty itself of its content and signify pure positivity/negativity. This is not to sug-
gest, however, that in historical practice the process by which empty signiers
emerge is completely random. Laclau (1996) is quite clear that the process by
which one signier comes to dominate as representative of the entire system is sub-
ject to hegemonic struggle and this within the context of a eld of uneven power re-
lations. What Laclau does not appear to state so directly is whether the grouping
function of the empty signier (the manner in which it expresses relations of equiv-
alence between diverse, threatened signiers) should also be regarded as arbitrary
in practice. Yet, if this were the case, presumably any set of instances that disrupt
the process of signication could be clustered together under an empty signier
representing threat and, equally, any group of signiers could be clustered
together in equivalent relations, constituting a system that has been threatened.
The formation of equivalent relations must be seen in the context of how disloca-
tions have been produced and what concrete problems compel signiers to be
grouped together. To argue that these processes are completely arbitrary in
historical practice would appear quite absurd: the mysteries of religious experience,
the ambiguities of sexual relationships, the exclusions of multinational capitalism,
patriarchys denial of female identity and any other instances in which reality eludes
signication could be condensed under the same heading and represent a kind of
generalised social evil. It is clear that there is some minimal similarity between the
diverse forms of dislocation that are grouped into chains of equivalence, which
provides the empty signier with its historical impetus. These can be understood
through detailed studies of the conditions under which dislocations have been
produced. This, paradoxically, provides a minimal meaning or content for empty
signiersa way of designating their specicity and how they could be
conceptualised vis--vis other empty signiers. Recognising this minimal sense in
which empty signiers are not-quite-empty will be essential to designating what
gives sustainability its unique character as an empty signier, and why it captures
imaginations today in ways that other similarly empty signiers do not.
There is good reason to investigate the qualities of sustainability as an empty
signier, and to elaborate upon its specicity and its particular connection to
current historical conditions. From the 1970s onwards, sustainability emerged rela-
tively rapidly as a major focal point in diverse social and political contexts. To a cer-
tain degree, it cuts across particular contexts and represents a generally desirable
state towards which society should aspire. If it indeed is acting as an empty signier,
we should investigate the factors that explain its sudden emergence. It would
appear that something is ill-at-ease within contemporary societycertain forms of
dislocation have reached a point at which they are coalescing in relations of
equivalence which sustainability serves to represent. We should seek to clarify
why sustainability is able to perform this function in ways that other empty signi-
ers were evidently unable. This suggests investigating what makes sustainability
specialwhat specic forms of dislocation it serves to condense and render
coherent. The remainder of this paper will attempt to address these questions.
in a diverse range of dislocations. Yet, what is the specic nature of these disloca-
tions? And why was it not possible for the failures of contemporary discourse and
practice described above to be adequately represented by other empty signiers,
such as social justice or emancipation? My core argument is that, where, for
example, emancipation can function as an empty signier in a social eld in
which there are multiple instances of repressed identity (Laclau 1996), the condi-
tions for sustainability as empty signier are to be found in multiple experiences
of our individual and collective futures being threatened and denied. The legitimacy
of the dominant discourses that guide social practice have been dislocated by other
discourses operating outside of them, which bring into sharp focus the undesirable
futures that they are producing. The key discursive condition for these dislocations
being articulated in relations of equivalence to each other (ultimately expressed by
sustainability as an empty signier) is that the discourses proliferating in the social
eld have, in multiple instances, been unable to incorporate their own future effects
and adapt accordingly. Expressing these individual discursive failures as equivalent
gives rise to a generalised sense of failure, leading to critical articulations
questioning the legitimacy of those who have been able to make these negligent
decisions about the future of humanity. Sustainability ultimately stands for a society
in which these failures have been overcomea reconciled society, which is currently
blocked by existing power structures.
The discourses and practices that are critiqued as unsustainable have a
common feature. All have been interrupted by claims that their long-term (and in
some cases, medium- and short-term) effects make them, in some sense,
unjustiable. The construction of the future that enacts this interruption may be
based upon some kind of projection, derived, for example, from scientic knowl-
edge (eg Wynne 1996). In other scenarios, it may be based on lay observations that
living conditions have diminished over time and may reasonably be expected to
decline further in the future if present practices continue.1 In either case, the
expectation is that at some point on the horizon, conditions will become intolera-
ble, and that some change is urgently called for.
Aspects of this future-oriented critique can be discerned in The World Commis-
sion on Environment and Developments report Our Common Future, in which sus-
tainability was given its rst mainstream expression. The reports formulation of
sustainable development as meet[ing] the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED
1990:87) clearly implied that humanity was failing in its ethical obligations to future
generations. As the report outlined, crises of soil degradation, desertication and
deforestation had clearly brought this sense of failure into sharp reliefand the
concern they generated was aptly reected in the title of the reports rst chapter,
A threatened future. Foster (2008) argues that the WCEDs future orientation
has been difcult to implement, particularly due to the lack of a direct relationship
between present and future generations. Any attempt by authorities to act equita-
bly in relation to future generations proves fanciful since, in the nal instance,
future generations cannot hold them accountable and there is no third party to dis-
cern whether their behaviour has been equitable. Recognising this concern, we
should state explicitly that rather than being based on any direct ethical relationship
between present and future persons, sustainability derives its meaning entirely
through the construction of potential futures (of both future and current genera-
tions) in the present, along with the affective consequences of these constructions.
Specic constructions of the future dislocate dominant discourses insofar as those
discourses are unable to adapt to them. Discourses that are able to recognise their
own destructive effects and incorporate an adaptive locus of change cease to be an-
tagonistic. Antagonism on the basis of unsustainability is persistent when dominant
discourses project an indenite continuation of the same practices through the
exclusion of their own consequences. Typically this antagonism arises because
the discourse recognises only a limited number of variables (most commonly, eco-
nomic) as having value. The discourse is interrupted when variables outside its eld
of recognition are articulated as being equally or more valuable. The very idea of
climate change, for example, interrupts economic rationalist discourses that have
justied the continued use of fossil fuels as key to the growth of national economies.
The discourse of climate science draws attention to other priorities beyond short-
term economic growth: most notably, sustaining the conditions for life on this
planet. In line with Laclaus discussion of dislocation and antagonism, each
discourse is unable to fully determine the eld of social objectivity so long as the
other continues to assert its claims as primary. The mutual incompatibility between
the two discourses points to a gap within signication as sucha crucial condition
for the intervention of the empty signier which stands in for this gap.
To follow Laclaus approach to the end, we can expect that when various
concerns about the future are articulated as equivalent, their dislocating effects be-
come generalised and take on a universal quality. When looking at one particular
instance of critique in isolationthe critique of fossil fuels from a climate change
perspective, for examplethe nature of the concern is quite unambiguous. It relates
to a specic set of projectionsincrease in global temperature, and so onwhich
can be seen in relation to other concerns. When this concern is articulated as equiv-
alent to a host of others, however, this anxiety about the threatened future is gen-
eralised. It ceases to be about a specic set of consequences, and the future
becomes a kind of intolerable imaginarya vaguely structured mental space onto
which diverse apocalyptic visions may be projected. At its most politically effective,
this imaginary is unthinkable. It assumes a general tendency towards decline, but
thought is suspended before the elaboration of the specic future conditions that
people will have to live with. This apocalyptic imaginary supports the discourse
of sustainability: the equivalence between the various forms of dislocation
described above can only be represented by empty signiers such as disaster,
collapse and so on, which stand in for the pure threat to the continuity of society.
Sustainability, by contrast, stands in as the empty signier for the articulated
chain of equivalent concernsthe generalised aspiration for an alternative.
Although, as some authors have argued, sustainabilitys reliance on apocalyptic
imaginaries can be harnessed by elites to block debate and justify reactionary mea-
sures (Swyngedouw 2007, 2010; see below), I would add that such imaginaries
also have potential to give expression to radical politics. The unthinkable/empty
quality of this signier of a disastrous future has two immediate political effects that
can be harnessed for radical critique. First, the empty form of the signier allows for
were. Indeed, the natural order was already interrupted. Thus, rather than having
the luxury of reimaging its own future, society entered into a kind of permanent
crisis-response mode. It was no longer a matter of a prosperous society, interrupted
by its own excluded future. Reality had intervened: the imbalance was incorporated
within the order of Being. Transience predominated over permanence in many
aspects of social and political life, ending the period of neoliberal triumphalism with
its corresponding exclusions. Third, the hope for a sustainable alternative began to
slip away, as some key gures within the environment movement began to suggest
that tipping points had already been crossed (Hamilton 2010; Lovelock 2009). De-
featism set in. Fourth, neoliberal conditions have nally undermined sustainabilitys
political imagination. As Carvounas and Ireland (2008) outline, neoliberalisms ten-
dency to make work and life ever-more precarious diminishes the individual and
collective capacity for long-term, future-oriented thinking. Thought is drawn back
to the immediate. The kind of detached spaces from which humanity can evaluate
its long-term future are fast diminishing. Decisions from the personal through to
national and international policy are made with an orientation towards the present,
not the future.
To express it in Lacanian terms, sustainability has been undermined at the level of
the imaginary (the ability to imagine the future), the symbolic (the ability to at least
gesture towards a more sustainable system) and the Real (its discursive dependence
on the exclusion of the future, most pronounced in neoliberal triumphalism). It is
worth emphasising, however, that this is unlikely to be the end of the matter. As
long as the prospect of even greater long-term disasters looms large on the
horizon, the political concept of sustainability (or something like it) will continue
to reassert itself within social and political life.
Conclusion
Despite the many attempts to provide it a denition, sustainability remains an
empty term in practice, having no precise content. This lack of precision should
certainly attract critique, particularly when it enables empty gestures on the part
of politicians and other key decision-makers. The versatility that comes with
sustainabilitys lack of xed meaning has certainly enabled elites to present it in
ways that suit their own agenda, as has clearly been the case with the sustainable
development approach. However, such critique should not blind us to the
potential of sustainability to open new social and political opportunities. Turning
attention to the conditions for the emergence of sustainability, it becomes apparent
that the current cynical and conservative articulation of sustainability as sustainable
development is the outcome of a contingent hegemonic project. Sustainable devel-
opment has provided a temporary xation point on the global stage, as a way of
abating anxieties that current trends are compromising humanitys collective
future. It is apparent, however, that insofar as sustainable development has failed
to address core issues that have given rise to the present unsustainable social,
economic, political and ecological condition, much spills out from under this
hegemonic articulation. It is ultimately unable to address the concerns that gave
rise to it, giving alternative articulations of sustainability their conditions of being.
Acknowledgements
The ideas contained in this article evolved over a number of years, beginning with my
Honours thesis, written at the University of Wollongong in 2008. I am deeply grateful to
my supervisor at the time, Associate Professor Richard Howson, who played a supportive role
in the formation of these ideas and who encouraged me to develop them further in the years
thereafter. I would also like to thank Utsa Mukherjee for useful comments on an earlier draft,
and the three anonymous reviewers whose suggestions greatly enriched the content of this
article and helped in further clarifying its argument.
Endnote
1
The anti-toxics movement, for example, which proliferated in the United States in the
1980s, began with dispersed communities experiencing the negative consequences of the
dumping of toxic waste and later articulated environmental toxicity as a general threat to
the future of humanity (Szasz 1994).
References
Adams W M (2009) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World
(3rd edn). London: Routledge
Arias-Maldonado M (2013) Rethinking sustainability in the Anthropocene. Environmental Pol-
itics 22(3):428446
Blhdorn I (2014) Post-ecologist governmentality: Post-democracy, post-politics, and the
politics of unsustainability. In J Wilson and E Swyngedouw (eds) The Post-Political and Its
Discontents (pp 146166). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press
Brown B J, Hanson M E, Liverman D M and Merideth R W (1987) Global sustainability:
Toward denition. Environmental Management 11(6):713719
Butler J, Laclau E and iek S (2000) Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dia-
logues on the Left. London: Verso
Carson R (1962) Silent Spring. London: Hamish Hamilton
Carvounas D and Ireland C (2008) Precariousness, the secured present, and the sustainability
of the future. Time and Society 17(2/3):155178
Commoner B (1972) The Closing Circle. London: Jonathan Cape
Davidson M (2010) Sustainability as ideological praxis: The acting out of plannings master
signier. City 14(4):390405
Dresner S (2008) The Principles of Sustainability (2nd edn). London: Earthscan
Foster J M (2008) The Sustainability Mirage: Illusion and Reality in the Coming War on Climate
Change. London: Earthscan
Fukuyama F (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. London: Penguin
Gunder M (2006) Sustainability: Plannings saving grace or road to perdition? Journal of Plan-
ning Education and Research 26(2):208221
Hallett S and Wright J (2011) Life Without Oil: Why We Must Shift to a New Energy Future.
Amherst: Prometheus
Hamilton C (2010) Requiem For a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change.
London: Earthscan
Hart G (2012) Gramsci, geography, and the languages of populism. In M Ekers, G Hart
and S Kipfer (eds) Gramsci: Space, Nature, Politics (pp 301320). Oxford: Wiley
Hossay P (2006) Unsustainable: A Primer for Global Environmental and Social Justice. London:
Zed
Jacobs M (1999) Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A Dobson (ed) Fairness
and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice (pp 2145). Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Joughin I, Smith B E and Medley B (2014) Marine ice sheet collapse potentially under way for
the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica. Science 344(6185):735738
Laclau E (1990) New Reections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso
Laclau E (1996) Emancipation(s). London: Verso
Laclau E (2005) On Populist Reason. London: Verso
Ll S (1991) Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development 19(6):607621
Leopold A (1939) A biotic view of land. Journal of Forestry 37(9):727730
Lovelock J (2009) The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning. London: Allen Lane
Manderscheid K (2012) Planning sustainability: Intergenerational and intragenerational
justice in spatial planning strategies. Antipode 44(1):197316
Meadows D H, Meadows D E, Randers J and Behrens W W (1972) The Limits to Growth.
London: Earth Island
Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual
review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18:493520
Nordhaus T and Shellenberger M (2009) The green bubble: Why environmentalism keeps
imploding. The New Republic 20 May. http://www.tnrcom/article/the-green-bubble (last
accessed 11 August 2014)
Parr A (2009) Hijacking Sustainability. Cambridge: MIT Press
Ratter B M, Philipp K H and von Storch H (2012) Between hype and decline: Recent trends in
public perception of climate change. Environmental Science and Policy 18:38
Rignot E, Mouginot J, Morlighem M, Seroussi H and Scheuchl B (2014) Widespread rapid
grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica,
from 1992 to 2011. Geophysical Research Letters 41(10):35023509
Sidhu H S (2002) A non-sustainable model of agrarian transformation: The case study of
Indian Punjab. In S S Acharya, S Singh and V Sagar (eds) Sustainable Agriculture, Poverty,
and Food Security (pp 127136). New Delhi: Rawat
Skovgaard J (2014) EU climate policy after the crisis. Environmental Politics 23(1):117
Sneddon C, Howarth R B and Norgaard R B (2006) Sustainable development in a post-
Brundtland world. Ecological Economics 57:253268
Swyngedouw E (2007) Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition. In
J R Krueger and D Gibbs (eds) The Sustainable Development Paradox (pp 1340).
New York: Guilford
Swyngedouw E (2010) Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the specter of
climate change. Theory, Culture, and Society 27(2/3):213232
Szasz A (1994) EcoPopulism: Toxic Waste and the Movement for Environmental Justice.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Tisdell C (1999) Economics aspects of ecology and sustainable agricultural production. In A K
Dragun and C Trisdell (eds) Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (pp 3756).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Wainwright J and Mann G (2013) Climate Leviathan Antipode 45(1):122
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1990) Our Common Future.
Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reexive view of the lay-expert knowledge
divide. In S Lash, B Szerszynski and B Wynne (eds) Risk Environment and Modernity
(pp 4483). London: Sage
iek S (2001) The Fragile Absolute, or, Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? London:
Verso
iek S (2010) Living in the End Times. London: Verso