Ernesto Laclau

1. Introduction

Ernesto Laclau (1935–2014) was a political theorist whose work reshaped late 20th‑ and early 21st‑century debates on Marxism, democracy, and populism. Best known for developing a post‑Marxist theory of hegemony and a discourse‑theoretical account of populism, he argued that social identities and political conflicts are not grounded in fixed essences (such as class) but are contingently constructed through discursive practices.

Working largely from the University of Essex, Laclau became a central figure in what is often called the Essex School of discourse analysis. His writings, frequently produced in collaboration with the philosopher Chantal Mouffe, brought together Gramscian concepts of hegemony, post‑structuralist ideas about language and meaning, and psychoanalytic insights into subject formation.

Laclau’s theory of radical democracy and his notion of populist reason have been particularly influential in discussions of how “the people” are constituted as a political subject. Rather than treating populism as an aberrant or purely ideological style, he conceptualized it as a fundamental political logic: the construction of a collective will through the articulation of otherwise disparate social demands.

Scholars across political theory, sociology, cultural studies, and critical theory have drawn on his concepts of discourse, empty signifiers, and chains of equivalence to analyze nationalism, social movements, identity politics, and contemporary left strategies. At the same time, his work has provoked extensive criticism—from Marxist, liberal, and deliberative democratic perspectives—regarding its treatment of material interests, rational argument, and normative criteria.

This entry situates Laclau’s thought in its historical context, traces his intellectual development, and outlines his major concepts, methodological innovations, and contentious reception in both academic and political arenas.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Overview

Ernesto Laclau was born on 6 October 1935 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and died on 13 April 2014 in Seville, Spain, while on a lecture tour. Trained initially as a historian at the University of Buenos Aires, he was politically formed in the context of mid‑20th‑century Argentine conflicts around Peronism, nationalism, and class struggle. These experiences later provided the empirical and symbolic backdrop for his reflections on populism and “the people.”

In 1969 he relocated to the United Kingdom and became associated with the University of Essex, where he spent most of his career and helped found the Centre for Theoretical Studies in the Humanities and the Social Sciences (1990). Essex became a hub for students and scholars interested in discourse theory, post‑Marxism, and critical political theory from across Europe and Latin America.

2.2 Historical and Political Milieu

Laclau’s trajectory unfolded across several key historical conjunctures:

Proponents of contextual readings argue that these conjunctures decisively shaped Laclau’s shift from orthodox Marxism to post‑Marxism and his interest in populism as a transnational phenomenon. Others maintain that while context was important, the primary drivers were theoretical developments in European philosophy (especially Derrida, Lacan, and structural linguistics) that Laclau encountered after moving to the UK.

Across these debates, there is broad agreement that Laclau’s biographical link to Argentine and Latin American politics gave his later, more abstract theorizing a distinctive sensitivity to mass mobilization, state‑society relations, and the symbolic construction of “the people.”

3. Intellectual Development

3.1 Early Formation and Marxist Engagement

Laclau’s early work, conducted in Argentina and then the UK, focused on Latin American economic and social formations, dependency, and class structure. He engaged closely with Marxism, particularly in its Althusserian variant, emphasizing structural determinants and modes of production. His essays later collected in Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory (1977) already signaled a critical attitude toward simple base‑superstructure models and economic reductionism.

3.2 Turn to Gramsci and Post‑Marxism

During the 1970s and early 1980s, Laclau increasingly turned to Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony to explain how political leadership and consent are constructed beyond direct economic coercion. At the same time, he incorporated insights from structuralism and post‑structuralism (Saussure, Lévi‑Strauss, Derrida) and psychoanalysis (Lacan). This convergence culminated in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985), co‑authored with Chantal Mouffe, which proposed a post‑Marxist framework stressing discourse, contingency, and the plurality of struggles (feminist, anti‑racist, ecological) irreducible to class.

3.3 Discourse Theory and Radical Democracy

In the late 1980s and 1990s, Laclau systematized his discourse theory in works such as New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time (1990) and Emancipation(s) (1996). He developed key notions such as empty and floating signifiers, antagonism, and the contingent ground of the social, and articulated a project of radical, plural democracy in which no ultimate foundation could secure political order.

3.4 Populism and Late Reflections

From the late 1990s onward, Laclau focused increasingly on populism, culminating in On Populist Reason (2005). There he offered a systematic account of populism as a political logic based on the construction of a collective subject—“the people”—through chains of equivalence among diverse demands. In later dialogues, notably Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (2000) with Judith Butler and Slavoj Žižek, he further refined his views in response to critiques from other left theorists, emphasizing post‑foundationalism and the constitutive role of decision in politics.

4. Major Works and Central Texts

This section outlines Laclau’s most influential books and their main thematic contributions.

4.1 Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory (1977)

This collection of essays examines capitalism, fascism, and populism within a broadly Marxist but increasingly critical framework. Laclau interrogates ideology and challenges straightforward reflections of economic structures, suggesting that political and ideological formations have a relative autonomy. His early reflections on populism, especially in relation to Latin America, anticipate later work on popular subjectivity.

4.2 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985, with Chantal Mouffe)

Often regarded as the founding text of post‑Marxism, this book reworks Gramscian hegemony through post‑structuralist lenses. It argues that social identities and antagonisms are discursively constructed and rejects essentialist notions of class. The text proposes a project of radical and plural democracy, foregrounding the multiplicity of struggles and the impossibility of a fully sutured social order.

4.3 New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time (1990)

This volume gathers essays that deepen Laclau’s discourse theory and explore the implications of contingency and antagonism for social ontology. It elaborates the idea that every social practice contains an undecidable moment requiring political decision, thereby extending his concept of hegemony beyond specifically class politics.

4.4 Emancipation(s) (1996)

Here Laclau reflects on the meaning of emancipation after the crisis of classical revolutionary narratives. He questions the possibility of grounding emancipation in any essential subject (such as “the proletariat”), emphasizing instead the contingent articulation of heterogeneous struggles. The text further refines his vocabulary of discourse and universality.

4.5 Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (2000, with Judith Butler and Slavoj Žižek)

This tripartite dialogue stages debates among three prominent left theorists. Laclau’s contributions clarify his positions on universalism, identity, and hegemony, especially in response to critiques from Butler (on performativity and gender) and Žižek (on ideology and the Real).

4.6 On Populist Reason (2005)

Considered his major later work, this book offers a comprehensive theory of populism as a political logic centered on the construction of “the people”. Laclau introduces and systematizes concepts such as chains of equivalence, empty signifiers, and popular subjectivity, and addresses both historical cases and contemporary debates about populism’s relation to democracy.

5. Core Ideas: Hegemony, Discourse, and Populism

5.1 Hegemony

For Laclau, hegemony names the process by which a particular political project partially organizes a fragmented social field and presents itself as the bearer of a more general interest. Drawing on Gramsci but extending his insights, Laclau and Mouffe argue that hegemony presupposes the incompleteness of the social: no social order is ever fully closed, so political forces must continuously negotiate and articulate meanings.

Key aspects include:

5.2 Discourse

Laclau employs discourse in an expanded sense to denote all meaningful social practices, not just language in a narrow sense. Social objects and identities (e.g. “worker,” “nation,” “democracy”) are constituted through signifying practices rather than reflecting pre‑given essences. Proponents of this reading highlight his claim that “there is no beyond of discourse” that could finally fix social meaning.

Central notions include empty signifiers (terms that unify disparate demands by partially emptying their content) and floating signifiers (contested terms whose meaning is fought over by rival projects).

5.3 Populism

In On Populist Reason, Laclau reconceives populism as a political logic rather than a specific ideology or pathology. Populist politics constructs a dichotomy between “the people” and a power bloc (often “the elite” or “the establishment”) by linking heterogeneous social demands into a chain of equivalence. Through this process, “the people” emerges as an empty signifier representing a plurality of grievances.

Supporters of Laclau’s approach stress that this account allows for a non‑pejorative, formal understanding of populism applicable across ideological contexts. Critics argue that the concept becomes overly broad and risks conflating distinct phenomena; these disputes are taken up more fully in later sections.

6. Methodology: Discourse Theory and the Essex School

6.1 Discourse Theory as Method

Laclau’s discourse theory functions both as a social ontology and as a methodological orientation. Methodologically, it proposes that researchers analyze how political actors articulate meanings, demands, and identities, rather than treating interests or classes as pre‑given. This involves tracing:

• The formation of chains of equivalence and difference among demands.
• The emergence and role of nodal points (key signifiers organizing a discourse).
• The construction of antagonisms and exclusions that define a political field.

The approach is qualitative and interpretive, often relying on close reading of political texts, speeches, and practices. Proponents emphasize its capacity to uncover the contingent and contested nature of political identities, while critics suggest it may underplay material structures or lack clear criteria for empirical validation.

6.2 The Essex School

The Essex School of discourse analysis developed around Laclau at the University of Essex from the 1980s onward. It is characterized by:

Scholars associated with this school (such as Yannis Stavrakakis, David Howarth, and others) have applied Laclau’s framework to topics including nationalism, environmental politics, European integration, and post‑communist transitions. Some have systematized it into more explicit research protocols, while others keep it as a flexible critical approach.

6.3 Methodological Debates

Debates about Laclau’s methodology focus on several issues:

• Normativity vs. description: Whether discourse theory offers primarily an explanatory framework or also carries normative commitments to radical democracy.
• Operationalization: How notions like empty signifier or chain of equivalence can be rigorously operationalized in empirical research.
• Interdisciplinary reach: Supporters highlight its use across political science, sociology, and cultural studies; skeptics question its compatibility with quantitative or positivist methods.

These discussions have shaped both the internal development of the Essex School and its reception within broader social science methodology.

7. Key Contributions to Political Philosophy

7.1 Post‑Marxist Critique and Hegemony

Laclau’s reworking of Marxism is often cited as a major contribution to political philosophy. He questioned economic determinism and the idea of a privileged revolutionary subject, proposing instead that political identities are discursively constructed and that hegemony is a general logic of social organization. Philosophers of a post‑foundational orientation have drawn on this to argue that no social order can claim a final grounding in history, reason, or class.

7.2 Discourse, Signification, and Social Ontology

By integrating insights from Saussure, Derrida, and Lacan, Laclau offered a discourse‑centered social ontology. Concepts such as empty and floating signifiers entered philosophical debates about:

7.3 Radical and Agonistic Democracy

Together with Mouffe, Laclau helped formulate the idea of radical, plural democracy, where politics is understood as the ongoing contestation among conflicting projects in the absence of ultimate foundations. This view has influenced agonistic democratic theory, which emphasizes conflict and disagreement as constitutive of democratic life rather than pathologies to be eliminated.

7.4 Theory of Populism

Laclau’s account of populism as a political logic has become a central reference point in philosophical discussions about the nature of “the people,” representation, and democratic legitimacy. His claim that populism can expand democratic participation and articulate excluded demands has been both endorsed (particularly by theorists of “left populism”) and sharply criticized (notably by thinkers concerned with liberal institutions and constitutionalism).

7.5 Post‑Foundationalism and Decision

Finally, Laclau contributed to post‑foundational political philosophy by highlighting the undecidable character of key political decisions. This perspective aligns him with broader currents (e.g. in Derrida, Lefort) that treat political authority and social meaning as inherently precarious, requiring continual contestation and renegotiation.

8. Debates, Criticisms, and Responses

8.1 Marxist Critiques

From more traditional Marxist perspectives, Laclau has been criticized for abandoning class analysis and materialism. Critics argue that his focus on discourse and contingency:

• Obscures underlying economic structures and exploitation.
• Risks relativizing struggles by detaching them from systemic capitalist dynamics.

Some Marxist theorists contend that hegemony should supplement, not replace, class struggle. Laclau responded that acknowledging discursive construction does not deny materiality but rejects the idea of a single, foundational contradiction.

8.2 Liberal and Deliberative Democratic Concerns

Liberal and deliberative democrats have raised concerns about Laclau’s emphasis on antagonism and populism. They contend that:

• Populist constructions of “the people” vs. “the elite” can endanger minority rights and constitutional checks.
• His theory underplays norms of rational deliberation, mutual justification, and institutional design.

Laclau and sympathetic readers reply that conflicts and exclusions are unavoidable in politics and that attempts to suppress them in the name of consensus can mask power relations rather than overcome them.

8.3 Conceptual and Methodological Objections

Philosophers and social scientists have questioned the clarity and scope of key concepts:

Supporters counter that these concepts are meant as flexible analytical tools rather than strict variables, and point to numerous empirical studies inspired by the Essex School.

8.4 Dialogues with Butler and Žižek

In Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, Judith Butler, Slavoj Žižek, and Laclau debate issues of universality, identity, and the political. Butler emphasizes performativity and the instability of identity categories; Žižek stresses ideology and the psychoanalytic Real. These exchanges highlight both overlaps and tensions, particularly regarding:

• The status of universals and the possibility of emancipatory projects.
• The role of affect, enjoyment, and fantasy in political identification.

Laclau uses these debates to refine his account of how universality operates through hegemonic articulation rather than transcendent moral standards.

9. Influence on Contemporary Political Movements

9.1 Left Populism and Radical Democracy

Laclau’s theory of populism has been influential among advocates of left populism, who seek to articulate diverse democratic demands into a common project. Proponents argue that his concepts help understand and guide efforts to construct “the people” as an inclusive, plural subject challenging neoliberal elites.

His ideas have informed:

• Strategic debates in European politics (e.g. around parties like Podemos in Spain and some interpretations of Syriza in Greece).
• Discussions among Latin American intellectuals analyzing the so‑called Pink Tide governments (e.g. in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador), although the degree of direct influence varies and is sometimes contested.

9.2 Movement Politics and Identity Struggles

Activists and theorists linked to feminist, anti‑racist, LGBTQ+, and environmental movements have drawn on Laclau and Mouffe’s notion of chains of equivalence to conceptualize alliances among heterogeneous struggles. The idea of radical democracy has been used to justify coalitions that avoid subsuming specific identities under a single class subject.

Critics argue that such an approach may prioritize symbolic articulation over organizational and material questions, or risk diluting the particularity of individual struggles in an overly broad “people.”

9.3 Nationalism and Populist Right

Scholars of right‑wing and nationalist movements have employed Laclau’s framework to analyze how these actors construct “the people” against migrants, cosmopolitan elites, or supranational institutions. His theory is seen as offering tools to understand both progressive and regressive uses of populist logics.

Some commentators worry that emphasizing the formal symmetry between left and right populisms obscures important normative differences; others maintain that Laclau’s framework is explicitly descriptive, leaving evaluation to separate normative theories.

9.4 Academic and Intellectual Activism

Beyond formal movements, Laclau influenced networks of intellectual activism, particularly in Europe and Latin America, where political theorists and sociologists have engaged with party strategists, social movement organizers, and public debates. The extent to which these engagements shaped concrete political outcomes remains debated, but they illustrate the permeability between Laclau’s theoretical work and contemporary political practice.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

10.1 Place in 20th–21st Century Political Thought

Laclau is widely regarded as a key figure in the transition from classical Marxism to post‑Marxism and post‑foundational political theory. His integration of Gramsci, post‑structuralism, and psychoanalysis contributed to a broader shift toward viewing politics as a field of discursive construction, contingency, and hegemony. In intellectual histories of contemporary political theory, he is often situated alongside figures such as Chantal Mouffe, Jacques Derrida, and Claude Lefort.

10.2 Institutional and Disciplinary Impact

Through his work at the University of Essex and the consolidation of the Essex School, Laclau helped institutionalize discourse analysis as a legitimate approach within political science, sociology, and cultural studies. Generations of students trained under or inspired by him have carried his framework into diverse subfields, from nationalism studies to European integration and social movement research.

10.3 Continuing Relevance

Laclau’s concepts remain central in current debates about:

Some scholars argue that his emphasis on populism and hegemony has become even more pertinent in an era of democratic discontent and crisis of traditional party systems. Others suggest that new developments—such as digital media, platform capitalism, and algorithmic governance—require revising or extending his framework.

10.4 Critical Assessments of Legacy

Assessments of Laclau’s historical significance vary. Supporters emphasize his role in freeing left theory from economic determinism and in revaluing populism as a democratic resource. Critics highlight perceived ambiguities in his concepts, the relative neglect of institutional design and economic analysis, and possible risks in celebrating populist logics.

Despite these disagreements, there is broad consensus that Laclau’s work has become a durable point of reference—whether for adoption, adaptation, or critique—in the ongoing effort to understand how political identities, conflicts, and orders are constructed in contemporary societies.