Abstract
This chapter provides a theoretical account of subjectivity to revisit the way political education approaches freedom and autonomy. Illustrated by the case of Brexit, the chapter begins conceptualising subjectivity in its open, relational and affective dimensions. The chapter then explores the conceptual tool of fantasies and it examines how populist and non-populist discourses are trapped within the fantasmatic structure of modernity. The chapter then considers how we can learn to live more sustainable and ethical lives and the implications of this for political education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Laclau never discussed this incompleteness in relation to modernity, rather he conceptualised as human nature. However, following Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, only in the specific historical conditions of capitalism, the gap is experienced as a lack. See Gilbert (2014) for a discussion on this.
- 2.
- 3.
Cited by Kelsey, 2016, p. 978.
- 4.
- 5.
For a great analysis of this, see Ahmed (2014).
- 6.
- 7.
For a critique of this, see Mudde (2010).
- 8.
See Butler (2012).
References
Ahmed, S. (2014). Cultural politics of emotion. Edinburgh University Press.
Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition (M. Canovan, Ed., p. vii). University of Chicago Press.
Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. Duke University Press.
Brown, T. (2020). A contemporary theory of mathematics education research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55100-1
Butler, J. (2012). Precarious life, vulnerability, and the ethics of cohabitation. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 26(2), 134–151.
Critchley, S. (2012). Infinite demanding: Ethics of resistance, politics of commitment. Verso.
Fink, B. (1995). The Lacanian subject: Between language and jouissance. Princeton University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Penguin.
Georgiadou, L. (2018). ‘B’ for Brexit or for Belonging? International Review of Qualitative Research, 12(1), 27–35.
Gilbert, J. (2014). Common ground: Democracy and collectivity in an age of individualism. Pluto Press.
Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. Routledge.
Glynos, J., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2008). Lacan and political subjectivity: Fantasy and enjoyment in psychoanalysis and political theory. Subjectivity, 24(1), 256–274.
Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform: Form Bryan to FDR. A. Knopf.
hooks, b. (1989). Choosing the margin as a space of radical openness. Framework: The Journal of Cinema and Media, 36, 15–23.
Kelsey, D. (2016). Hero mythology and right-wing populism: A discourse-mythological case study of Nigel Farage in the mail online. Journalism Studies, 17(8), 971–988.
Laclau, E. (1994). The making of political identities. Verso.
Laclau, E. (2000). Identity and hegemony. In J. Butler, E. Laclau, & S. Zizek (Eds.), Contingency, hegemony, universality. Contemporary dialogues on the left (pp. 44–89). Verso.
Laclau, E. (2007). On populist reason. Verso.
Laclau, E., & Zac, L. (1994). Minding the gaps: The subjects of politics. In E. Laclau (Ed.), The making of political identities (pp. 11–39). Verso.
Lorde, A. (2017). A burst of light: And other essays. Courier Dover Publications.
Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2018a). Demonising populism won’t work-Europe needs a progressive populist alternative. LSE European Politics and Policy (EUROPP) blog.
Mouffe, C. (2018b). For a left populism. Verso Books.
Mudde, C. (2010). The populist radical right: A pathological normalcy. West European Politics, 33(6), 1167–1186.
Reimers, F. M. (2017). Rediscovering the cosmopolitan moral purpose of education. In Meaningful education in times of uncertainty. Brookings Institute.
Stavrakakis, Y. (2017). How did ‘populism’ become a pejorative concept? And why is this important today? A genealogy of double hermeneutics. In In populism in theory: Towards an anthropological frame workshop. Universidad de Barcelona.
Todd, S. (2014). Between body and spirit: The liminality of pedagogical relationships. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 48(2), 231–245.
Zembylas, M. (2006). Witnessing in the classroom: The ethics and politics of affect. Educational Theory, 56(3), 305–324.
Zembylas, M. (2009). Affect, citizenship, politics: Implications for education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(3), 369–383.
Zembylas, M. (2015). ‘Pedagogy of discomfort’ and its ethical implications: The tensions of ethical violence in social justice education. Ethics and Education, 10(2), 163–174.
Zembylas, M. (2021). The affective dimension of far right rhetoric in the classroom: the promise of agonistic emotions and affects in countering extremism. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 42(2), 267–281.
Ziarek, E. P. (2001). An ethics of dissensus: Postmodernity, feminism, and the politics of radical democracy. Stanford University Press.
Žižek, S. (1988). Subjekt pred subjektivacijo. Filozofski vestnik, 9(1), 85–96.
Žižek, S. (2006). Against the populist temptation. Critical Inquiry, 32(3), 551–574.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sant, E. (2021). Agents Navigating Fantasies. In: Political Education in Times of Populism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76299-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76299-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-76298-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-76299-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)