Connecting Antagonism Studies and Social Semiotics

Up next at the P³: Power, Propaganda, Polarisation ICA 2024 postconference are my QUT colleagues Kate O’Connor-Farfan and Ehsan Dehghan, whose interest is in connecting the theories of agonism and antagonism by Laclau and Mouffe with the social semiotics of Landowski; both are rooted in post-structural social semiotics, but advance in different directions.

Laclau and Mouffe distinguish between two kinds of antagonism: between enemies, attempting to eliminate the other – genuine antagonism; or between adversaries, aiming to sublimate differences – which is then better described as agonism. But it remains difficult to operationalise such theoretical concepts, and other conceptual tools are required to do so.

The social semiotics of Landowski come in handy here. Semiotics is mainly interested in the study of meaning-making processes, and social semiotics focusses on social practices and interactions: lived experiences, open-ended processes. How an Us handles an Other might use several different modes that can be analysed empirically; how an individual handles themselves in relation to an Other provides further, alternative perspectives. Both can be operationalised for the study of populism or polarisation, for instance.

The modes of engagement between an Us and Other might include admission: an unconditional acceptance of the Other’s difference, and a recognition of value in such difference that represents a passional embrace; or assimilation: a conditional acceptance that uses arguments to justify why the Us identity is superior to the Other, aims to reduce differences, and requires the Other to lose traces of their previous identity.

Alternatively, they might be segregation: a tense coexistence where arguments are provided to justify why the Other is too different to be included, but where that difference is still valuable in a certain way; or exclusion: a full rejection and direct confrontation where the Other is passionally rejected and must not only be excluded but even exterminated.

The balance between these modes may evolve over time. Immigrants may at first be accepted in all their cultural differences, but at times of crisis and hardship such open admission might turn to segregation and even exclusion.

In the relationship between individuals and groups, there are five possible positionalities: the ‘gentleman’, who evokes the ideal standard; the ‘dandy’, who attempts to outdo even the gentleman by overdoing their adherence to the group’s ideals; the ‘bear’, who is a member but diverts from the ideals of the group; the ‘snob’, who seeks to lose all of their previous traits in order to appear more like a gentleman; and the ‘chameleon’, who remains an outsider but hides their identity traits and avoids standing out in public. Individuals might also move between multiple such positionalities in their journey.

How might we apply these ideas to political analysis, then? For instance, can we understand Donald Trump’s positioning as a Republican in relation to the Republican Party as resembling some of these personas? Connecting Landowski’s frameworks with the theoretical frameworks of Laclau and Mouffe might enable us to study social (and social media) interactions from new perspectives.