The logic of equivalence involves the simplification of signifying space, the logic of difference involves its expansion and complexification (citing LM 144).
The political logics of equivalence and difference (furnish) us with a conceptual grammar with which to account for the dynamicsof social change. They help show how social practices and regimes are contested, transformed, and instituted, thereby extending our grammar beyond social logics (145).
Logic of Equivalence (LOE) and Logic of Difference (LOD)
– LOE (associative), captures the substitutive aspect of the relation by making reference to an ‘us-them’ axis: two or more elements can be substituted for each other with reference to a common negation or threat. They are equivalent not insofar as they share a positive property (though empirically they may share something in common), but, crucially, insofar as they have a common enemy … Entails the construction and privileging of antagonistic relations, which means that the dimension of difference on each side of the frontier is weakened, whether differences are understood as a function of demands or identities. For instance, a national liberation struggle against an occupying colonial power will typically attempt to cancel out the particular differences of class, ethnicity, region, or religion in the name of a more universal nationalism that can serve as a common reference point for all the oppressed; indeed, its identity may be virtually exhausted in its opposition to the oppressive regime. By contrast the LOD draws on other discourses in an attempt to break down these chains of equivalence. The age-old practice of ‘divide-and-rule’, for instance in which an occupying power seeks to separate ethnic or national groups into particular communities or indirect systems of rule, is invariably designed to prevent the articulation of demands and identities into a generalized challenge to the dominant regime (145).
– LOD (syntagmatic), captures the combinatory or contiguous aspect of the relation, which accounts not simply for differences in identity among elements, but also for keeping elements distinct, separate, and autonomous. Both dimensions are always present in the sense that each presupposes the other.
LOE and LOD thus emphasize the dynamic process by which political frontiers are constructed, stabilized, strengthened , or weakened. They elucidate the way one or another dimension acquires greater or lesser significance, even while each presupposes the other. (citing Laclau 2005, 79) (144).
In sum, the political logics of equivalence and difference comprise a descriptive framing device which is derived from a particular understanding of discourse and the importance accorded to processes of signification. They enhance our approach to social science explanation by furnishing us with a conceptual grammar with which to account for the dynamics of social change. They help show how social practices and regimes are contested, transformed, and instituted, thereby extending our grammar beyond social logics (145).
Thatcher Regime
LOE was mobilized to shift terrain away from the post-war consensus
range of diverse demands were linked together into a project that publicly contested the failing Keynesian welfare state project.
linked together demands for
- free economy
- strong state
- traditional morality
This involved a form of populist politics successfully dividing existing ‘one nation’ welfare state consensus into two camps, those in favour of the newly proposed project versus those associated with the Keynesian post-war consensus (173).
Following groups made equivalent and then targeted by this new project:
- public sector workers, trade unions, teachers, doctors, lawyers, immigrants and gays
Installing the Audit Regime in UK universities
‘Modernizers’ have constructed a series of antagonistic equivalences in order to establish political frontiers that make possible the installation of the new practices. Thus we have seen the ideological construction of ‘surplus’ versus ‘deficit’ departments, ‘research active’ versus ‘research inactive’ members of staff, ‘good recruiters’ versus ‘bad recruiters’ traditional’ versus ‘innovative’ modes of service provision, and so forth (176).
On the other hand, and at the same time, university managers and administrators have — by means of various logics of difference — sought to manage change by addressing demands and by changing the structures of governance, so as to prevent or displace public contestation.