From domination to emancipation and freedom: reading Ernesto Laclau’s post-Marxism in conjunction with Philip Pettit’s neo-republicanism: a reply to Gulshan Khan

In her article, Gulshan Khan highlights some particularities in Laclau's theorising of domination, emancipation and freedom, through contrasting Laclau's work with the neo-republican political theorist Philip Pettit. Pettit is largely positioned as a theorist of ‘what is’, while Laclau is acknowledged for theorising the conditions for more revolutionary change. In the reply, it is argued that this difference can be understood in terms of the distinction between ‘politics’ and ‘the political’. While Khan suggests that Pettit's work can complement Laclau's in having more to say about concrete ‘politics’, this reply suggests that this lack has also been fruitfully addressed by scholars closer to Laclau within the Essex School. A discussion of theoretical and methodological implications of engaging with this work in relation to the themes discussed by Khan concludes the response.