Skip to main content

Welcome to a Grasp lesson

Create a free account to keep studying and create your own study path.

Lesson 9

Mouffe's Constitutive Outside and Hegemonic Identity

Recommended resources

In our previous lesson, we unpacked Teun A. van Dijk's Ideological Square, giving you a practical method for dissecting how groups construct a positive 'Us' and a negative 'Them' at the level of discourse. We saw it as a set of concrete linguistic and rhetorical strategies. Today, we shift from the 'how' to the 'why'. We will explore the deeper political-philosophical reasoning that makes this 'Us vs. Them' dynamic a fundamental, even inescapable, element of politics.

This lesson focuses on Chantal Mouffe's concept of the 'constitutive outside'. Your work in governance and diplomacy has surely exposed you to the power of defining an 'in-group' against an 'out-group', but Mouffe provides a powerful theoretical explanation for why this is not merely a cynical tactic, but a necessary condition for the very formation of political identity. By the end of this session, you will be able to define the role of the 'constitutive outside' in establishing the 'antagonistic frontier' that is required for any hegemonic political project to take shape.

1. Identity Through Difference: The Constitutive Outside

The foundational idea in Mouffe's work, drawing from post-structuralist thought, is that no identity can exist in isolation. Identity is always relational; it is defined by what it is not. A political community, a 'we', can only define itself by drawing a boundary between itself and a 'they'. This external 'they' is what Mouffe terms the 'constitutive outside' (exteriorul constitutiv).

Let's begin with a very concise and powerful definition of this concept from an essay by Mouffe herself.

For an Agonistic Pluralism | Verso Books

This short excerpt from Chantal Mouffe's essay provides the core definition you need. It explains how any identity requires an 'other' to play the role of a 'constitutive outside' and how this relationship holds the potential for antagonism.

Please read the first paragraph, beginning with this sentence and ending before the section heading "3". Pay close attention to the idea that the 'other' is not just different, but can come to be seen as negating 'our' identity.

The key insight here is the word "constitutive". The outside isn't just incidentally there; its exclusion is what constitutes the identity of the inside. The boundary creates the identity. Without something to be excluded, the identity itself would have no shape or coherence.

This next video provides an excellent visual and conceptual explanation of this paradoxical relationship, showing how the 'outside' both threatens and enables the 'inside'.

Laclau and Mouffe - Discourse Theory - Hegemony, Antagonism and Dislocation

This video from the channel Political Theory and Contemporary Politics clearly explains the concepts of antagonism and the constitutive outside within Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory.

Watch the segment from 12:16 to 15:45. The speaker explains why an identity needs a "negative demarcation" and defines the "paradoxical double function" of the constitutive outside: it is both what is excluded to form the system and what simultaneously represents a constant threat to it.

For your thesis, this means that when China frames the Western digital model as 'cyber-hegemony', it's not just engaging in negative criticism. It is performing a necessary political act to constitute its own alternative vision. The identity of the Digital Silk Road as a project of 'win-win cooperation' and 'respect for sovereignty' depends fundamentally on its opposition to a Western model framed as exploitative and intrusive.


2. The Antagonistic Frontier

Mouffe argues that any 'we/they' distinction holds the potential to become political. This happens when the 'they' is no longer seen as merely different, but as a threat that puts the very existence of the 'we' into question. At this point, the relationship becomes one of antagonism, what the political theorist Carl Schmitt famously described as a 'friend/enemy' distinction. The boundary between 'we' and 'they' becomes an antagonistic frontier (frontieră antagonică).

In this clip, Chantal Mouffe herself explains how a political identity ('we') is formed through its distinction from a 'they' and how this can escalate into a friend-enemy confrontation.

Chantal Mouffe | The Affects of Democracy

This is a segment from a lecture by Chantal Mouffe at the Geneva Graduate Institute, where she discusses the formation of political identity.

Watch the portion from 19:18 to 20:56. She states her central thesis: "to constitute a we, one must distinguish it from a they." She then explains how this necessary distinction can, under certain conditions, transform into an antagonistic friend-enemy relationship.

This creation of a frontier is not a secondary activity of politics; for Mouffe, it is politics. A hegemonic project, like the one we analyzed in the previous module with Laclau, succeeds precisely by establishing this frontier. It creates a "chain of equivalence" (the 'we') by articulating different demands around a common struggle against a "common adversary" (the 'they' on the other side of the frontier).

The following reading from an interview with Mouffe makes this connection explicit.

[PDF] Hegemony, democracy, agonism and journalism: an interview with ...

In this interview, Mouffe discusses the relationship between hegemony, exclusion, and political frontiers. It provides a direct link between the concept of the 'constitutive outside' and the need to form a 'chain of equivalence' for a hegemonic project.

First, read the two paragraphs under the heading "If every order...", where Mouffe states, "there is no consensus without exclusion." This reinforces that any political order is built on what it leaves out. Then, skip down several pages to find the paragraph that begins with this sentence. Here, Mouffe explicitly states that a "common adversary" is required to establish a chain of equivalence and that politics is fundamentally about creating frontiers.

This directly applies to your research. China's ability to unite diverse African states under the banner of 'Cyber Sovereignty' depends on successfully constructing a common adversary: a Western-dominated digital order portrayed as 'digital colonialism'. This 'constitutive outside' provides the gravitational pull that holds the 'chain of equivalence' together.

This world map illustrates a tangible outcome of this antagonistic frontier. The division between countries using or planning to use Huawei's 5G technology (blue) and those banning or restricting it (red/orange) is not just a technical or economic choice; it is a geopolitical manifestation of the competing hegemonic projects and the frontier that divides them.

3. Mobilizing the 'Constitutive Outside' for Your Analysis

As you analyze Chinese policy documents, speeches, and media reports related to the Digital Silk Road, you can now move beyond simply noting anti-Western rhetoric. You can analyze it through the lens of this powerful theoretical concept.

Ask yourself these questions:

  1. Who is the 'Constitutive Outside'? Identify how Chinese discourse constructs the 'they'. Is it the United States specifically? Is it a broader "West"? Is it an abstract concept like "liberal interventionism," "cyber-hegemony," or "digital colonialism"? The specific construction of this 'other' is a crucial strategic choice.

  2. How is the Frontier Drawn? Look for the discursive moments where the 'they' is framed as an existential threat. This happens when Chinese discourse argues that the Western model doesn't just offer a different approach, but actively prevents development, undermines sovereignty, and imposes foreign values. This rhetoric transforms a simple difference into an antagonism.

  3. How Does this 'Outside' Constitute the 'Inside'? Analyze how this construction of a threatening 'other' enables China to position itself and its DSR project as the solution.

    • If the West is a 'cyber-hegemon', then China is a champion of a 'multipolar' digital world.
    • If the West is a 'digital colonizer', then China offers 'win-win cooperation' based on mutual respect.
    • If the West imposes its values, then China upholds the principle of 'cyber sovereignty'.

Each positive attribute of China's project is defined in direct opposition to the negative attributes assigned to its 'constitutive outside'. This is the core mechanism of hegemonic identity formation.


Conclusion

In this lesson, we have moved from the practicalities of ideological language to the philosophical underpinnings of political identity. We have defined the 'constitutive outside' as the excluded 'other' that is paradoxically necessary for the formation of any 'we'.

Key Takeaways:

  • Identity is Relational: Political identity is not an inherent essence but is formed by establishing a boundary against an 'other'.
  • The Antagonistic Frontier: This boundary becomes an 'antagonistic frontier' when the 'other' is perceived as an existential threat, transforming a 'we/they' difference into a 'friend/enemy' conflict.
  • Hegemony Requires a Frontier: A successful hegemonic project depends on establishing such a frontier to define a 'common adversary', which serves to unify a 'chain of equivalence' among its followers.

You now have two complementary tools. Van Dijk's Ideological Square helps you analyze the rhetorical content of the 'Us vs. Them' divide, while Mouffe's theory explains its political function in forging identity and power.

In our next lesson, we will bring these two frameworks together. We will synthesize them to conduct a more nuanced analysis of how China's discourse on 'digital colonialism' uses the strategies of the Ideological Square to construct the West as a 'constitutive outside', thereby legitimizing its own hegemonic project in Africa.