ABSTRACT
Here the argument of the book is summarised, and a couple of political conclusions added. It is argued that the plurality of singular antagonisms allows one to identify with each one differently. There is no social-ontological tribunal that would allow a person to prioritise one demand over another. Individual human beings might simply find themselves more strongly interpellated in one direction or another. Thus, we can go beyond current sterile debates on the left regarding which come first, economic questions or so-called questions of ‘identity’, since both such positions misrecognise the space within such a competition supposedly takes place. A person might even find themselves on the progressive side of one struggle and the conservative side of another, or question the very existence of a specific antagonism. All this should allow politics to truly flow, since its fundamentally antagonistic nature can now be embraced. A ‘populism of singularities’ might also allow us to properly understand that politics is never really about utopian dreams of creating a better society. Neither is it about ‘ruling’ or ‘taking power’. Nor is it about creating a new ‘common sense’. It is simply a struggle for justice, in a specific situation (of which there may be many).
