For Lefort, writing and language are not neutral communication tools but are imbued with political significance. They are symbolic practices that both reflect and shape the social order. In democratic societies, writing is of special importance because it embodies the principles of openness, debate, and contestation that define democratic life. In this context, writing becomes …
Claude Lefort, a prominent French political philosopher, offers a profound analysis of the nature of political societies, focusing on their underlying structures or “political forms.” His work engages with the dynamics of modern regimes, particularly democracy, bureaucracy, and totalitarianism. By exploring the symbolic structures of political societies, Lefort brings to light the critical differences in how power is represented, contested, and institutionalized in various regimes. Moreover, his thought touches upon the concept of Natural Right, which has a rich intellectual tradition in political philosophy, most notably advanced by Leo Strauss.
This essay will examine Lefort’s understanding of the “political form” and its significance for grasping the nature of political regimes. It will also explore Lefort’s engagement with Strauss’s concept of Natural Right, analyzing how Lefort’s critique of modern political systems, especially totalitarianism, resonates with Strauss’s philosophical concerns. Although Lefort is not a direct disciple of Strauss, their intellectual engagement offers a fascinating dialogue about modernity’s moral and political conditions. Through this, the essay will highlight Lefort’s contributions to contemporary political theory and his subtle indebtedness to Strauss’s critique of modern relativism.
Political Forms in Lefort’s Thought
Lefort’s notion of the “political form” is central to his political philosophy. By political form, Lefort refers to the symbolic structure that underlies any given society, shaping its institutions, modes of governance, and the relationship between rulers and the ruled. This concept extends beyond the mere institutional framework of a political system; it addresses the deeper symbolic order that defines the nature of authority, legitimacy, and participation within a society.
In The Political Forms of Modern Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism (1986), Lefort argues that the political form of a society is crucial to understanding how power operates within it. In pre-modern societies, political power was embodied in a monarch or sovereign who claimed divine authority and symbolized the unity of the people and the state. This symbolic unity was mirrored in the hierarchical structure of society, with the king or emperor at the apex, representing a direct connection to a transcendent order.
With the advent of modernity, however, the political form of society underwent a radical transformation. The emergence of democratic regimes signaled the end of the symbolic unity of power, as a sovereign ruler no longer filled the place of power. Instead, power became “empty,” open to contestation, and subject to the will of the people. Lefort describes this as the “empty place of power,” a concept central to his understanding of democracy.
The Empty Place of Power and Democratic Society
In democratic societies, Claude Lefort argues that power is no longer concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or institution, as it often was in pre-modern or monarchical regimes. This shift represents a radical break from the earlier conception of sovereignty, where power was personified by a king, emperor, or ruling figure believed to derive their authority from divine or transcendent sources. Instead, in modern democratic regimes, power becomes depersonalized and abstracted—no longer embodied in any individual or institution. Lefort introduces the idea of the “empty place of power,” a central concept in his political thought. This idea suggests that in a democracy, power is not fixed or owned by any one party or figure but remains open to contestation and constant redefinition. Power in democratic societies is thus continually renegotiated through public debate, political competition, and the active participation of citizens. It is a space where authority is never fully stabilized, creating a dynamic and fluid political landscape.
The “empty place of power” signifies a departure from the traditional notion of political legitimacy, where authority was seen as permanent and derived from a higher, often divine, order. In contrast, Lefort argues that democratic authority is contingent, subject to the ongoing negotiation processes between citizens and their representatives. In this sense, power is never absolute or unquestionable; its legitimacy is always provisional, dependent on the people’s political will and collective actions. This continuous contestation makes democratic systems inherently unstable but also profoundly adaptable. For Lefort, this openness is not a weakness but a defining strength of democratic regimes. It allows for expressing diverse viewpoints and the possibility of institutional transformation, ensuring that no individual or group can monopolize political power indefinitely.
In Democracy and Political Theory (1989), Lefort emphasizes that the defining characteristic of democracy is its institutionalization of division, uncertainty, and pluralism. Unlike totalitarian regimes, which claim to embody the people’s singular will or possess the ultimate truth about society, democratic regimes acknowledge the inherent diversity of opinions, interests, and values within the political community. They recognize that no political authority can fully represent the totality of society or embody an unchanging truth. This acknowledgment of plurality makes democracy a dynamic and open-ended political form. It creates a space for contestation, where individuals and groups can challenge existing power structures, propose alternative political visions, and engage in political transformation processes. In this way, democracy institutionalizes conflict and change as essential features of political life.
For Lefort, the continuous possibility of conflict and change distinguishes democracy from more authoritarian or totalitarian forms of government. Totalitarian regimes, by contrast, attempt to erase political divisions and suppress dissent, presenting themselves as the complete and unquestionable embodiment of the people’s will. They seek to eliminate uncertainty by asserting absolute control over both the political and social realms, denying any possibility of opposition or pluralism. Democracy, on the other hand, thrives on uncertainty and division, making it a more resilient and adaptive political system. It is the capacity for change and renewal, fostered by the openness of the “empty place of power,” that allows democracy to remain responsive to the shifting needs and desires of its citizens. Democracy is not a static regime but an ongoing political process that continuously reshapes itself through conflict, contestation, and negotiation.
Totalitarianism: The Closure of the Political Space
Claude Lefort’s political theory draws a sharp contrast between the open, contested nature of democratic regimes and the closure of political space in totalitarian regimes. For Lefort, democracy is defined as the “empty place of power,” where political authority is constantly in flux, open to debate, and never fully possessed by any individual or institution. This openness allows for pluralism, contestation, and the ongoing renegotiation of power. Totalitarian regimes, by contrast, represent the antithesis of this dynamic. In totalitarian systems, power is no longer open or contested. Instead, it is fully embodied by the state, which claims to represent the totality of society and its interests. The totalitarian state presents itself as the absolute authority, collapsing any distinction between the state and society and asserting control over every aspect of social, cultural, and political life.
Lefort argues that totalitarianism fundamentally alters the symbolic structure of political life. In democratic regimes, the symbolic space remains open, allowing for the expression of dissent and the contestation of political authority. This openness enables democracy to be flexible, adaptive, and responsive to the evolving needs of its citizens. In totalitarian regimes, however, the symbolic space is closed off entirely. The state claims to embody the will of the people in its entirety, eliminating the need for political debate or alternative viewpoints. This totalization of political authority means that the state no longer allows for any meaningful distinction between rulers and the ruled, between the public and the private, or between political and non-political spheres of life.
This closure of symbolic space in totalitarianism has profound consequences for society. Lefort explains that totalitarian regimes seek to homogenize society by erasing all forms of difference, diversity, and plurality. In such a system, there is no room for independent thought, dissent, or political action because the state claims to possess the ultimate truth about society, history, and the human condition. The totalitarian state positions itself as the final arbiter of meaning, dictating political life and cultural and social norms. This leads to a complete absorption of society into the political domain, where every aspect of life is subject to state control and manipulation. The result is eliminating the symbolic distinctions crucial to political freedom and the flourishing of a pluralistic society.
Lefort’s critique of totalitarianism is deeply rooted in this symbolic closure. He argues that totalitarianism represents the ultimate denial of the political in the sense that it collapses the space where political action, disagreement, and debate can occur. In a democratic regime, power is never wholly owned; it is always in question and contested. However, in a totalitarian system, the state assumes complete authority, leaving no room for individuals or groups to challenge its legitimacy or propose alternative visions for society. This erasure of political contestation leads to the erasure of political freedom itself. Therefore, totalitarianism does not merely restrict political activity; it eradicates the conditions that make politics possible by absorbing society into the state’s vision of absolute truth.
The symbolic closure of totalitarian regimes also underscores Lefort’s broader concern with the relationship between power and society. In democratic regimes, power exists in an open and contested space, which allows for the ongoing reconfiguration of social and political relations. In totalitarian systems, by contrast, power can no longer be negotiated or challenged—it is absolute, embodied in the state, and inseparable from its authority. This obliteration of symbolic space results in the homogenization of society, where all forms of difference are subsumed under the state’s control. For Lefort, this is the ultimate danger of totalitarianism: it extinguishes the possibility of political life by eliminating the very distinctions that allow for freedom, plurality, and the ongoing negotiation of power within society. In his view, maintaining symbolic openness in democratic regimes is essential to preserving political freedom and resisting the totalizing tendencies of authoritarianism.
Bureaucracy and Democracy
Claude Lefort examines the inherent tension between bureaucracy and democracy, particularly in modern liberal democracies. In Lefort’s analysis, bureaucracy involves the depersonalization and routinization of political power. It functions through a rigid framework of rules, regulations, and procedures that, while essential for managing complex societies, often remove the immediacy and vibrancy of direct political contestation. As power becomes more bureaucratically managed, it also becomes less visible and more abstract, distancing itself from the dynamic interactions that are central to the political process in a democratic regime. Lefort acknowledges that bureaucracy is crucial in maintaining order and efficiency, especially in large and highly structured societies. Still, he is deeply concerned with the implications this has for the vitality of democratic life.
The central problem Lefort identifies is that the rise of bureaucracy in democratic societies can lead to the ossification of political institutions. Over time, these institutions become more rigid and less adaptable to the changing needs and desires of the people they are meant to serve. Bureaucratic systems tend to prioritize procedural correctness and the maintenance of existing structures over responsiveness to the political will of the populace. As a result, citizens may feel alienated from the political process, as their ability to meaningfully participate in decision-making is diminished. This alienation arises from the complexity and impersonality of bureaucratic procedures and the perception that political institutions are becoming less open to public input and debate. Lefort views this disconnection as a significant threat to the democratic principle of active political engagement.
Lefort argues that the health of a democratic society depends on maintaining a delicate balance between bureaucratic efficiency and the openness of political contestation. While some level of bureaucracy is necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of governmental operations, it should never be allowed to dominate or stifle the broader political sphere. For Lefort, the danger lies in bureaucracy’s tendency to solidify into a self-perpetuating system that operates with little accountability or transparency. When bureaucratic systems become too insulated from political contestation, they undermine the democratic ideal of power, constantly subjected to scrutiny and challenge by the people. This is particularly concerning because democracy, as Lefort understands it, thrives on the uncertainty and flux of political life—where power is always contestable. The institutions of power must remain flexible enough to adapt to new challenges.
To counterbalance the risks posed by bureaucratic rigidity, Lefort emphasizes the need to preserve spaces for political debate and engagement within democratic societies. Democratic politics, in Lefort’s view, requires ongoing participation, the constant questioning of authority, and the active involvement of citizens in shaping the direction of their government. This participatory aspect of democracy is essential for preventing bureaucracy from becoming an entrenched and unresponsive force. For Lefort, the challenge lies in ensuring that democratic institutions do not become mere administrative mechanisms, disconnected from the vibrant and open-ended political contestation crucial for democratic life. In sum, Lefort calls for a vigilant approach to safeguarding democracy from the encroachments of bureaucracy, advocating for a political environment where openness, responsiveness, and contestation remain central.
Political Regimes and Natural Right
Claude Lefort’s exploration of political regimes indirectly engages with the concept of Natural Right, a central theme in the work of Leo Strauss. Strauss, a German-American political philosopher, devoted much of his intellectual energy to critiquing the decline of natural right in modern political thought. For Strauss, Natural Right refers to a universal moral order inherent in nature and can be accessed through reason. This concept stands in stark opposition to the relativistic and historicist trends that have come to dominate modern conceptions of justice, which Strauss believed had eroded the possibility of establishing objective moral and political standards. In Strauss’s view, the loss of this grounding opened the door to political instability and, more dangerously, to totalitarian ideologies that impose their own arbitrary conception of truth.
Lefort does not directly reference Strauss’s specific arguments about Natural Right. Still, his critique of modernity and totalitarianism reveals a shared concern with contemporary societies’ moral and political crises. Lefort’s work addresses how totalitarian regimes eliminate the symbolic structures that allow for distinction between law, politics, and morality. In doing so, totalitarianism erases the space for individual moral judgment or dissent, subsuming all aspects of human life under the state’s authority. In this sense, totalitarianism denies any notion of a moral order outside the political, reflecting Strauss’s critique of regimes that sever the connection between politics and universal ethical principles. Lefort’s concept of the collapse of symbolic space in totalitarian regimes aligns with Strauss’s argument that without a transcendent moral framework like Natural Right, political regimes are at risk of total domination by a single authority.
For Lefort, totalitarian regimes represent the ultimate denial of both political freedom and moral autonomy precisely because they claim to embody the totality of society fully. In such regimes, there is no external space from which individuals can judge or critique the state. This symbolic and moral closure resonates with Strauss’s critique of modern relativism, which he argued leads to nihilism or the imposition of arbitrary power without objective moral standards. Strauss viewed the decline of Natural Right as creating fertile ground for totalitarian regimes, which fill the vacuum left by the erosion of universal ethical principles with ideologies that claim to offer a complete and absolute truth.
While Lefort does not advocate for a return to Natural Right as Strauss does, he shares Strauss’s concerns about the dangers of relativism and the collapse of moral distinctions in modern politics. Lefort’s focus on the symbolic nature of power in democratic regimes offers an alternative framework for thinking about how societies can resist totalitarianism without needing a fixed moral order. Lefort believes that democratic societies, by keeping the “empty place of power” open and allowing for contestation and debate, can maintain a space for political and moral plurality. This openness prevents the state from claiming total authority and allows individuals to engage in ethical and political judgment. In this way, Lefort’s thought offers a different, though complementary, approach to the problem of relativism that Strauss critiques.
Both Lefort and Strauss are concerned with how modern political regimes grapple with the loss of transcendent moral authority and the rise of ideologies that claim to embody the totality of truth. Strauss’s response calls for a revival of Natural Right, a return to a universal moral order grounded in nature. Conversely, Lefort emphasizes the importance of symbolic openness in democratic regimes, where power is always subject to contestation and no authority can claim absolute truth. While their solutions differ, Lefort and Strauss offer valuable insights into the challenges of modern political life, particularly in their critiques of totalitarianism and their shared belief in the necessity of maintaining a space for moral and political judgment outside of state authority.
Lefort’s Intellectual Engagement with Strauss
Although Lefort and Strauss approach political theory from different perspectives, they have a clear intellectual resonance. Both thinkers are concerned with the crisis of modernity, particularly the dangers of totalitarianism and the relativism that characterizes much of modern political thought. Strauss critiques modernity for its rejection of natural right and its embrace of relativism, arguing that this has eroded objective moral and political standards.
Lefort, while not advocating a return to natural right in the same way as Strauss, shares Strauss’s concern about the dangers of relativism. In totalitarian regimes, the collapse of symbolic distinctions leads to a form of political absolutism, where the state claims to represent the truth in its entirety. This is similar to Strauss’s critique of modern relativism, where the absence of objective moral standards leads to the rise of totalitarian ideologies that claim to embody the truth.
For Strauss, Natural Right serves as a safeguard against the dangers of relativism and totalitarianism. By grounding political life in objective moral standards, Strauss argues, we can prevent the rise of political systems that claim to represent the totality of society. Strauss advocates a return to classical natural right, particularly the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, who grounded their political thought in a conception of nature and reason.
While not a natural right theorist in the same sense, Lefort acknowledges the importance of symbolic structures that maintain the distinction between power and society. In democratic regimes, the “empty place of power” represents the recognition that no political authority can fully embody the people’s truth or will. In Lefort’s view, this openness to contestation and pluralism is essential for preventing the rise of totalitarian ideologies.
Writing and Political Symbolism
In his later work, particularly in Writing: The Political Test (2000), Claude Lefort focuses on the role of culture and symbolism in shaping political life. For Lefort, political power is not confined to formal institutions like governments, laws, or constitutions. Instead, it extends to the symbolic practices that structure our understanding of society and influence how we interact with power. In this sense, writing becomes a central site for expressing political ideas and struggles. Through writing, individuals and groups can engage with the fundamental issues of power, authority, and legitimacy. Writing becomes a way of testing and challenging the boundaries of political thought, serving as a medium where the political is constantly negotiated and redefined.
For Lefort, writing and language are not neutral communication tools but are imbued with political significance. They are symbolic practices that both reflect and shape the social order. In democratic societies, writing is of special importance because it embodies the principles of openness, debate, and contestation that define democratic life. In this context, writing becomes a form of political action, a way of engaging with and potentially transforming the political landscape. Lefort emphasizes that the symbolic nature of writing allows for a multiplicity of voices and perspectives to be heard, contributing to the pluralism and diversity that are essential to the functioning of a democratic society.
One of the critical insights Lefort provides in Writing: The Political Test is that symbolic practices like writing serve as a means of challenging established power structures. In totalitarian regimes, where power seeks to close off all avenues of dissent and contestation, the symbolic space for political action is severely restricted. In contrast, democratic societies thrive on the ongoing negotiation of power relations, where writing plays a crucial role in keeping the space of political contestation open. Through the act of writing, individuals can resist the closure of the political space by questioning authority, expressing dissent, and proposing alternative visions of society. Lefort sees writing as a vital mechanism through which the symbolic openness of democracy is maintained.
Moreover, Lefort’s analysis of writing as a “political test” emphasizes the idea that political thought is never settled or finalized. Just as political power in a democracy is never fully possessed by any one individual or group, political thought is never complete. Writing, therefore, becomes a continuous process of engagement, a way of testing the limits of political theory and practice. Lefort views writing as an ongoing political experiment that allows for articulating new ideas, the revision of existing norms, and creating spaces for alternative forms of political engagement. This dynamic process reflects Lefort’s broader understanding of democracy as a regime that institutionalizes uncertainty and embraces contestation.
Finally, Lefort’s exploration of political symbolism through writing also connects to his broader concern with how societies represent and understand themselves. In democratic societies, writing and other symbolic practices contribute to the ongoing construction of collective identities. These identities are never fixed or predetermined but are constantly reshaped through political discourse and symbolic representation. In totalitarian regimes, on the other hand, the state seeks to impose a single, unified identity on society, closing off the possibility for pluralism and dissent. Writing, for Lefort, becomes a critical tool in resisting such totalizing tendencies by keeping the space for political contestation and diversity of identity open. Through writing, individuals and groups can imagine and articulate alternative futures, challenging the dominant narratives imposed by those in power.
Thus, Writing: The Political Test highlights the importance of symbolic practices in political life, particularly in democratic societies where openness, contestation, and pluralism are fundamental. For Lefort, writing is not merely a reflection of political thought but an active participant in shaping the political realm. It is a way of testing the boundaries of political possibility, engaging in the ongoing process of political action, and resisting the closure of political space by authoritarian regimes. Through writing, individuals and societies can continually redefine their political futures, keeping the space of democracy alive and vibrant.
Conclusion: Political Forms, Regimes, and Natural Right
Claude Lefort’s work offers a profound and multifaceted exploration of political forms, regimes, and the symbolic structures that undergird them. Central to his analysis is the concept of the “empty place of power” in democratic societies, a notion that symbolizes the radical openness and fluidity that characterize democratic politics. Lefort’s insight that power in a democracy is never fully possessed but remains open to contestation captures the unique nature of democratic regimes. This starkly contrasts the closed and totalizing nature of totalitarianism, where power is embodied in the state, which claims to represent the totality of society. Lefort’s critique of totalitarianism, which suppresses political plurality and symbolic openness, reflects his broader concern with preserving the space for political contestation and change—essential elements of a vibrant democracy.
Lefort’s analysis of totalitarianism, particularly its symbolic closure, resonates with concerns raised by Leo Strauss regarding modern political thought. Strauss warned against the dangers of relativism and the erosion of natural right in modernity, arguing that the absence of a fixed, transcendent moral order opened the door to totalitarian ideologies that claim to embody absolute truth. While Lefort does not share Strauss’s commitment to recovering classical natural right, he is similarly concerned with the political dangers that arise when power becomes absolute and incontestable. For Lefort and Strauss, the suppression of plurality and the elimination of political space—whether through totalitarianism or relativism—pose severe threats to political freedom and human dignity.
However, Lefort’s vision of political freedom diverges significantly from Strauss’s. While Strauss advocates for a return to natural right to ground political life in objective moral principles, Lefort embraces the indeterminacy and contestation that define modern democracy. Lefort’s emphasis on the symbolic openness of democratic regimes provides an alternative path to safeguarding political freedom that does not rely on recovering a fixed moral order. Instead, Lefort argues that the absence of such a grounding—the “empty place of power”—allows for the continuous negotiation and redefinition of political authority. This openness makes democracy resilient and adaptable, capable of withstanding the pressures of absolutism and ideological closure.
Lefort’s thought also provides a compelling response to the challenges of modern political life without resorting to the fixed foundations of natural right. By emphasizing the symbolic nature of political power, Lefort demonstrates how democratic societies can maintain their pluralism and openness without descending into relativism or nihilism. In Lefort’s framework, political freedom is preserved by maintaining symbolic spaces that allow for debate, contestation, and the continual re-articulation of collective identities. This ongoing negotiation process, rather than a return to natural right, sustains the vitality of democratic life. For Lefort, democracy is not a system that needs to be anchored in eternal truths but a political form that thrives on the uncertainty and fluidity of the political arena.
While not directly indebted to Strauss, Lefort’s work shares significant concerns with Strauss’s critique of modernity, particularly the dangers posed by political absolutism and the loss of moral and political standards. Yet Lefort offers an alternative vision of political life that embraces the indeterminacy of modern democracy while safeguarding political freedom through the symbolic openness of power. This vision provides a powerful critique of totalitarianism and a robust defense of democratic pluralism, illustrating how political freedom can be maintained without needing a fixed, transcendent moral order. Lefort’s contribution to political theory thus offers a compelling vision of a political life that is open, contested, and constantly evolving, free from the dangers of both political absolutism and moral relativism.
Join the Club
Like this story? You’ll love our monthly newsletter.
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.