That creates an ontological monopoly on connection

What makes the hegemonic analytic so convincing, and what is it that allows counterhegemony to appear as an irreducible necessity? I will suggest that counterhegemony is so seductive because it achieves an ontological monopoly on connection. Attempting to move beyond ‘particular’ groups (towards their connections and alliances) tends to mean conceiving of connections between molar totalities. These are the connections made intelligible through the logics of equivalence and difference, allowing them to form a counterhegemonic bloc, conceived as a new, never-fully-sutured totality. Chains of equivalence always connect molar totalities. The feminist movement ‘as a whole’ can be articulated in a chain with anti-racist and socialist movements ‘as wholes’ as well, forming a chain of equivalence in which feminism=antiracism=socialism). Or, these chains can be thought in terms of particular groups, in which a particular union is articulated together with a women’s shelter, for example. In both cases, these groups (or movements) are already conceived as bounded totalities, with insides and outsides, which are then open to rearticulation as totalities in a chain of equivalence, often united by a common goal, interest, or aim.