The them symbolizes the impossibility of any us, not a concrete opposite.

Evidence

In this case, antagonism is irreducible to a simple process of dialectical reversal: the ‘them’ is not the constitutive opposite of a concrete ‘US’, but the symbol of what makes IIny ‘us’ impossible. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 63

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: For the reader’s test of a non-exclusionary ‘we’, this is pivotal: the enemy is not a contingent opposite but the marker of positivity’s impossibility — the deepest challenge to any fully inclusive pluralism.
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: The constitutive outside exceeds dialectical negation by questioning positivity itself. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 63; Impossibility properly applies only to contradictory propositions, not to objects — Jeremy Bentham, The Panopticon Writings, 616; Environmental changes cannot cause us to abandon projects; we freely constitute the impossibility. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1198

Broader Connections

• Impossibility properly applies only to contradictory propositions, not to objects #complicates (0.85) — Jeremy Bentham, The Panopticon Writings, 616
• Environmental changes cannot cause us to abandon projects; we freely constitute the impossibility. #expands (0.75) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1198