Abstract

This article examines the history of plurinationality during the Chilean Constitutional Convention of 2021-2022 from an ethnographic perspective. Through the analysis of speeches, internal documents, and semi-structured interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous representatives, and drawing on Ernesto Laclau's theory, we examine plurinationality and its evolution as an 'empty signifier.' Initially, plurinationality was presented by Indigenous representatives as a signifier without specific content to 'fill' it, referring to the general recognition of all Indigenous peoples. However, as the constitutional debate developed, it became 'filled' with specific meanings, serving as the theoretical basis of the new state and, simultaneously, the target of conservative attacks, thus shifting from an empty to an ambiguous signifier. We argue that this stems from the difficulty of articulating plurinationality - which recognizes each nation in its difference - with interculturality - which seeks a shared space for relations between cultures - within a single concept and legal figure. This reflects the dilemma between recognizing difference and building the common, which entails both territorial socioeconomic and cultural-symbolic injustice. Nevertheless, the process enabled, for the first time in Chile, a debate on plurinationality led by Indigenous representatives in a body of popular representation, constituting an exercise of what Loughlin calls constitutional imagination.