The aim of this Ph.D. is to expand and reassess the methodological boundaries of the so-called hegemonic logic of signification by using the framework of Laclau and Mouffe's theory of hegemony and (post)structuralist theories of language. The aim is to reinterpret the theory of hegemony in order to investigate a so-called conflictual dimension of signification, from which the process of formation of political concepts is apprehended as an effect of suturing the antagonistic social space. The thesis is that the signifying structure of contemporary political concepts eludes us, that is they cease to be political if we isolate them from the concrete social turmoil and their hegemonic function. Therefore, I try to systemize the methodological and epistemological consequences of perceiving signifying practice in contemporary societies through the dimension of ineradicability of political conflicts. I wonder if a problem of continuing contestation over the meaning of political concepts can be solved by a critical reinterpretation of the theory of hegemony, through which I could offer a strategic model of interpretation and avoid the trap of the modernistic process of conceptual clarification? That is if language and/or discourse is apprehended as the field of differential elements regulated by the relations of negativity, can we ever reach a satisfying “definition” of political concepts in which the rational structure of political order would be reflected? Does the differentially of language necessarily end up in the field of conflict and division in which political concepts are sites of antagonism and incommensurability, or is it possible to imagine such “politicization” of language offering the shared symbolic framework of cooperation and consensus? The main thesis is that the theory of hegemony offers a methodologically fruitful position for understanding this problem and that it represents a middle ground between, for example, Lyotard’s postmodern view that we are always already faced with the incommensurability of linguistic positions and Habermas’ ideal of rational deliberation and consensual approach. The dissertation will be structured in a way to offer a dialogue between a broad framework of the theory of hegemony and Quentin Skinner’s linguistic contextualism, Michael Freeden’s morphology of ideologies, and Reinhart Koselleck’s conceptual history, while also demonstrating the applicative value of this framework in the analysis of the formal signifying aspects of the conceptual opposition between “left” and “right”.