Chantal Mouffe's 1993 book The Return of the Political is my book of the year to date. In The Democratic Paradox Mouffe continues her project of delineating the concept and need to an agonistic understanding of contemporary political pluralism. Mouffe returns to some of the earlier points she had raised concerning the political philosophers of liberalism Rawls and Habermas that, in their own ways, they advance a politics of mediocrity.
However, the feel of The Democratic Paradox is a noticeably more assessable and practical one than her earlier The Return of the Political. First, whereas her former book is an expressly theoretical book The Democratic Paradox is written as written in a more accessible manner, and does not require the same level of background knowledge. As such it is perhaps a better introduction to Mouffe's though even though it is less comprehensive. Second and most importantly, Mouffe has clearly shown how her theory of agonistic pluralism is not only relevant but vital for a properly functioning democracy.
Mouffe as I have said rehearses her previous arguments on the state of liberal political philosophy and also her critical appropriation of the German jurist Carl Schmitt. Speaking to a British context in one of Mouffe discusses the New Labour project of the now former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and it's intellectual advocate the sociologist Anthony Giddens. This strategy, that also has ideological roots in the Clinton administration and its policy of triangulation, labels itself the 'radical centre'. In short, 'New' Labour's position is “envisaged as occupying a position which, be being located above left and right, thereby manages to overcome their old antagonism. Unlike the traditional centre, which lies in the middle of the political spectrum between right and left, this we are told, is a 'radical centre' that transcends the traditional left/right division by articulating themes and values from both sides in a new synthesis” (p. 108). Since Mouffe's analysis it is interesting to note that we have seen the Conservative Party under its new leader David Cameron heading in a similar direction.
The result, argues Mouffe, is that we have a politics devoid of difference which is a reason for the rise in the poplarity of the far right political movements such as the British National Party. So somewhat ironically Mouffe introduces the Schmitt inspired concept of agonistic pluralism which emphasises the necessity of conflict in political life (which is termed “the political”). Mouffe explains that
introducing the category of 'adversary' requires complexifying the notion of antagonism and distinguishing two different forms in which it can emerge, antagonism properly speaking and agonism. Antagonism is struggle between enemies, while agonism is struggle between adversaries. We can therefore reformulate our problem by saying that envisaged from the perspective of 'agonistic pluralism' the aim of democratic politics is to transform antagonism into agonism (p. 102-103).
The more I read and reflect on the problem of difference (or the lack thereof) in the political process, the more I am persuaded by Mouffe's analysis. One of the key advantages of such an approach is highlighted at the conclusion of the paragraph from which i have just cited. In an agonistic pluralist approach “the prime task of democratic politics is not to eliminate passions [such as religion] from the sphere of the public, in order to render a rational consensus possible, but to mobilize those passions towards democratic designs”.
Mouffe is clear that there comes a point at which her radical democratic project is violent; for nonviolent Christian this of course raises some difficulties. I do not intend to in any way diminish this difficulty for it is real and it is where the logic of the Friend/Enemy distinction present in Schmitt's The Concept of the Political mirrors itself in Mouffe's thought. However, by way of mitigation I do not see that Mouffe's account is any more violent than other approaches to the political, the ruling liberal paradigm included. It is a subject I hope to return to in the future.
Recent Comments