Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-m4fzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-03T02:19:43.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice

Democratic Theory through an Agonistic Lens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Marie Paxton
Marie Paxton*
Affiliation:
Westminster College, Salt Lake City
*
E-mail: mstaniforth@westminstercollege.edu
Get access

Abstract

This article seeks to explore democratic theory by focusing on the example of agonistic democracy, in which contest between citizens is valued for its potential to render politics more inclusive, more engaging, and more virtuous. Using Connolly and Tully's inclusivism, Chantal Mouffe's adversarialism, and David Owen's perfectionism, the article discusses democratic theory as a critique, a series of normative proposals, and a potential bridge between political theory and public policy. It is this bridge that enables democratic theory to pull together critical and normative discussions with those surrounding public policy and institutional design.

Keywords

agonistic democracydemocratic theorynew institutionalismpolitical theorypublic policy

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 85 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © Berghahn Books 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arendt, Hannah. 2013. The Human Condition, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, William, E. 2005. Pluralism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, William, E. 2017. Aspirational Fascism: The Struggle for Multifaceted Democracy under Trumpism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Dean, Rikki J. 2018. “Counter-Governance: Citizen Participation Beyond Collaboration.” Politics and Governance 6 (1): 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deveaux, Monique. 1999. “Agonism and Pluralism.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (4): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyvas, Andreas. 2009. “The Democratic Narcissus: The Agonism of the Ancients Compared to That of the (Post)Moderns.” In Law and Agonistic Politics, ed. Andrew, Schaap, 15–41. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 1996. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowndes, Vivien, and Mark, Roberts. 2013. Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowndes, Vivien, and Marie, Paxton. 2018. “Can Agonism Be Institutionalised? Can Institutions Be Agonised? Prospects for Democratic Design.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20 (3): 693–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, James. 2012. “A Post-Secular Faith: Connolly on Pluralism and Evil.” In Democracy and Pluralism: The political thought of William Connolly, ed. Alan, Finlayson, 129–143. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. The Return of the Political. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Mouffe., Chantal. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2018. For a Left Populism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich, Keith, Ansell-Pearson, and Duncan, Large. 2006. The Nietzsche Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Norval, Aletta. 2014. “Beyond Deliberation: Agonistic and Aversive Grammars of Democracy: The Question of Criteria.” In Practices of Freedom: Decentred Governance, Conflict and Democratic Participation, ed. Steven Griggs, Aletta J. Norval, and Hendrik, Wagenaar, 60–84. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, David. 1995. Nietzsche, Politics and Modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Owen, David. 2008. “Pluralism and the Pathos of Distance (or How to Relax with Style): Connolly, Agonistic Respect and the Limits of Political Theory.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 10 (2): 210–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1973. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, W. Richard. 2008. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Shahid, Waleed. 2016. “America in Populist Times: An Interview with Chantal Mouffe.” The Nation, December15. www.thenation.com/article/america-in-populist-times-an-interview-with-chantal-mouffe/.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tully, James. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tully, James. 2008a. Public Philosophy in a New Key. Volume 1: Democracy and Civic Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2008b. Public Philosophy in a New Key. Volume I1: Imperialism and Civic Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2017. “A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review 111 (1): 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wingenbach, E. 2011. Institutionalizing Agonistic Democracy: Post-Foundationalism and Political Liberalism. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1992. “Identity\Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox.” Political Theory 20 (3): 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar