Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-4ct9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-07T01:16:55.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Mouffe's Agonism

Why It Is Not a Refutation of Consensus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

George Vasilev
George Vasilev*
Affiliation:
La Trobe University
*
g.vasilev@latrobe.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chantal Mouffe's conceptualization of a deliberatively forged consensus as a hegemony and her assertion that adversarial politics best nurtures the conditions of freedom have had a profound influence on contemporary democratic thought. This article takes a critical view of this trend, arguing that a norm of consensus is a very precondition, rather than impediment, for the kind of pluralistic democracy Mouffe and other agonists wish to promote. It is asserted that Mouffe's dehistoricized refutation of consensus lacks causal or explanatory relevance to how concrete actors embedded in empirical situations relate to one another and that the very preparedness to find something acceptable about another is at the heart of what it means to treat others justly.

Keywords

agonismChantal Mouffeconflictconsensusdeliberative democracyJürgen Habermas

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , June 2015 , pp. 4 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Democratic Theory 2015

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

Abizadeh, Arash. 2005. “Does Collective Identity Presuppose an Other? On the Alleged Incoherence of Global Solidarity.” American Political Science Review 99 (1): 45–60.10.1017/S0003055405051488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellamy, Richard. 1999. Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Compromise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bray, Daniel. 2011. Pragmatic Cosmopolitanism: Representation and Leadership in Transnational Democracy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230342965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2003. “Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–326.10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology. Trans. Spivak, Gayatri. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John, and Simon, Niemeyer. 2006. “Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 634–649.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00206.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Eva. 2009. “What Is Wrong with Agonistic Pluralism? Reflections on Conflict in Democratic Theory.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 35 (9): 1039–1062.10.1177/0191453709343385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritsch, Matthias. 2008. “Antagonism and Democratic Citizenship (Schmitt, Mouffe, Derrida).” Research in Phenomenology 38: 174–197.10.1163/156916408X286950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, Gerald F. 1997. “Reason, Justification, and Consensus.” Pp. 205–242 in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. Bohman, James. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/2324.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gheciu, Alexandra. 2005. “Security Institutions as Agents of Socialisation? NATO and the ‘New Europe’.” International Organization 59: 973–1012.10.1017/S0020818305050332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis, Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis, Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400826339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Trans. Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Peter, and Ian, O’Flynn. 2013. “Can a Compromise be Fair?” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 12 (2): 115–135.10.1177/1470594X12447773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanra, Bora. 2005. “Democracy, Islam and Dialogue: The Case of Turkey.” Government and Opposition 40 (4): 515–540.10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00163.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingwell, Mark. 1995. A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Knops, Andrew. 2007. “Debate: Agonism as Deliberation—on Mouffe's Theory of Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (1): 115–126.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2007.00267.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Adrian. 2007. “Between Disagreement and Consensus: Unravelling the Democratic Paradox.” Australian Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 1–17.10.1080/10361140601158591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markell, Patchen. 1997. “Contesting Consensus: Rereading Habermas on the Public Sphere.” Constellations 3 (3): 377–400.10.1111/j.1467-8675.1997.tb00066.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Alfred. 2013. “Deference in Numbers: Consensus, Dissent and Judgement in Mill's Account of Authority.” Political Studies 62 (S1): 187–201.10.1111/1467-9248.12066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Schaap, Andrew. 2004. “Political Reconciliation through a Struggle for Recognition.” Social and Legal Studies 13 (4): 523–540.10.1177/0964663904047332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 2007. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226738840.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharples, R. W. 1994. “Plato on Democracy and Expertise.” Greece & Rome 41 (1): 49–56.10.1017/S0017383500023196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tully, James. 2004. “Recognition and Dialogue: The Emergence of a New Field.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 7 (3): 84–106.10.1080/1369823042000269401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, Jeremy. 2001. “The Hegemony of Hegemony.” History of the Human Sciences 14 (1): 88–104.10.1177/095269510101400105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasilev, George. 2015a. Solidarity Across Divides: Promoting the Moral Point of View. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Vasilev, George. 2015b. “The Uneasy Alliance between Consensus and Democracy.” The Review of Politics 77 (1): 73–98.10.1017/S0034670514000849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2002. “Deliberative Democracy.” Pp. 173–201 in Democratic Theory Today: Challenges for the 21st Century, ed. Carter, April and Stokes, Geoffrey. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2007. “Institutionalising Deliberative Democracy.” Pp. 272–288 in Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, ed. Rosenberg, Shawn W.. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230591080_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zartman, William. 2008. Negotiation and Conflict: Essays on Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar