This article joins a growing body of literature in recent years reexamining Chantal Mouffe’s theory of agonism in lieu of increasing polarization and the ascendance of right-wing populism. First, it argues that Mouffe’s theory of agonistic politics cannot work because it relies entirely on a never-justified and yet-unseen mutual recognition between “radical democratic citizens” who must treat one another as legitimate “adversaries” notwithstanding the necessity of generating a “conflictual conse…
Read moreThis article joins a growing body of literature in recent years reexamining Chantal Mouffe’s theory of agonism in lieu of increasing polarization and the ascendance of right-wing populism. First, it argues that Mouffe’s theory of agonistic politics cannot work because it relies entirely on a never-justified and yet-unseen mutual recognition between “radical democratic citizens” who must treat one another as legitimate “adversaries” notwithstanding the necessity of generating a “conflictual consensus.” Second, this article contends that Mouffe gravely underestimates the problem of antagonism her theory purports to solve. “Sublimating” antagonism via “agonism” is not the end of story. Antagonism still rears its head in societies committed to the ethico-political values of “liberty and equality” and existing liberal and democratic political institutions. In particular, Mouffe’s theory, buttressed by its recognition-theoretic assumptions, cannot address everyday conditions where political opponents overestimate the extent to which their “adversary” is really an “enemy” threatening democracy itself. In turn, this renders citizens more willing to tolerate democratic transgressions harming their partisan adversaries, only further solidifying this mutual suspicion. I end by offering recommendations for hegemonic coalition formation in these destabilizing conditions.
