The agon is the democratic political arena in which all social groups are meant to participate in. Historically, however, certain social groups have been systematically denied this access to the...Show moreThe agon is the democratic political arena in which all social groups are meant to participate in. Historically, however, certain social groups have been systematically denied this access to the agon. Using Chantal Mouffe's theory of agonism and antaongism I will explore a new term, anti-agonism, to demonstrate how certain groups violently deny other groups this access. The two key periods involved are political protests surrounding Selma (1965) as well as key protests surrounding Ferguson (2014). Anti-agonism is always based on the othering and dehumanization of others, in this case it is othering of African Americans by White Americans, specifically police and state officials. This framing of African Americans as the Other allows for anti-agonism to thrive. This paper aims to reframe the conflict, illustrating that the problem is not whether disenfranchised social groups attempt to access the agon peacefully or through violence, but the response to that is problematic. While disenfranchised groups are othered, it remains difficult for them to partake in the political arena.Show less
The question of political pluralism is an important one, given that liberal democracies must give it its due place without letting it tear apart the social fabric. One of the dominant theories...Show moreThe question of political pluralism is an important one, given that liberal democracies must give it its due place without letting it tear apart the social fabric. One of the dominant theories within political philosophy on political pluralism is deliberative democratic theory, which advocates a rational consensus. By insisting on rational conditions for political argument and consensus, it believes that it is possible to both legitimize political power and ensure freedom and equality for all. Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism is a critical response to this rationalistic framework. She maintains that instead of enabling political pluralism, deliberative democracy precludes it. In her view, rationality is not some kind of objective parameter, but a hegemonic expression of power. Inspired by Schmitt, Wittgenstein and Derrida, Mouffe argues that political pluralism requires a conflictual consensus, one in which adversaries battle over the conceptions of the ethico-political principles of liberal democracy, i.e. freedom and equality. To see which framework can better accommodate political pluralism, I will be discussing both Mouffe’s critique of deliberative democratic theory and deliberative democratic theory’s critique of Mouffe. Although Mouffe (necessarily) cannot give a conclusive argument in favour of agonistic pluralism, her deliberative democratic critics do not succeed in dispelling it.Show less
