Abstract
How can an alternative to liberal democracy and neoliberalism be developed? This question has occupied a number of political theorists from the Left, including Chantal Mouffe. This paper provides a discussion of Mouffe’s notion of radical democracy by drawing on concepts from Ernesto Laclau’s discourse theory. The paper starts out by providing a detailed description of Mouffe’s model with a focus on its underlying conditions of possibility. Here, two factors are highlighted: an allegiance to ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ and a common trust in democratic institutions. By reading these conditions through the work of Laclau, the paper argues for an increased attentiveness towards the ways in which discourses become sedimented and neutralized over time. The paper argues that Mouffe tends to downplay the role of normativity and institutions in favor of democratic practices. Highlighting these areas, this article argues, is a call for a further radicalization of radical democracy going forward.
Highlights
Den belgiske politiske filosof Chantal Mouffe har over flere årtier udarbejdet en model for såkaldt radikalt demokrati
Særligt venstrefløjen har tematiseret disse som et led i en kritik af det kapitalistiske system, blandt andet i form af Jürgen Habermas’ (2009 [1962]) model for deliberativt demokrati samt Chantal Mouffes (2005; 2013) post-Marxistiske model for radikalt demokrati (Khan 2013; Karppinen, Moe og Svensson 2008; Kapoor 2002)
Ved at trække på centrale begreber fra den argentinske filosof Ernesto Laclau (1990; 1996) vil jeg foretage en teoretisk problematisering af det radikale demokratis mulighedsbetingelser
Summary
Mouffes model for demokrati blev for alvor lanceret i 1985 med Hegemony and Socialist Strategy skrevet i fællesskab med Laclau. I modsætning til den ortodokse Marxistiske opfattelse af social transformation – der ser dette som et udtryk for et tiltagende antagonistisk forhold mellem forskellige klasser – tager Mouffe udgangspunkt i en radikalisering og udbygning af det eksisterende demokrati. Spørgsmålet er nu, ud fra disse kritikpunkter af alle de elementer der traditionelt set ikke kan indeholdes i demokratiet, hvordan der kan etableres en model, der på en og samme tid tager hensyn til antagonisme og konflikt fremfor konsensus og orden, affekt og passioner fremfor rendyrket fornuft samt pluralisme og kollektivisme fremfor aggregeret individualisme. Radikalt demokrati handler dermed ikke om at stoppe eller forhindre magtrelationer, men derimod om at skabe institutionelle rum, hvori konflikt kan indeholdes. Hvilke konditioner opstiller Mouffe egentlig for implementeringen af agonisme og radikalt demokrati? Hvad skal der til for at skabe dette alternativ?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
