What do you think?
Rate this book
En Torno a Lo Politico
Un mundo libre, globalizado, sin izquierda ni derecha, sin enemigos, una democracia absoluta, cosmopolita, libre de conflictos tal es la optimista visión pospolítica difundida en la mayoría de las sociedades occidentales. Chantal Mouffe pone en cuestión estas nociones en el campo de la sociología, la política y las relaciones internacionales. Su objetivo es demostrar que dichas visiones parten de una visión común antipolítica que no reconoce la dimensión antagónica de "lo político". El populismo de derecha, el terrorismo, los derechos humanos, las pasiones de las masas, los límites del pluralismo y la posibilidad de un orden mundial multipolar se analizan en este volumen.
Paperback
First published December 17, 1993
35 people are currently reading
712 people want to read
About the author
Chantal Mouffe
75 books237 followersChantal Mouffe is a Belgian political theorist. She holds a professorship at the University of Westminster in the United Kingdom. She is best known as co-author of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy with Ernesto Laclau. Their thoughts are usually described as post-Marxism as they were both politically active in the social and student movements of the 1960s including working class and new social movements (notably second-wave feminism in Mouffe's case). They rejected Marxist economic determinism and the notion of class struggle being the single crucial antagonism in society. Instead they urged for radical democracy of agonistic pluralism where all antagonisms could be expressed. In their opinion, ‘...there is no possibility of society without antagonism’; indeed, without the forces that articulate a vision of society, it could not exist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
Read
February 17, 2017'Clinton-Kane: the safe choice' isn't a bad message for a race with Donald Trump, Vox headline, 7-23-16
to quote our new chief executive, WRONG!
Politics is the Solution, Jacobin headline, 11-9-16
***dingdingding****
Full disclosure: I voted for Clinton, in California no less, and I don't regret it. However, if we're going to learn the correctly lessons from the catastrophe of the election, I think it means repudiating the de-politicized politics of the Clinton campaign. 11-8 ought to be understood as a Berlin Wall moment for technocratic liberalism, an ideology represented by publications such Vox. Clinton was supposed to embody reasonableness, decency, responsibility - all terms more or less devoid of content (except in contrast to the person of Trump). This really just isn't enough. Truly, what we need is a return to politcs. In this respect Chantal Mouffe is a valuable intellectual resource.
*
towards a new populist, anti-fascist International
https://www.thenation.com/article/ame...
*
Also, this speech from Pablo Iglesias (leader of Podemos) from a couple years ago. To be honest, the task seems pretty hopeless a lot of the time, but this really is heartening. This man really, sincerely wants to win
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/pa...
to quote our new chief executive, WRONG!
Politics is the Solution, Jacobin headline, 11-9-16
***dingdingding****
Full disclosure: I voted for Clinton, in California no less, and I don't regret it. However, if we're going to learn the correctly lessons from the catastrophe of the election, I think it means repudiating the de-politicized politics of the Clinton campaign. 11-8 ought to be understood as a Berlin Wall moment for technocratic liberalism, an ideology represented by publications such Vox. Clinton was supposed to embody reasonableness, decency, responsibility - all terms more or less devoid of content (except in contrast to the person of Trump). This really just isn't enough. Truly, what we need is a return to politcs. In this respect Chantal Mouffe is a valuable intellectual resource.
*
towards a new populist, anti-fascist International
https://www.thenation.com/article/ame...
*
Also, this speech from Pablo Iglesias (leader of Podemos) from a couple years ago. To be honest, the task seems pretty hopeless a lot of the time, but this really is heartening. This man really, sincerely wants to win
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/pa...
September 3, 2021
This is a very interesting series of essays that does a number of things. In this review, I want to focus on four areas of model building where Mouffe has advanced the literature and provided conceptualizations useful for Democratic practice in late 20th century and early 21 century Western nations.
Below I describe the contributions in this work towards: 1) Articulating a non-essentialist version of subjectivity; 2) Laying out and circumscribing the horizon of the political; 3) Articulating a radical theory of democratization; and 4) Inscribing the essential boundaries of the political.
1. Articulating a non-essentialist version of subjectivity. This is contra the old essentialist version of Marxist class consciousness. In the old essentialist version of Marxist class consciousness, the revolutionary praxis hinged on and was realized through the proletarian standpoint. There had to be proletarians for there to be a revolutionary praxis; the former was causa sui, and the praxis was predicated upon it. By contrast, in the post- post-structuralist version of subjectivity, the subject positions—e.g. LGBT, women, workers, African-Americans, Latinx, the disabled, seniors, and so on—are themselves both non-essentialist and contingent. The non-essentialism recognizes that, for instance, what you mean by “feminist” or “people with disabilities” may well be different than what I mean by those terms and positions of subjectivity, which in turn may well be different than a third person. At the same time, by virtue of their contingency, these terms and positions of subjectivity are realized by and through their articulation and their various beings and practices in the world. In other words, their articulations and their beings and practices in the world change the positions of subjectivity, and are in turn changed by them. For example, LGBT became LGBTQ, which became LBTQQIIAP. In the process, and as a result of the movement, more people recognized themselves as having fluid genders, and the movement itself expanded and obtained legalized status for gay marriage in many western nations. Mouffe speaks about a chain of equivalences and a chain of difference by and through which these various positions of subjectivity realize a common radical democratic platform. This is much easier said than done. In plain English, this would mean a coalition of women, African-Americans, Latinx, disabled Americans, seniors, and so on lead a successful electoral platform at local, state, congressional, and presidential levels. In practice and in the intervening three decades, this last point had proved to be the weakest point, and has only been achieved when it coalesced under the us-versus-them logic, described below in point four.
2. Laying out and circumscribing the horizon of the political. This layer of the work described and depicted the inherent tension between liberalism and democratic politics. The liberal theory is predicated upon the primacy of the individual realizing his or her interest in society. This has been realized through liberal pluralism and the marketplace of various pluralist interests pursued. Inherent in this pluralism is that there is no one common good, as there is no one good as the eudaemonia within liberal society. Rather, as the modus vivendi of liberal society, individuals are endowed with rights and liberties, granted by and protected by the state, which they pursue variously. In this liberal society, as mentioned in several of the essays, the individual serves as the terminus a qou and the terminus ad quem. As a corollary, the pluralistic interested are relegated to private sphere, and the individuals to the pursuit of their own private ends. This has invariably lead to an emptying out of the public sphere and the political. In reworking Carl Schmidt, Mouffe cites the tension between liberalism and democracy. In distinction from liberalism, according Schmidt, democracy is defined by the logic of identity between governed and the government. Meaning there are other versions of democracy then the liberal democracy that we have come to know and live in the West in the 21st century. Mouffe cites the examples of authoritarian democracy in modern totalitarian regimes that represented the popular will and the republican democracy of the Italian city-states in the late Middle-Ages and early Renaissance. After the crisis of parliamentarism in fin-de-ciecle Europe, the representational model has been reconstituted without its prior foundationalist strivings. In the post-World War II model, the reconstituted political is envisaged as the space where various constituencies elect their elites. In the emptied out public space, tensions are negotiated in the domain of parliamentary politics. Mouffe is committed to the democratic project and as another layer of this work articulates a radical theory of democratization.
3. Articulating a radical theory of democratization. She describes as the expansion of democracy into various other areas of our lives and societies The definition of democratization then being not just who has the right to vote but where that right to vote is exercised. This can be extrapolated to mean an alternative model as opposed to the hierarchical, patriarchal, bureaucratic models that are operative in the economic, corporate, and public spheres. It is also intended as an alternative to and a rebuke of the dictatorial and bureaucratic models that were operative in the Soviet communist block. This is the least well-developed model and conceptualization of the four described in this work. It is also one of the most intriguing. This is a promising area for Mouffe to develop further in her emeritus years or for one of her proteges or another scholar to pick-up and carry on where she handed off the torch. In many ways this is an area of intersectionality between the radical democratic political theory and public administration. Although there is much promise to the idea of expanding the areas where the right to vote is exercised, to date it has not proved an effective model of management. The greater potential may lay as an alternative model of corporate governance. In the sense that not-for-profit organizations are governed by the communities that they serve, and that governance is exercised by the boards of directors being constituted by members of those communities.
4. Inscribing the essential boundaries of the political. This responds to and reimagines the early 20th century thinking of Carl Schmidt. This includes the fundamental recognition of the essential us-versus-them logic in political reasoning. This is as old as time immemorial, where we may recall that the Greeks characterized the non-Greeks aka the barbarians as the people who made language that goes bar bar bar. More recently this is the very same logic behind every nativism whereupon every new immigrant nationality that entered America was another of them which was punched down by the last round of immigrant. This is also the logic that has reconstituted the political in the post World War II. Point being that since the 1940s and accelerating more recently that has devolved into the very tribalism and team-centric mentality underlying the red versus blue, us versus them, in the electoral politics of late 20th in early 21st century America (it was at play in the the resistance to George W. Bush's wars and policies, the reaction against Barack Obama, and now coalesces in the anti-Trump movement and the pro-Trump MAGA camp). It was the same us-versus-them at work in the us, the democratic block, versus them, the communist block, that undergird the Cold War. It was the us-versus-them of us, the democratic nations of freedom, versus them, the terrorist insurgents of insert Middle-Eastern country (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan), that characterized the George W. Bush presidency post-2001. We also see it in the friend-stranger of every current nativism, in us the Americans or the Europeans, versus them the immigrants trying to come to America via the Mexican border or them immigrants trying to come into France or Greece or Italy. Beyond every determination of an “us” there is a boundary outside of which there is inherently a “them.”
Beyond her advancements in model building and contributions to the literature, Mouffe deserves credit for the practicality of her political philosophy. It is her unique contribution that she does not just present political theory that engages with liberal, Marxist, and authoritarian theorists, she also continues to articulate contributions towards a radical democratic strategy. This strategy has been realized throughout the intervening decades from the time of this work. One case in point is the identity politics of the 1990s and onward; although of course, these movements have yet to realize the ambitions of Mouffe’s strategy. Another case is the prescience of her warnings concerning right-wing populisms. These movements have made textbooks use of the friend-enemy, us-versus-them logic described and warned about here. Working through it, we see that Mouffe was very much of her time and ahead of her time. This work is still giving us tools and frameworks to deal with the nativisms and reactionary populisms that have been infecting late 2010s Europe and America.
Below I describe the contributions in this work towards: 1) Articulating a non-essentialist version of subjectivity; 2) Laying out and circumscribing the horizon of the political; 3) Articulating a radical theory of democratization; and 4) Inscribing the essential boundaries of the political.
1. Articulating a non-essentialist version of subjectivity. This is contra the old essentialist version of Marxist class consciousness. In the old essentialist version of Marxist class consciousness, the revolutionary praxis hinged on and was realized through the proletarian standpoint. There had to be proletarians for there to be a revolutionary praxis; the former was causa sui, and the praxis was predicated upon it. By contrast, in the post- post-structuralist version of subjectivity, the subject positions—e.g. LGBT, women, workers, African-Americans, Latinx, the disabled, seniors, and so on—are themselves both non-essentialist and contingent. The non-essentialism recognizes that, for instance, what you mean by “feminist” or “people with disabilities” may well be different than what I mean by those terms and positions of subjectivity, which in turn may well be different than a third person. At the same time, by virtue of their contingency, these terms and positions of subjectivity are realized by and through their articulation and their various beings and practices in the world. In other words, their articulations and their beings and practices in the world change the positions of subjectivity, and are in turn changed by them. For example, LGBT became LGBTQ, which became LBTQQIIAP. In the process, and as a result of the movement, more people recognized themselves as having fluid genders, and the movement itself expanded and obtained legalized status for gay marriage in many western nations. Mouffe speaks about a chain of equivalences and a chain of difference by and through which these various positions of subjectivity realize a common radical democratic platform. This is much easier said than done. In plain English, this would mean a coalition of women, African-Americans, Latinx, disabled Americans, seniors, and so on lead a successful electoral platform at local, state, congressional, and presidential levels. In practice and in the intervening three decades, this last point had proved to be the weakest point, and has only been achieved when it coalesced under the us-versus-them logic, described below in point four.
2. Laying out and circumscribing the horizon of the political. This layer of the work described and depicted the inherent tension between liberalism and democratic politics. The liberal theory is predicated upon the primacy of the individual realizing his or her interest in society. This has been realized through liberal pluralism and the marketplace of various pluralist interests pursued. Inherent in this pluralism is that there is no one common good, as there is no one good as the eudaemonia within liberal society. Rather, as the modus vivendi of liberal society, individuals are endowed with rights and liberties, granted by and protected by the state, which they pursue variously. In this liberal society, as mentioned in several of the essays, the individual serves as the terminus a qou and the terminus ad quem. As a corollary, the pluralistic interested are relegated to private sphere, and the individuals to the pursuit of their own private ends. This has invariably lead to an emptying out of the public sphere and the political. In reworking Carl Schmidt, Mouffe cites the tension between liberalism and democracy. In distinction from liberalism, according Schmidt, democracy is defined by the logic of identity between governed and the government. Meaning there are other versions of democracy then the liberal democracy that we have come to know and live in the West in the 21st century. Mouffe cites the examples of authoritarian democracy in modern totalitarian regimes that represented the popular will and the republican democracy of the Italian city-states in the late Middle-Ages and early Renaissance. After the crisis of parliamentarism in fin-de-ciecle Europe, the representational model has been reconstituted without its prior foundationalist strivings. In the post-World War II model, the reconstituted political is envisaged as the space where various constituencies elect their elites. In the emptied out public space, tensions are negotiated in the domain of parliamentary politics. Mouffe is committed to the democratic project and as another layer of this work articulates a radical theory of democratization.
3. Articulating a radical theory of democratization. She describes as the expansion of democracy into various other areas of our lives and societies The definition of democratization then being not just who has the right to vote but where that right to vote is exercised. This can be extrapolated to mean an alternative model as opposed to the hierarchical, patriarchal, bureaucratic models that are operative in the economic, corporate, and public spheres. It is also intended as an alternative to and a rebuke of the dictatorial and bureaucratic models that were operative in the Soviet communist block. This is the least well-developed model and conceptualization of the four described in this work. It is also one of the most intriguing. This is a promising area for Mouffe to develop further in her emeritus years or for one of her proteges or another scholar to pick-up and carry on where she handed off the torch. In many ways this is an area of intersectionality between the radical democratic political theory and public administration. Although there is much promise to the idea of expanding the areas where the right to vote is exercised, to date it has not proved an effective model of management. The greater potential may lay as an alternative model of corporate governance. In the sense that not-for-profit organizations are governed by the communities that they serve, and that governance is exercised by the boards of directors being constituted by members of those communities.
4. Inscribing the essential boundaries of the political. This responds to and reimagines the early 20th century thinking of Carl Schmidt. This includes the fundamental recognition of the essential us-versus-them logic in political reasoning. This is as old as time immemorial, where we may recall that the Greeks characterized the non-Greeks aka the barbarians as the people who made language that goes bar bar bar. More recently this is the very same logic behind every nativism whereupon every new immigrant nationality that entered America was another of them which was punched down by the last round of immigrant. This is also the logic that has reconstituted the political in the post World War II. Point being that since the 1940s and accelerating more recently that has devolved into the very tribalism and team-centric mentality underlying the red versus blue, us versus them, in the electoral politics of late 20th in early 21st century America (it was at play in the the resistance to George W. Bush's wars and policies, the reaction against Barack Obama, and now coalesces in the anti-Trump movement and the pro-Trump MAGA camp). It was the same us-versus-them at work in the us, the democratic block, versus them, the communist block, that undergird the Cold War. It was the us-versus-them of us, the democratic nations of freedom, versus them, the terrorist insurgents of insert Middle-Eastern country (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan), that characterized the George W. Bush presidency post-2001. We also see it in the friend-stranger of every current nativism, in us the Americans or the Europeans, versus them the immigrants trying to come to America via the Mexican border or them immigrants trying to come into France or Greece or Italy. Beyond every determination of an “us” there is a boundary outside of which there is inherently a “them.”
Beyond her advancements in model building and contributions to the literature, Mouffe deserves credit for the practicality of her political philosophy. It is her unique contribution that she does not just present political theory that engages with liberal, Marxist, and authoritarian theorists, she also continues to articulate contributions towards a radical democratic strategy. This strategy has been realized throughout the intervening decades from the time of this work. One case in point is the identity politics of the 1990s and onward; although of course, these movements have yet to realize the ambitions of Mouffe’s strategy. Another case is the prescience of her warnings concerning right-wing populisms. These movements have made textbooks use of the friend-enemy, us-versus-them logic described and warned about here. Working through it, we see that Mouffe was very much of her time and ahead of her time. This work is still giving us tools and frameworks to deal with the nativisms and reactionary populisms that have been infecting late 2010s Europe and America.
Read
October 3, 2025من فقط مقالهی «تکثرگرایی و دموکراسی مدرن: دوروبر کارل اشمیت» را خواندم. موف به وضوح بیان میکند که هرچند تضاد بین لیبرالیسم و دموکراسی همانطور که کارل اشمیت میگفت واقعا وجود دارد، اما همین تنش است که ذات امر سیاسی مدرن که خصلتی تعییننکردنی و تصمیمناپذیر دارد را میسازد. موف چندین سال بعد در کتاب «دربارهی امر سیاسی» ایدههای موجود در این مقاله را بسط میدهد.
من این مقاله را با ترجمهی علیعباس بیگی و مجتبا گلمحمدی، در کتاب قانون و خشونت خواندم. با این حال ترجمهی کامل کل کتاب نیز موجود است: یکی توسط عارف اقوامی مقدم در نشر رخداد نو (اصلا توصیه نمیکنم این ترجمه را)؛ و دیگری توسط جواد گنجی در نشر نی.
من این مقاله را با ترجمهی علیعباس بیگی و مجتبا گلمحمدی، در کتاب قانون و خشونت خواندم. با این حال ترجمهی کامل کل کتاب نیز موجود است: یکی توسط عارف اقوامی مقدم در نشر رخداد نو (اصلا توصیه نمیکنم این ترجمه را)؛ و دیگری توسط جواد گنجی در نشر نی.
January 2, 2022
These essays center around themes touching on the limits of liberalism, and overall push an anti essentialist class position and the need for a radical pluralist democracy. The essays become redundant and don’t take you anywhere particularly exciting as much as theory goes, but if you like theory that takes a critical take on liberalism without rejecting pluralism, then Mouffe’s your gal.
October 22, 2020
Oh boy
So what is there to say about this book. First of all it is a collection of 9 essays, most of which have been released before. Mouffe warns us that there might be some overlap y which is a gross understatment as these are really 3 essays at most if you cut the repetition. Another complaint is that Mouffe can't go 5 sentences without quoting someone which makes this seem like Mouffe isn't arguing for her own points, but for those of ten others. Not only that, but the repetition of certain quotes through the essays makes my gallbladder shrivel.
Now to the content: what Mouffe proposes is a conpromise between liberalism and democracy, agnostic pluralism and whatever other phraseology. Anticapitalism in this "radical thinkers" book can be found, but you may require a good looking glass. A number of points of hers are straight up invalid if measured up against any materialism or god forbid, historical materialism.
There are nuggets to be found in this book, but in order to use them, a certain amount of violent disrespect to the main idea might be required.
So what is there to say about this book. First of all it is a collection of 9 essays, most of which have been released before. Mouffe warns us that there might be some overlap y which is a gross understatment as these are really 3 essays at most if you cut the repetition. Another complaint is that Mouffe can't go 5 sentences without quoting someone which makes this seem like Mouffe isn't arguing for her own points, but for those of ten others. Not only that, but the repetition of certain quotes through the essays makes my gallbladder shrivel.
Now to the content: what Mouffe proposes is a conpromise between liberalism and democracy, agnostic pluralism and whatever other phraseology. Anticapitalism in this "radical thinkers" book can be found, but you may require a good looking glass. A number of points of hers are straight up invalid if measured up against any materialism or god forbid, historical materialism.
There are nuggets to be found in this book, but in order to use them, a certain amount of violent disrespect to the main idea might be required.
May 28, 2016
Yet another set of essays by Mouffe that coalesce around a common theme: in this case, the idea of antiessentialism. While the book is prefaced with the fact that a number of the essays are repetitive, I (obviously) did not take such a warning seriously enough. The book is massively repetitive--and I think, undertheorized in many ways. Mouffe suggests, here, a democracy of differences that matter, a search for an egalitarian political life, and trains her sights on externality frequently.
Overall, the book reads as a series of complex, complicated, and interconnected musings on identity to no end. Readers of Mouffe won't find much to be surprised by in these essays.
Overall, the book reads as a series of complex, complicated, and interconnected musings on identity to no end. Readers of Mouffe won't find much to be surprised by in these essays.
May 16, 2021
.
.همیشه در حوزه فلسفه سیاسی به تمام دوستان دغدغهمند و آگاهم، مطالعه آثار ارنستو لاکلائو و شانتال موف را توصیه کردهام. لاکلائو و موف به تاسی از گرامشی، ایده دموکراسی رادیکال را برای اعاده حیثیت از مارکسیسم و بحرانهای جهان پست مدرن در پیوند آزادی و برابری پیریزی کردهاند. اما اینجا در "بازگشت امر سیاسی" موف کمی از همسر گرامی فاصله گرفته و بیشتر دست دوستی بهسمت لیبرالیسم دراز کرده است. موف در مصاحبهای بهخوبی به عمق بحران سرکوب آنتاگونیسم و توهم مارکسیسم اشاره میکند. او تضادهای جاری در جامعه را فراتر از خالهبازیِ بورژوازی و پرولتاریا میشمارد و در مقابل تقلیل منشاء تضاد به طبقات، مذاهب و اقوام آن را در تک به تک افراد جستجو میکند.
سوژه در تعریف دموکراسی رادیکال موضعی واحد نیست که ذیل طبقه یا گرایشی خاص طبقهبندی شود، بلکه برخوردی از مواضع گوناگونی است که در متن روابط اجتماعی خاص خود تعریف میشود و از فلسفه سیاسی کاری ساخته نیست، جز اینکه در این دنیای نامحدود تقابلها، به هویتسازی مشترک دست بزند تا همگی ذیل یک هویت واحد که آن هم هژمونی "آزادی و برابری" است به پیگیری منافع فردی خویش بپردازند. این انسانشناسی محصول سیطره ارزشهای پست مدرنیته و "زوال علائم یقین" است. سیاست در چنین جهانی، افقی جز حراست از آنتاگونیسم ندارد و حکومت تنها مسئول برقراری بستری برای پیگیری منافع افراد است.
دموکراسی رادیکال پروژه موفقی است که نه تنها با نگرش اتمیستی لیبرالیسم در تقدم حق بر خیر نسبتی ندارد و تضادهای فردی را در حوزه خصوصی محبوس نمیکند؛ بلکه همچون جماعتگرایان آزادی و کرامت انسانی را نیز مخدوش میکند.
پروژهای که همانطور که از نام کتاب برمیآید، به میمینت "بازگشت به امر سیاسی" میسر میشود.
. به قولی از کارل اشمیت سیاست همواره عرصه تقابل "ما" با "آنها"ست. بدون برقراری چنین نسبتی امر سیاسی از مفهوم خود تهی میشود. بازتولید این مفهوم در چرخه دموکراسی رادیکال، ارمغان ارزشمند لاکلائو و موف برای فلسفه سیاسی است.
مطالعه کتاب علاوه بر ارزش افزوده بر ذهن مخاطب، چراغ تفکر را روشن میکند. چراغی که بر به رسمیت شناختن تضادها و تکثرگرایی بهمعنای حقیقی کلمه نور میتاباند
.همیشه در حوزه فلسفه سیاسی به تمام دوستان دغدغهمند و آگاهم، مطالعه آثار ارنستو لاکلائو و شانتال موف را توصیه کردهام. لاکلائو و موف به تاسی از گرامشی، ایده دموکراسی رادیکال را برای اعاده حیثیت از مارکسیسم و بحرانهای جهان پست مدرن در پیوند آزادی و برابری پیریزی کردهاند. اما اینجا در "بازگشت امر سیاسی" موف کمی از همسر گرامی فاصله گرفته و بیشتر دست دوستی بهسمت لیبرالیسم دراز کرده است. موف در مصاحبهای بهخوبی به عمق بحران سرکوب آنتاگونیسم و توهم مارکسیسم اشاره میکند. او تضادهای جاری در جامعه را فراتر از خالهبازیِ بورژوازی و پرولتاریا میشمارد و در مقابل تقلیل منشاء تضاد به طبقات، مذاهب و اقوام آن را در تک به تک افراد جستجو میکند.
سوژه در تعریف دموکراسی رادیکال موضعی واحد نیست که ذیل طبقه یا گرایشی خاص طبقهبندی شود، بلکه برخوردی از مواضع گوناگونی است که در متن روابط اجتماعی خاص خود تعریف میشود و از فلسفه سیاسی کاری ساخته نیست، جز اینکه در این دنیای نامحدود تقابلها، به هویتسازی مشترک دست بزند تا همگی ذیل یک هویت واحد که آن هم هژمونی "آزادی و برابری" است به پیگیری منافع فردی خویش بپردازند. این انسانشناسی محصول سیطره ارزشهای پست مدرنیته و "زوال علائم یقین" است. سیاست در چنین جهانی، افقی جز حراست از آنتاگونیسم ندارد و حکومت تنها مسئول برقراری بستری برای پیگیری منافع افراد است.
دموکراسی رادیکال پروژه موفقی است که نه تنها با نگرش اتمیستی لیبرالیسم در تقدم حق بر خیر نسبتی ندارد و تضادهای فردی را در حوزه خصوصی محبوس نمیکند؛ بلکه همچون جماعتگرایان آزادی و کرامت انسانی را نیز مخدوش میکند.
پروژهای که همانطور که از نام کتاب برمیآید، به میمینت "بازگشت به امر سیاسی" میسر میشود.
. به قولی از کارل اشمیت سیاست همواره عرصه تقابل "ما" با "آنها"ست. بدون برقراری چنین نسبتی امر سیاسی از مفهوم خود تهی میشود. بازتولید این مفهوم در چرخه دموکراسی رادیکال، ارمغان ارزشمند لاکلائو و موف برای فلسفه سیاسی است.
مطالعه کتاب علاوه بر ارزش افزوده بر ذهن مخاطب، چراغ تفکر را روشن میکند. چراغی که بر به رسمیت شناختن تضادها و تکثرگرایی بهمعنای حقیقی کلمه نور میتاباند
August 5, 2024
It’s been a while since I’ve read political philosophy, and boy is this book good.
Mouffe represents the school of what can be called radical democracy. Radical democrats seek to “radicalize” democracy, or bring it to its root promises of guaranteeing rights and equality for all. Anytime you see a democratic struggle for equality, it is usually from a group that claims to have been denied rights. Civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, preborn rights, and parents’ rights are all examples.
Mouffe is definitely more fit to speak to the democratic struggles typically found “on the left,” rather than on the right. But nevertheless, she points to what is now called “intersectionality” as a framework for thinking about what it means to be a citizen in a liberal democracy.
Intersectionality is the idea that we have multiple identities that affect our social life—gender, class, race, ethnicity, culture, marital status, age, etc. These identities clash, contradict, advantage and hinder us in the opportunities we can access and take advantage of. And these identities therefore make us complex, and rooted in our traditions and ways of life.
The complexity of democratic citizens effectively blocks off any monistic view of a “We the People,” because the People is always at odds with what political decisions are to be made. The People even experience antagonism over who they should become, or where they should go as a collective society. This realistic notion of pluralism—the heterogeneity of the polis, is an important corrective to liberal views of society that presume that everyone is untethered from traditions and culture, and that disagreements can be solved through rational dialogue.
The only challenge I have with Mouffe is that, while she is not exactly writing to, certainly not from, the American context, her work doesn’t offer many good answers to the American problem of polarization. The way in which she frames “democratic struggles” is especially sympathetic towards struggles on the left, and she is almost spiteful, perhaps, of the struggles claimed by the right. A new way to think about democratic struggles that are ongoing in a society, that can themselves be contradictory and antagonistic, must be formulated. Mouffe defends a pluralism of the people, but leaves much to be imagined for a pluralism of democratic struggles.
Mouffe represents the school of what can be called radical democracy. Radical democrats seek to “radicalize” democracy, or bring it to its root promises of guaranteeing rights and equality for all. Anytime you see a democratic struggle for equality, it is usually from a group that claims to have been denied rights. Civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, trans rights, preborn rights, and parents’ rights are all examples.
Mouffe is definitely more fit to speak to the democratic struggles typically found “on the left,” rather than on the right. But nevertheless, she points to what is now called “intersectionality” as a framework for thinking about what it means to be a citizen in a liberal democracy.
Intersectionality is the idea that we have multiple identities that affect our social life—gender, class, race, ethnicity, culture, marital status, age, etc. These identities clash, contradict, advantage and hinder us in the opportunities we can access and take advantage of. And these identities therefore make us complex, and rooted in our traditions and ways of life.
The complexity of democratic citizens effectively blocks off any monistic view of a “We the People,” because the People is always at odds with what political decisions are to be made. The People even experience antagonism over who they should become, or where they should go as a collective society. This realistic notion of pluralism—the heterogeneity of the polis, is an important corrective to liberal views of society that presume that everyone is untethered from traditions and culture, and that disagreements can be solved through rational dialogue.
The only challenge I have with Mouffe is that, while she is not exactly writing to, certainly not from, the American context, her work doesn’t offer many good answers to the American problem of polarization. The way in which she frames “democratic struggles” is especially sympathetic towards struggles on the left, and she is almost spiteful, perhaps, of the struggles claimed by the right. A new way to think about democratic struggles that are ongoing in a society, that can themselves be contradictory and antagonistic, must be formulated. Mouffe defends a pluralism of the people, but leaves much to be imagined for a pluralism of democratic struggles.
May 23, 2025
És un llibre que molt probablement no m'hagués llegit si no ho hagués hagut de fer x la uni. Tot i així, m'ha agradat.
A nivell teòric té bones idees. A nivell pràctic no crec que siguin aplicables. Si que et permet poder analitzar moltes de les coses que estan passant a l'actualitat, i les decisions que s'estan prenent, i que hagi fet servir a Schmitt x fer-ho és, si més no, suggeridor. A més, Mouffe et convida a qüestionar fins i tot el que creiem inqüestionable, a repensar el sentit comú.
A nivell teòric té bones idees. A nivell pràctic no crec que siguin aplicables. Si que et permet poder analitzar moltes de les coses que estan passant a l'actualitat, i les decisions que s'estan prenent, i que hagi fet servir a Schmitt x fer-ho és, si més no, suggeridor. A més, Mouffe et convida a qüestionar fins i tot el que creiem inqüestionable, a repensar el sentit comú.
August 19, 2020
3.5 stars
April 30, 2025
Una tesis muy interesante que se alimenta principalmente de la comparación con modelos que el tiempo se ha encargado de refutar. Sin duda, en 2025 muchas de sus consideraciones hacen sentido.
Mis dudas con el agonismo surgen ante lo banal e idiota que se ha vuelto la discusión política en diferentes lugares de occidente, en gran parte marcada por el afan electorialista entre quienes disputan un botin. Me cuesta creer en la posibilidad de un enfrentamiento real de proyectos hegemónicos. Más bien parece una forma de mantener al ratón corriendo sobre la rueda con tal que nada cambie.
También extraño alguna consideración de la autora sobre aquellos factores ajenos a la política, pero que cada día influyen más en la discusión de lo político, como es el caso de los grandes grupos económicos y/o tecnológicas, los que hoy se presentan como los principales defensores de la hegemonia neoliberal de occidente.
Mis dudas con el agonismo surgen ante lo banal e idiota que se ha vuelto la discusión política en diferentes lugares de occidente, en gran parte marcada por el afan electorialista entre quienes disputan un botin. Me cuesta creer en la posibilidad de un enfrentamiento real de proyectos hegemónicos. Más bien parece una forma de mantener al ratón corriendo sobre la rueda con tal que nada cambie.
También extraño alguna consideración de la autora sobre aquellos factores ajenos a la política, pero que cada día influyen más en la discusión de lo político, como es el caso de los grandes grupos económicos y/o tecnológicas, los que hoy se presentan como los principales defensores de la hegemonia neoliberal de occidente.
July 24, 2014
collection of essays. some are good, some are less good...a bit repetitive.
December 30, 2020
Essays on the confrontation of rawlsian liberals with civic republicans, on the one hand, and fascists, on the other. Reasonable, well argued, with normal post-marxist concerns.
May 5, 2025
"I think there is no way to avoid such a a situation and we have to face its implications. A project of radical and plural democracy has to come to terms with the dimension of conflict and antagonism withing the politicalnd and has to accept the consequences of the irreducible plurality of values. This must be the starting point of our attempt to radicalize the liberal democratic regime and to extend the democratic revolution to an increasing number of social relations, the task is to think how to create the conditions under which those aggressive forces can be defused and diverted and a pluralist democratic order made possible." (Mouffe, 152-153)
Consisting of nine enlightening (though somewhat repetitive) essays, Chantal Mouffe's "The Return of the Political" is an engaging work of political theory that interweaves trends in contemporary, and premodern, theory concerning the liberal state and its discontents. With references to John Rawls, whose 'On Justice' is ultimately found wanting by Ms. Mouffe, to Michael Sandel, whose communitarian 'type' of theory, based on Aristotle, too offers no real respite for the Liberal project's opponents; to Carl Schmitt, the conservative German jurist, whose 'friend/enemy' distinction as the definition of the 'political' destroys so much of the Liberal's enterprise; to many, many more thinkers who 'debate,' in the articulate words of Ms. Mouffe, throughout this well-intentioned but ultimately dissatisfying work. Why is this effort, seemingly so erudite and perspicacious, doomed to a state of entropy or irrelevance? Because of its repetitious nature, that's why! In the Introduction, penned by the author, it is admitted that there is some repeating in the work, but that's not half the issue. For this work recycles, in each of its discrete nine elements, the same ideas, over and over again. This creates a tension in the reader to put down this tome, to put it down violently and quickly. However, I patiently endured the effort, in the hope of some end of the line 'pay-off'. Sadly, this was not to come. Readers of "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy," by Mouffe and Laclau, and Laclau's own "On Populist Reason," introduce the 'true' concepts of this thread of 'post-Marxist' thought with much more clarity and import than this effort, which tends to defuse any enthusiasm in the reader for Ms. Mouffe's ultimately clear and rational 'post-rational' theories. In other words, I entirely agree with the author with her critique of the theories of politics present in the work, but her presentation, in toto, through the entirety of the book, leaves very much to be desired, to say the least. Not a real book to read if one wants to be stimulated to thought (or to action), no matter what your previous proclivities.
Consisting of nine enlightening (though somewhat repetitive) essays, Chantal Mouffe's "The Return of the Political" is an engaging work of political theory that interweaves trends in contemporary, and premodern, theory concerning the liberal state and its discontents. With references to John Rawls, whose 'On Justice' is ultimately found wanting by Ms. Mouffe, to Michael Sandel, whose communitarian 'type' of theory, based on Aristotle, too offers no real respite for the Liberal project's opponents; to Carl Schmitt, the conservative German jurist, whose 'friend/enemy' distinction as the definition of the 'political' destroys so much of the Liberal's enterprise; to many, many more thinkers who 'debate,' in the articulate words of Ms. Mouffe, throughout this well-intentioned but ultimately dissatisfying work. Why is this effort, seemingly so erudite and perspicacious, doomed to a state of entropy or irrelevance? Because of its repetitious nature, that's why! In the Introduction, penned by the author, it is admitted that there is some repeating in the work, but that's not half the issue. For this work recycles, in each of its discrete nine elements, the same ideas, over and over again. This creates a tension in the reader to put down this tome, to put it down violently and quickly. However, I patiently endured the effort, in the hope of some end of the line 'pay-off'. Sadly, this was not to come. Readers of "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy," by Mouffe and Laclau, and Laclau's own "On Populist Reason," introduce the 'true' concepts of this thread of 'post-Marxist' thought with much more clarity and import than this effort, which tends to defuse any enthusiasm in the reader for Ms. Mouffe's ultimately clear and rational 'post-rational' theories. In other words, I entirely agree with the author with her critique of the theories of politics present in the work, but her presentation, in toto, through the entirety of the book, leaves very much to be desired, to say the least. Not a real book to read if one wants to be stimulated to thought (or to action), no matter what your previous proclivities.
July 16, 2020
Me dispuse a leer a quien es referente intelectual de varios del gobierno argentino. Lo que encontré fue lo esperado: un típico producto posmoderno. Es alguien que no cree en la democracia liberal y en los valores liberales de libertad e igualdad para todos. La lógica agonal y visión "adversarial" de la autora chocan de frente con esos valores básicos. Estas ideas, en mi opinión, llevan a separar gente, imposibilitando el diálogo público, tal como yo no puedo hablar de política con mi verdulero K. Es todavía peor cuando lleva estas ideas al plano internacional. Hablar de establecer un "orden multipolar" en contraposición a un "orden cosmopolita liberal". Esto lo único que lleva es a balcanizar al mundo, creando diversas hegemonías que compitan entre sí. ¿Y la paz mundial? No tiene cabida para la autora, la lógica del permanente conflicto tiene esa carga.
Para cerrar, una frase del este libro que recuerda al concepto de "doblepensar" de George Orwell: " "consenso sobre valores políticos de libertad e igualdad para todos, DISENSO EN SU INTERPRETACIÓN"
Para cerrar, una frase del este libro que recuerda al concepto de "doblepensar" de George Orwell: " "consenso sobre valores políticos de libertad e igualdad para todos, DISENSO EN SU INTERPRETACIÓN"
June 8, 2023
There’s a lot of valuable arguments in this book, but Mouffe doesn’t really give me enough reason to agree that we should be maintaining support for liberal democracy rather than doing away with it entirely. The arguments are important and well formulated enough to be worth engaging with, but they’re not very convincing ones.
November 14, 2020
เล่มนี้มันสัส โดยเฉพาะคนที่สนใจ Political Theory ส่วนตัวชอบบทที่ 3: Rawls Political Philosophy without Politics ชอบตรงที่ Mouffe ตีความ Theory of Justice ของ Ralws ที่ทำให้เห็นว่า consensus แม่งตื้นเขินเหี้ยๆ สรุปว่าซื้อความคิดของ Mouffe lol
July 4, 2023
Not her best work, and extremely dated. Granted, little has changed, which might say something for her ideas about liberal democracy. I am a big fan of her idea that we cannot remove conflict from any sort of politics, and any/all attempts to do so just leave us worse off than before.
September 3, 2024
Un exitoso caso de transplante epistemológico. Reclamar la democracia liberal desde la izquierda implica la elaboración de un proyecto teórico que, reteniendo las instituciones emanadas de la modernidad, rechace su racionalismo y universalismo.
January 2, 2022
Some interesting insights about pluralism and modern democracy. However, the author was not kidding when she said the essays overlap a lot.
June 17, 2023
En stor fed kritik af Rawls
March 4, 2025
I like Mouffe. Mouffe gets it. I'd get a coffee with Mouffe.
July 25, 2025
Love this.
July 31, 2025
pesado (me dio batalla) pero fundamental para entender la relación adversarial necesaria para la construcción democrática
November 20, 2022
Suggests solutions to fascism which further left would say perpetuates fascism.
June 2, 2016
La crítica que hace Chantal sobre la política del consenso es muy digerible y muy cuidadosamente elaborada. La autora no tiene reparos en contrastar autores de aquí y allá para fundamentar su tesis contra el cosmopolitismo, el mundo unipolar o los derechos humanos "universales". El texto es conciso y directo, ahorrándose precisiones innecesarias o cansinas puntualizaciones.
La única desventaja que encuentro es que requiere de al menos una lectura previa sobre la filosofía de lo político o, en su defecto, de estar bien informado sobre la arena política contemporánea. A pesar de su simpleza es un libro poco apto para los adoctrinados por recortes de periódicos sueltos y ligas de internet aisladas. Si bien puede ser situado de primera impresión como un texto posmoderno por las referencias que utiliza, la forma en la que cuestiona y desmantela los análisis de los optimistas de la segunda modernidad o modernidad reflexiva es magistral y digna de notarse.
La única desventaja que encuentro es que requiere de al menos una lectura previa sobre la filosofía de lo político o, en su defecto, de estar bien informado sobre la arena política contemporánea. A pesar de su simpleza es un libro poco apto para los adoctrinados por recortes de periódicos sueltos y ligas de internet aisladas. Si bien puede ser situado de primera impresión como un texto posmoderno por las referencias que utiliza, la forma en la que cuestiona y desmantela los análisis de los optimistas de la segunda modernidad o modernidad reflexiva es magistral y digna de notarse.
April 10, 2011
Mouffe continua con su elucidación de una democracia radical y plural, analiza los trabajos desde liberales como Rawls de la tradición Kantiana entre otros,analiza el trabajo de Carl Schmitt y emplea sus criticas tanto del liberalismo, como del republicanismo civico entre otros. su construcción toma prestada conceptos de Norberto Bobbio respecto al "socialismo liberal" y trata de construir una teoría de la democracia liberal y plural que no solo parta del individuo como Terminus a quo y terminus ad quem.
Es con la tensión entre las libertades individuales y la democracia que permite que ambas ideas sobrevivan.
Es con la tensión entre las libertades individuales y la democracia que permite que ambas ideas sobrevivan.
November 17, 2016
Chantal, ¡Brillante!
Es necesario que desmitifiquemos la idea de una segunda modernidad bajo el consenso, que lejos de contribuir a la democratización ignoran la dimensión antagónica de lo político. Es necesario para entender los espacios de poder, la diferencia entre "la política" como la ciencia política y "lo político" que es conflicto/antagonimos en esencia.
Además se vuelve necesaria la confrontación de las pasiones, identidades y canales de comunicación para racionalizar un verdadero ejercicio de política más allá de las teorías liberales.
Urge un proyecto democrático radizacalizado.
Es necesario que desmitifiquemos la idea de una segunda modernidad bajo el consenso, que lejos de contribuir a la democratización ignoran la dimensión antagónica de lo político. Es necesario para entender los espacios de poder, la diferencia entre "la política" como la ciencia política y "lo político" que es conflicto/antagonimos en esencia.
Además se vuelve necesaria la confrontación de las pasiones, identidades y canales de comunicación para racionalizar un verdadero ejercicio de política más allá de las teorías liberales.
Urge un proyecto democrático radizacalizado.
Read
June 3, 2025Ahhh I'm always so torn with Mouffe. Can liberalism be recovered from its capitalist manifestations? Mouffe makes a strong point that liberal values of equality and freedom continue to be of relevance to emancipatory struggles, but insofar as this leads to her rallying behind liberal democratic regimes I end up disappointed by the lack of radical imagination of this text.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews