What do you think?
Rate this book
The Democratic Paradox
From the theory of “deliberative democracy” to the politics of the “third way,” the present Zeitgeist is characterised by an attempt to negate the inherently conflictual nature of democratic politics. Political thought and practice are stifled by a misconceived search fro consensus and the promotion of a bland social unanimity which, as Chantal Mouffe shows, far from being the sign of progress, constitute a serious threat for democratic institutions. Indeed, in many countries this ‘consensus of the centre’ is providing a platform for the growth of populist right-wing parties which, by presenting themselves as the only ‘anti-establishment’ forces, are trying to occupy the terrain of contestation deserted by the left.
Taking issue with the work of John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas on one side, and with the tenets of the third way as practised by Tony Blair and theorised by Anthony Giddens on the other, Mouffe brings to the fore the paradoxical nature of modern liberal democracy. Against those who affirm that, with the demise of the left/right divide, antagonism has been eliminated from contemporary post-industrial societies and that an all-inclusive politics has become possible, she argues that the category of the ‘adversary’ plays a central role in the very dynamics of modern democracy. Drawing on the work of Wittgenstein and Derrida, and engaging with the provocative theses of Carl Schmitt, she proposes a new understanding of democracy in terms of ‘agonistic pluralism’ which acknowledges the ineradicability of antagonism and the impossibility of a final resolution of conflicts.
Taking issue with the work of John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas on one side, and with the tenets of the third way as practised by Tony Blair and theorised by Anthony Giddens on the other, Mouffe brings to the fore the paradoxical nature of modern liberal democracy. Against those who affirm that, with the demise of the left/right divide, antagonism has been eliminated from contemporary post-industrial societies and that an all-inclusive politics has become possible, she argues that the category of the ‘adversary’ plays a central role in the very dynamics of modern democracy. Drawing on the work of Wittgenstein and Derrida, and engaging with the provocative theses of Carl Schmitt, she proposes a new understanding of democracy in terms of ‘agonistic pluralism’ which acknowledges the ineradicability of antagonism and the impossibility of a final resolution of conflicts.
192 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2000
36 people are currently reading
1249 people want to read
About the author
Chantal Mouffe
76 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
August 12, 2020
disclaimer: i don't read much political theory, so take my review with a grain of salt. BUT i found mouffe's analysis insightful - she gets right to the point of why consensus-based "third way" politics failed, and it's hitting home a little too hard right now (biden-harris :/).
politics is about power, and claims to power inevitably comes into conflict. there's no way to find a perfect compromise that doesn't leave people out; in fact, the very nature of liberal democracy requires that some population - usually non-citizens - are excluded from the "universal" rights that liberalism offers.
civic procedure, too, is necessarily exclusive: by making voting (or town halls, protests, etc.) the official mechanism of change, you're already upholding one epistemology over another. a lot of western political philosophers start with the assumption that liberal democracy is the "end of history" and must be defended, when it's always been just one set of values and practices among many.
rather than giving up on democracy, mouffe says we should embrace "agonistic democracy." agonism accepts ideological conflict as natural and productive, but focuses on transforming conflict into agreed-upon channels (e.g. party politics) instead of pushing radical politics out, which engenders further violence. she insists that both the content of politics as well as its official procedures should always be up for legitimate debate. finally, open deliberation does not lead us toward an objectively optimal outcome, but a temporary and uncertain decision.
the essays can get a little repetitive at times, but honestly it helped me. mouffe is also good at giving explainers on basic positions/debates in political philosophy, like contextualism vs. universalism, Rawls vs. Habermas, etc.
politics is about power, and claims to power inevitably comes into conflict. there's no way to find a perfect compromise that doesn't leave people out; in fact, the very nature of liberal democracy requires that some population - usually non-citizens - are excluded from the "universal" rights that liberalism offers.
civic procedure, too, is necessarily exclusive: by making voting (or town halls, protests, etc.) the official mechanism of change, you're already upholding one epistemology over another. a lot of western political philosophers start with the assumption that liberal democracy is the "end of history" and must be defended, when it's always been just one set of values and practices among many.
rather than giving up on democracy, mouffe says we should embrace "agonistic democracy." agonism accepts ideological conflict as natural and productive, but focuses on transforming conflict into agreed-upon channels (e.g. party politics) instead of pushing radical politics out, which engenders further violence. she insists that both the content of politics as well as its official procedures should always be up for legitimate debate. finally, open deliberation does not lead us toward an objectively optimal outcome, but a temporary and uncertain decision.
the essays can get a little repetitive at times, but honestly it helped me. mouffe is also good at giving explainers on basic positions/debates in political philosophy, like contextualism vs. universalism, Rawls vs. Habermas, etc.
October 11, 2018
In The Democratic Paradox, Chantal Mouffe seeks to get to the heart of the liberal-democratic project. Rather than seeing liberal-democracy as a stable, unified historical project, Mouffe instead sees a contingent and often-contested alliance between two distinct historical projects: the democratic project (based on equality) and the liberal project (based on liberty). Writing in the 90s, Mouffe is especially critical of the "Third Way" and the acceptance by social-democratic parties of the hegemony of neoliberalism. This "consensus of the centre" and the foreclosure of a left alternative to neoliberalism has fueled, in Mouffe's eyes, the rise of far-right populist parties which threaten the very continuation of the liberal-democratic project. It's easy to see the parallels of this analysis with the current American political situation. As the Democratic Party has consistently failed to deliver substantive change for the working class and for people of colour, these populations became disillusioned with the democratic progress and did not vote for Hillary Clinton, allowing far-right populist Donald Trump to take power. In this her analysis seems prescient.
What is missing from Mouffe's analysis is, of course, class. Mouffe takes a post-Marxist perspective in The Democratic Paradox and, rather than expanding her analysis, instead marginalizes the impact of class on contemporary democracy. The hegemony of neoliberalism is not an isolated event but one that is deeply connected to the evolving structure of global capital accumulation. Instead of offering an anti-capitalist alternative to liberal-democracy, Mouffe seems primarily concerned with preserving liberal-democracy against far-right populism. Indeed, in the introduction, Mouffe states offhand: "We might have given up the idea of a radical alternative to the capitalist system, but ..." Hardly an inspiring message!
In the conclusion, Mouffe uses a Lacanian "ethics of the Real" which she sees as "particularly suited to a pluralist democracy." But does not the "ethics of the Real" denote something much more radical than simple pluralist democracy or a reinvigorated social-democratic politics? The Real threatens to rip apart the very symbolic order with its constitutive Law. In Alenka Zupančič's words, "In relation to the 'smooth course of events,' life as governed by the 'reality principle,' ethics always appears as something excessive, as a disturbing 'interruption.'"¹ This "ethics of the Real" allows us to think beyond the hegemony of liberal-democracy and to create a truly radical emancipatory politics.
¹ Zupančič - "Introduction," in Ethics of the Real
What is missing from Mouffe's analysis is, of course, class. Mouffe takes a post-Marxist perspective in The Democratic Paradox and, rather than expanding her analysis, instead marginalizes the impact of class on contemporary democracy. The hegemony of neoliberalism is not an isolated event but one that is deeply connected to the evolving structure of global capital accumulation. Instead of offering an anti-capitalist alternative to liberal-democracy, Mouffe seems primarily concerned with preserving liberal-democracy against far-right populism. Indeed, in the introduction, Mouffe states offhand: "We might have given up the idea of a radical alternative to the capitalist system, but ..." Hardly an inspiring message!
In the conclusion, Mouffe uses a Lacanian "ethics of the Real" which she sees as "particularly suited to a pluralist democracy." But does not the "ethics of the Real" denote something much more radical than simple pluralist democracy or a reinvigorated social-democratic politics? The Real threatens to rip apart the very symbolic order with its constitutive Law. In Alenka Zupančič's words, "In relation to the 'smooth course of events,' life as governed by the 'reality principle,' ethics always appears as something excessive, as a disturbing 'interruption.'"¹ This "ethics of the Real" allows us to think beyond the hegemony of liberal-democracy and to create a truly radical emancipatory politics.
¹ Zupančič - "Introduction," in Ethics of the Real
March 24, 2025
I re-read this because I felt gaslit by a movement that asserts voting can correct imperial ambition, even incrementally (I won't get into details)...
But, reading The Democratic Paradox felt like a confrontation with everything liberal democracy tries to hide; its exclusions, its myth of neutrality, its supposed fear of and management of cultural and religious conflict.
Mouffe doesn’t try to rescue liberalism by smoothing over its contradictions. She insists on the antagonism at the heart of politics. That’s where I dwell. That’s where Muslims have been placed, not as participants in a dialogue but as objects of its limit.
Her idea of agonistic democracy makes space for those who are told their anger is uncivil, their difference too much, their politics unreasonable. She doesn’t pretend that consensus is real. She doesn’t ask us to wait our turn, behave, integrate. Instead, she names the violence in that very request.
Mouffe draws a sharp line between antagonism and agonism. Antagonism, for her, is when we see each other as enemies. When politics becomes war, and the difference becomes an existential threat. But agonism is what democracy should strive for: a space where we can be adversaries rather than enemies, where we recognise our opponents as legitimate even if we disagree fundamentally. It’s not about harmony. It’s about structured disagreement, ethical conflict, the struggle that keeps democracy alive. This resonates with me because it refuses the liberal move to erase disagreement under the guise of "social cohesion". Instead, it protects the dignity of contestation, the right to say no, to refuse, to oppose.
What struck me most was her rejection of the liberal fantasy of politics without adversaries. That’s the dream we’re always asked to buy into: that we can be included if we’re calm enough, secular enough, democratic enough. Mouffe dismantles that. She reminds us that every “we” needs a “they.” That democracy draws borders—imagined, real, racialized—and calls them common sense.
She doesn’t offer comfort, and that’s what I like. She offers clarity. Her honesty about hegemony, and that all political orders are contingent, fought for, and imposed resonates with what I see. Because to be a Muslim in the West is to live under a hegemonic peace that’s anything but peaceful.
Mouffe gives me a language to resist the soft violence of being “included” on someone else’s terms. A way to hold on to dissent, to rage, without letting it collapse into despair or spectacle.
Now, back to my reason for re-reading this book
Mouffe argues that reducing democracy to electoral procedures (like voting) is a fundamental mistake. Voting is just one expression of democratic participation, and if it becomes the only one, democracy is hollowed out. Liberal democracies often present elections as neutral mechanisms, but Mouffe argues that these procedures operate within a hegemonic order. That is, what can be voted on, who gets to speak, and what counts as a legitimate political position are already shaped by prior exclusions.
Mouffe’s model of agonistic democracy requires more than just periodic voting, it demands ongoing struggle, visibility of dissent, and space for adversarial contestation.
But, reading The Democratic Paradox felt like a confrontation with everything liberal democracy tries to hide; its exclusions, its myth of neutrality, its supposed fear of and management of cultural and religious conflict.
Mouffe doesn’t try to rescue liberalism by smoothing over its contradictions. She insists on the antagonism at the heart of politics. That’s where I dwell. That’s where Muslims have been placed, not as participants in a dialogue but as objects of its limit.
Her idea of agonistic democracy makes space for those who are told their anger is uncivil, their difference too much, their politics unreasonable. She doesn’t pretend that consensus is real. She doesn’t ask us to wait our turn, behave, integrate. Instead, she names the violence in that very request.
Mouffe draws a sharp line between antagonism and agonism. Antagonism, for her, is when we see each other as enemies. When politics becomes war, and the difference becomes an existential threat. But agonism is what democracy should strive for: a space where we can be adversaries rather than enemies, where we recognise our opponents as legitimate even if we disagree fundamentally. It’s not about harmony. It’s about structured disagreement, ethical conflict, the struggle that keeps democracy alive. This resonates with me because it refuses the liberal move to erase disagreement under the guise of "social cohesion". Instead, it protects the dignity of contestation, the right to say no, to refuse, to oppose.
What struck me most was her rejection of the liberal fantasy of politics without adversaries. That’s the dream we’re always asked to buy into: that we can be included if we’re calm enough, secular enough, democratic enough. Mouffe dismantles that. She reminds us that every “we” needs a “they.” That democracy draws borders—imagined, real, racialized—and calls them common sense.
She doesn’t offer comfort, and that’s what I like. She offers clarity. Her honesty about hegemony, and that all political orders are contingent, fought for, and imposed resonates with what I see. Because to be a Muslim in the West is to live under a hegemonic peace that’s anything but peaceful.
Mouffe gives me a language to resist the soft violence of being “included” on someone else’s terms. A way to hold on to dissent, to rage, without letting it collapse into despair or spectacle.
Now, back to my reason for re-reading this book
Mouffe argues that reducing democracy to electoral procedures (like voting) is a fundamental mistake. Voting is just one expression of democratic participation, and if it becomes the only one, democracy is hollowed out. Liberal democracies often present elections as neutral mechanisms, but Mouffe argues that these procedures operate within a hegemonic order. That is, what can be voted on, who gets to speak, and what counts as a legitimate political position are already shaped by prior exclusions.
Mouffe’s model of agonistic democracy requires more than just periodic voting, it demands ongoing struggle, visibility of dissent, and space for adversarial contestation.
September 20, 2010
After having read this book I don't feel I've found out much more about Mouffe's thougts on democracy than I had already gathered from various sources before. The essays seem to be repetitive versions of the same ideas and reading one should be enough - I don't see why they all needed to come together to constitute a book.
Though I agree with her on most points, especially the vital necessity of envisioning a different conception of democracy, I find her argumentation slightly elusive. I am having trouble imagining how her ideas of the political sphere can be turned into policies. She repeatedly argues that politics is not a representation of already established identities of a priori citizens, and that they are produced through politics and policies (which sort of goes without saying at this point), but doesn't elaborate on how dissensus and agonism can be practically implemented as systems of governing. Although the global liberal-democratic trend of the last 20 years or so might indeed be conceived as one that tries to present itself as the ultimate rational end that all societies should reach, where neo-liberalism is widely accepted as the truly contemporary way of structuring the relationship between politics and economics, don't we encounter dissensus and agonism all the time anyway (I'm using the term agonism loosely here, since to me the distinction between antagonism and agonism seems to be semantic play)?
Though I agree with her on most points, especially the vital necessity of envisioning a different conception of democracy, I find her argumentation slightly elusive. I am having trouble imagining how her ideas of the political sphere can be turned into policies. She repeatedly argues that politics is not a representation of already established identities of a priori citizens, and that they are produced through politics and policies (which sort of goes without saying at this point), but doesn't elaborate on how dissensus and agonism can be practically implemented as systems of governing. Although the global liberal-democratic trend of the last 20 years or so might indeed be conceived as one that tries to present itself as the ultimate rational end that all societies should reach, where neo-liberalism is widely accepted as the truly contemporary way of structuring the relationship between politics and economics, don't we encounter dissensus and agonism all the time anyway (I'm using the term agonism loosely here, since to me the distinction between antagonism and agonism seems to be semantic play)?
August 31, 2023
En "The Democratic Paradox", Chantal Mouffe nos entrega una rigurosa y penetrante disertación sobre la naturaleza paradójica de la democracia liberal contemporánea. Mouffe, una de las voces más destacadas en la teoría política, arroja luz sobre la tensión inherente entre dos tradiciones que coexisten en el corazón de las democracias occidentales: la liberal y la democrática.
La tesis central de Mouffe sostiene que la democracia liberal se encuentra en una encrucijada debido a las tensiones irresolubles entre estos dos pilares. Por un lado, la tradición liberal, que enfatiza el respeto por la libertad individual y los derechos fundamentales. Por otro, la tradición democrática, que subraya la soberanía popular y la igualdad de todos los ciudadanos. Aunque ambas tradiciones son esenciales para el funcionamiento de nuestras sociedades, no siempre son compatibles y, en ocasiones, pueden entrar en conflicto directo.
Mouffe argumenta que esta tensión, lejos de ser un defecto, es una característica constitutiva de la democracia liberal. Sin embargo, en lugar de buscar una síntesis armoniosa o una superación de esta paradoja, la autora defiende la idea de que las democracias deben reconocer, y de hecho, abrazar esta tensión. Para Mouffe, la política no es un ámbito de consensos racionales y permanentes, sino un terreno de disensos, antagonismos y luchas hegemónicas.
Uno de los puntos más provocadores de su análisis es la crítica a las visiones deliberativas de la democracia, aquellas que buscan eliminar el conflicto y establecer un consenso universal basado en la razón. Mouffe sostiene que estas visiones, aunque bien intencionadas, pueden ser peligrosas, ya que tienden a ocultar las verdaderas relaciones de poder y a marginalizar las voces disidentes.
En lugar de una política de consenso, Mouffe aboga por una "política agonística", donde el conflicto es visto no como una amenaza, sino como una oportunidad para una democracia vibrante y viva. En esta visión, los adversarios no son enemigos a eliminar, sino interlocutores legítimos en un debate democrático.
"The Democratic Paradox" es, en esencia, un llamado a repensar y reconfigurar nuestra comprensión de la democracia. Chantal Mouffe nos invita a aceptar las contradicciones y desafíos inherentes al sistema, y a reconocer que la verdadera democracia se nutre del debate, el disenso y la pluralidad. Es un recordatorio poderoso de que la democracia, más que un conjunto fijo de procedimientos e instituciones, es una práctica viva, siempre en evolución y transformación.
Por un lado, aunque su argumento sobre la tensión inherente entre las tradiciones liberal y democrática es penetrante, se puede argumentar que Mouffe ofrece una dicotomía demasiado rígida y simplificada. Al establecer una contraposición tan tajante entre estos dos pilares, corre el riesgo de omitir las múltiples formas en que ambas tradiciones se han influenciado y nutrido mutuamente a lo largo de la historia. Esta perspectiva, en cierta medida, podría reducir la complejidad y la riqueza de la interacción entre libertad individual y soberanía popular en el entramado de las democracias modernas.
Además, si bien la propuesta de Mouffe de una "política agonística" es intrigante, es posible cuestionar hasta qué punto es viable en la práctica. El reconocimiento y la aceptación del disenso son esenciales para cualquier democracia saludable; sin embargo, alentar una constante lucha hegemónica podría desestabilizar sistemas políticos y generar divisiones insalvables. Es esencial encontrar un equilibrio entre aceptar el antagonismo y garantizar la estabilidad y cohesión necesarias para el bienestar de la sociedad. Si bien la obra de Mouffe es un llamado necesario a la reflexión, es crucial abordar estas inquietudes para construir una visión más matizada y pragmática de la democracia.
La tesis central de Mouffe sostiene que la democracia liberal se encuentra en una encrucijada debido a las tensiones irresolubles entre estos dos pilares. Por un lado, la tradición liberal, que enfatiza el respeto por la libertad individual y los derechos fundamentales. Por otro, la tradición democrática, que subraya la soberanía popular y la igualdad de todos los ciudadanos. Aunque ambas tradiciones son esenciales para el funcionamiento de nuestras sociedades, no siempre son compatibles y, en ocasiones, pueden entrar en conflicto directo.
Mouffe argumenta que esta tensión, lejos de ser un defecto, es una característica constitutiva de la democracia liberal. Sin embargo, en lugar de buscar una síntesis armoniosa o una superación de esta paradoja, la autora defiende la idea de que las democracias deben reconocer, y de hecho, abrazar esta tensión. Para Mouffe, la política no es un ámbito de consensos racionales y permanentes, sino un terreno de disensos, antagonismos y luchas hegemónicas.
Uno de los puntos más provocadores de su análisis es la crítica a las visiones deliberativas de la democracia, aquellas que buscan eliminar el conflicto y establecer un consenso universal basado en la razón. Mouffe sostiene que estas visiones, aunque bien intencionadas, pueden ser peligrosas, ya que tienden a ocultar las verdaderas relaciones de poder y a marginalizar las voces disidentes.
En lugar de una política de consenso, Mouffe aboga por una "política agonística", donde el conflicto es visto no como una amenaza, sino como una oportunidad para una democracia vibrante y viva. En esta visión, los adversarios no son enemigos a eliminar, sino interlocutores legítimos en un debate democrático.
"The Democratic Paradox" es, en esencia, un llamado a repensar y reconfigurar nuestra comprensión de la democracia. Chantal Mouffe nos invita a aceptar las contradicciones y desafíos inherentes al sistema, y a reconocer que la verdadera democracia se nutre del debate, el disenso y la pluralidad. Es un recordatorio poderoso de que la democracia, más que un conjunto fijo de procedimientos e instituciones, es una práctica viva, siempre en evolución y transformación.
Por un lado, aunque su argumento sobre la tensión inherente entre las tradiciones liberal y democrática es penetrante, se puede argumentar que Mouffe ofrece una dicotomía demasiado rígida y simplificada. Al establecer una contraposición tan tajante entre estos dos pilares, corre el riesgo de omitir las múltiples formas en que ambas tradiciones se han influenciado y nutrido mutuamente a lo largo de la historia. Esta perspectiva, en cierta medida, podría reducir la complejidad y la riqueza de la interacción entre libertad individual y soberanía popular en el entramado de las democracias modernas.
Además, si bien la propuesta de Mouffe de una "política agonística" es intrigante, es posible cuestionar hasta qué punto es viable en la práctica. El reconocimiento y la aceptación del disenso son esenciales para cualquier democracia saludable; sin embargo, alentar una constante lucha hegemónica podría desestabilizar sistemas políticos y generar divisiones insalvables. Es esencial encontrar un equilibrio entre aceptar el antagonismo y garantizar la estabilidad y cohesión necesarias para el bienestar de la sociedad. Si bien la obra de Mouffe es un llamado necesario a la reflexión, es crucial abordar estas inquietudes para construir una visión más matizada y pragmática de la democracia.
March 17, 2023
This was pretty good. I liked the sort of tension it had with deliberative democracy. It kind of attempted to shatter the positivity and idealization that liberalism generally has; I felt as though it was productive in the sense that it effectively critiqued deliberative democracy. Good book!
November 19, 2010
The 4 stars out of 5 is appropriate. This book is quite observant and insightful until about page 98, when Mouffe takes her well-founded description of the problem and offers a very weak and ineffective solution. I feel that for the study of the decline of democracy and classical liberalism this book is very useful, while its solutions to the problem are useless.
August 5, 2023
Chantal Mouffe’s thesis in this work can be summarized as follows: “the specificity of modern democracy lies in the recognition and the legitimation of conflict and the refusal to suppress it through the imposition of an authoritarian order. A well-functioning democracy calls for a confrontation between democratic political positions, and this requires a real debate about possible alternatives” (pp. 113).
Mouffe advances a defence of ‘agonism’, which refers to the positive aspects of conflict and their usefulness in a liberal-democratic society. She understands liberalism to mean the projects of universal equality and human rights, and democracy to mean the juxtaposition of an ‘us’ and ‘them’, and the notion of citizenship which delineates those who have access to rights and those who don’t. A liberal (or pluralist? Social?) democracy therefore aims to bridge these two often opposing worldviews.
Mouffe also criticizes the likes of Rawls and Habermas for their moralism and seems to advocate instead for an amoral politics, citing moral approaches as a hinderance to democratic decision-making (pp. 133). This is strange to me as I find myself agreeing more with her liberal opponents on this point; that is, morality is still a useful concept in political discourse. If we regard every politicized decision as amoral, we’ve ceded far more legitimate ground to fascism than we might have intended. I don’t know if in the year 2000 reactionary politics were as bleak as they are today (I wouldn’t see why not), but this seems to me an obviously naïve argument on Mouffe’s part. Then, a hundred pages in, we arrive at some of the most contentious of her claims, in my opinion:
“This is the real meaning of liberal-democratic tolerance, which does not entail condoning ideas that we oppose or being indifferent to standpoints we disagree with, but treating those who defend them as legitimate opponents. […] An adversary is an enemy, but a legitimate enemy, one with whom we have some common ground because we have a shared adhesion to the ethico-political principles of liberal democracy: liberty and equality. But we disagree concerning the meaning and implementation of those principles…” (pp. 102).
Really, Dr. Mouffe? Is this really a worthwhile or effective leftist strategy? And if we disagree concerning the ‘meaning’ of principles of liberty and equality to such an extent, are these principles really valuable? Following Stirner, for example, liberty means that the market is ‘free’, that religion is ‘free’, that the state is ‘free’, but not that I am free. It means these things are free to oppress me, whereas my liberty, to me, would mean my freedom from these things altogether. We don’t simply disagree on meaning, we have mutually exclusive, oppositional definitions of these principles, and to the extent that their ‘meaning’ is dominated so profusely by the hegemonic order, what use have we, the most marginalized on the Left, for them at all?
My general response to Mouffe and other social democratic arguments would be based on a few simple premises:
1) The adversaries of Leftism (from neoliberalism to fascism and in-between) do not play by the same rules of “agonism” that Mouffe advocates for; rather, they exercise authoritarian means to maintain their hegemony, whether that be the market or direct government.
2) If the Left insists on settling with anything less than these means of its adversaries, it will continue to be stifled by them. In a system which expressly thwarts truly democratic or electoral forms of change, and deliberately offers only means of superficial change in order to maintain its hegemony, socialist strategy must, by definition, involve forms of resistance and counter-hegemony that transgress (even denounce) neoliberal governance in order to succeed.
3) This requires serious reconsideration of the practicality of the dictatorship of the proletariat, both informed theoretically by Marxism, and also grounded historically in previous socialist projects. Indeed, we cannot simply dismiss the history of communism with appeals to its “collapse” or “failure” ad nauseam without learning from it, refining it, and organizing around those lessons. This includes not only successful proletarian revolutions, but socialist regimes overthrown in their infancy by Western adversaries. In fact, almost no incidents in history empirically substantiate the efficacy of a domesticated social-democracy for which Mouffe advocates (e.g. the September 30th Movement). And perhaps this explains why she seems incapable of providing any tangible steps in achieving it here and now, save for a few vague references to a pan-Europeanism.
I’ve wrestled with Chantal Mouffe’s work for a while now, but if I had to take sides in this post-Marxist debate, I’d have to say Ellen Meiksins Wood wins out. Wood kind of eviscerates Mouffe in “the Retreat from Class”, and at this point, I just don’t see much of a use for the latter’s theory. This certainly deserves more than one star, as Mouffe engages well with other thinkers, but she lacks much of a direction for her own input in my opinion. I still think “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy” is a solid work, and “The Return of the Political” is at least worth a read—more than I can say about this book here.
Mouffe advances a defence of ‘agonism’, which refers to the positive aspects of conflict and their usefulness in a liberal-democratic society. She understands liberalism to mean the projects of universal equality and human rights, and democracy to mean the juxtaposition of an ‘us’ and ‘them’, and the notion of citizenship which delineates those who have access to rights and those who don’t. A liberal (or pluralist? Social?) democracy therefore aims to bridge these two often opposing worldviews.
Mouffe also criticizes the likes of Rawls and Habermas for their moralism and seems to advocate instead for an amoral politics, citing moral approaches as a hinderance to democratic decision-making (pp. 133). This is strange to me as I find myself agreeing more with her liberal opponents on this point; that is, morality is still a useful concept in political discourse. If we regard every politicized decision as amoral, we’ve ceded far more legitimate ground to fascism than we might have intended. I don’t know if in the year 2000 reactionary politics were as bleak as they are today (I wouldn’t see why not), but this seems to me an obviously naïve argument on Mouffe’s part. Then, a hundred pages in, we arrive at some of the most contentious of her claims, in my opinion:
“This is the real meaning of liberal-democratic tolerance, which does not entail condoning ideas that we oppose or being indifferent to standpoints we disagree with, but treating those who defend them as legitimate opponents. […] An adversary is an enemy, but a legitimate enemy, one with whom we have some common ground because we have a shared adhesion to the ethico-political principles of liberal democracy: liberty and equality. But we disagree concerning the meaning and implementation of those principles…” (pp. 102).
Really, Dr. Mouffe? Is this really a worthwhile or effective leftist strategy? And if we disagree concerning the ‘meaning’ of principles of liberty and equality to such an extent, are these principles really valuable? Following Stirner, for example, liberty means that the market is ‘free’, that religion is ‘free’, that the state is ‘free’, but not that I am free. It means these things are free to oppress me, whereas my liberty, to me, would mean my freedom from these things altogether. We don’t simply disagree on meaning, we have mutually exclusive, oppositional definitions of these principles, and to the extent that their ‘meaning’ is dominated so profusely by the hegemonic order, what use have we, the most marginalized on the Left, for them at all?
My general response to Mouffe and other social democratic arguments would be based on a few simple premises:
1) The adversaries of Leftism (from neoliberalism to fascism and in-between) do not play by the same rules of “agonism” that Mouffe advocates for; rather, they exercise authoritarian means to maintain their hegemony, whether that be the market or direct government.
2) If the Left insists on settling with anything less than these means of its adversaries, it will continue to be stifled by them. In a system which expressly thwarts truly democratic or electoral forms of change, and deliberately offers only means of superficial change in order to maintain its hegemony, socialist strategy must, by definition, involve forms of resistance and counter-hegemony that transgress (even denounce) neoliberal governance in order to succeed.
3) This requires serious reconsideration of the practicality of the dictatorship of the proletariat, both informed theoretically by Marxism, and also grounded historically in previous socialist projects. Indeed, we cannot simply dismiss the history of communism with appeals to its “collapse” or “failure” ad nauseam without learning from it, refining it, and organizing around those lessons. This includes not only successful proletarian revolutions, but socialist regimes overthrown in their infancy by Western adversaries. In fact, almost no incidents in history empirically substantiate the efficacy of a domesticated social-democracy for which Mouffe advocates (e.g. the September 30th Movement). And perhaps this explains why she seems incapable of providing any tangible steps in achieving it here and now, save for a few vague references to a pan-Europeanism.
I’ve wrestled with Chantal Mouffe’s work for a while now, but if I had to take sides in this post-Marxist debate, I’d have to say Ellen Meiksins Wood wins out. Wood kind of eviscerates Mouffe in “the Retreat from Class”, and at this point, I just don’t see much of a use for the latter’s theory. This certainly deserves more than one star, as Mouffe engages well with other thinkers, but she lacks much of a direction for her own input in my opinion. I still think “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy” is a solid work, and “The Return of the Political” is at least worth a read—more than I can say about this book here.
June 23, 2025
The biggest downside to this book, which she owns from the beginning, is that there's a large degree of repetition within the chapters, as they were a series of essays collected together and made into a whole. As such, this might be a book worth reading slow, rather than in two days, as you then might be able to welcome some of those repetitions as reminders rather than annoyances.
But I'm glad she put this out, much better than not having anything at all her to represent this unique view. I think you can get >80% of the value of this book by just reading Chapters 1, 3, 5 and the Conclusion, and would likely recommend reading as such.
One of the best aspects of the book is that she covers things at a larger level, situating various authors against one another and grouping them in ways I hadn't thought of before. The universalists vs contextualists framing felt insightful to me. The universalists are philosophers like Rawls who think it possible to find our way to a universal solution to our political problems, one that's durable across times and societies. The contextualists are philosophers like Michael Walzer who argue that such an abstract, detached system is likely to fail, where what's instead needed is tailoring to a specific country or situation.
In our group, we focused on unpacking what exactly she envisions as part of her "pluralistic agonism", whether she was really stepping outside the practice of rationality proposed by thinkers like Rawls and Habermas or whether she was proposing a critique which, through failure to more fully define an alternative, really hadn't identified a better alternative. We're supposed to engage more fully in the political life, viewing those there as rivals (though not enemies), then coming together to attempt to resolve our differences, but how is that resolution to go? What avenues are we supposed to take outside of rational discussion to resolve our differences here? How does this process protect against the persuasive power of sophists, of those who can convince better than others having more of an effect than those trying to play the game by the rules?
How can such a model allow for views at the extreme, which might involve advocating for the weaking of one's voice, of the very capacity they have to be a fully recognized player in this agonistic game of politics?
But I'm glad she put this out, much better than not having anything at all her to represent this unique view. I think you can get >80% of the value of this book by just reading Chapters 1, 3, 5 and the Conclusion, and would likely recommend reading as such.
One of the best aspects of the book is that she covers things at a larger level, situating various authors against one another and grouping them in ways I hadn't thought of before. The universalists vs contextualists framing felt insightful to me. The universalists are philosophers like Rawls who think it possible to find our way to a universal solution to our political problems, one that's durable across times and societies. The contextualists are philosophers like Michael Walzer who argue that such an abstract, detached system is likely to fail, where what's instead needed is tailoring to a specific country or situation.
In our group, we focused on unpacking what exactly she envisions as part of her "pluralistic agonism", whether she was really stepping outside the practice of rationality proposed by thinkers like Rawls and Habermas or whether she was proposing a critique which, through failure to more fully define an alternative, really hadn't identified a better alternative. We're supposed to engage more fully in the political life, viewing those there as rivals (though not enemies), then coming together to attempt to resolve our differences, but how is that resolution to go? What avenues are we supposed to take outside of rational discussion to resolve our differences here? How does this process protect against the persuasive power of sophists, of those who can convince better than others having more of an effect than those trying to play the game by the rules?
How can such a model allow for views at the extreme, which might involve advocating for the weaking of one's voice, of the very capacity they have to be a fully recognized player in this agonistic game of politics?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 21, 2024
En su segundo esfuerzo tras el clásico "Hegemonía y Estrategia Socialista", Mouffe matiza sus críticas al consenso y al pensamiento democrático deliberativo. Reconociendo, sin embargo, su superioridad frente al enfoque agregativo, la razón comunicativa habermassiana y su democracia deliberativa
terminan por mermar las identidades colectivas, excluyendo sigilosamente a las discindencias y dotando a la democracia liberal de una base epistemológica inadecuada que la deja indefensa ante los embates de la derecha populista, señala Mouffe. Pensando con Schmitt y contra Schmitte, Mouffe nos invita no a tratar de resolver las tensiones inherentes al proyecto demoliberal sino a gestionar de manera agonística los conflictos que surjan de las distintas interpretaciones de los valores contradictorios de libertad e igualdad para todas. Es tiempo de rechazar el consenso liberal y abrazar la paradoja democrática.
terminan por mermar las identidades colectivas, excluyendo sigilosamente a las discindencias y dotando a la democracia liberal de una base epistemológica inadecuada que la deja indefensa ante los embates de la derecha populista, señala Mouffe. Pensando con Schmitt y contra Schmitte, Mouffe nos invita no a tratar de resolver las tensiones inherentes al proyecto demoliberal sino a gestionar de manera agonística los conflictos que surjan de las distintas interpretaciones de los valores contradictorios de libertad e igualdad para todas. Es tiempo de rechazar el consenso liberal y abrazar la paradoja democrática.
July 7, 2025
1 ding heb ik bovenal onthouden uit dit boek: om, mocht ik ooit Chantal Mouffe tegenkomen, onder geen beding te beginnen over het concept van de deliberatieve democratie.
Heel goed boek dat die deliberatieve democratie quasi vijf hoofdstukken lang bekritiseert. Ik had altijd wel het gevoel dat het ideaal van de orde in de democratie niet helemaal wenselijk was, maar het alternatief (chaos) is natuurlijk niet veel beter. Het is echter die chaos die volgens Mouffe aan de basis ligt van de democratie. We gaan nooit volledig ergens geraken, en dat is net de bedoeling.
Altijd leuk als ik één of andere filosoof vind die decennia terug reeds mijn huidige vage gedachten bleek te hebben, en die dan kan verwoorden in veel betere termen dan ik dat ooit zou kunnen. Misschien tijd om een collectietje Mouffe aan te leggen.
Heel goed boek dat die deliberatieve democratie quasi vijf hoofdstukken lang bekritiseert. Ik had altijd wel het gevoel dat het ideaal van de orde in de democratie niet helemaal wenselijk was, maar het alternatief (chaos) is natuurlijk niet veel beter. Het is echter die chaos die volgens Mouffe aan de basis ligt van de democratie. We gaan nooit volledig ergens geraken, en dat is net de bedoeling.
Altijd leuk als ik één of andere filosoof vind die decennia terug reeds mijn huidige vage gedachten bleek te hebben, en die dan kan verwoorden in veel betere termen dan ik dat ooit zou kunnen. Misschien tijd om een collectietje Mouffe aan te leggen.
May 9, 2023
Simply exquisite. Mouffe does a spectacular job of describing the failures of current conceptions of democracy and what she feels is a necessary replacement. There is much to think about here, and many of her examples, especially on the failure side, echo problems and conflicts occurring right now in self-proclaimed democracies around the globe. A fascinating read, one that forces you to think - and to let go of certain beliefs and truths - but also a book that sees a way out of the impasse we face as political beings. Whether or not we are willing to take it is the real issue.
June 10, 2017
Una interesante, lógica y bastante teórica discusión en torno algunos de los elementos constitutivos de la democracias moderna. Mouffé a través de diferentes ensayos establece puntos de vista claros /teóricos, sobre los postulados de Habermars y Schmitt, para ir develando, lo que desde su punto de vista se vuelve en una paradoja democrática.
October 28, 2021
A bit repetitive at times but I liked her idea of managing antagonisms. I think the point could be made in a more powerful, less convoluted way. I also appreciated her criticism of the contemporary liberal parties.
July 11, 2019
Very interesting, she raises many interesting points and her analysis is quite good.
January 25, 2021
I definitely wouldn't find myself aligning with the author ideologically, but this was a truly fun read (I mention disagreement because some of it made it fun). The very idea of questioning the value of unity or consensus, is quite Timely. I also found her to be a much better writer from what I'm used to in the post-structuralist world
March 30, 2023
Ben het niet met alles eens, maar heel spannend hoe ze al die filosofische concepten (Derrida, Lacan, Schmitt, Gramsci) vertaald naar een theorie van democratie.
March 2, 2024
interesting in the analysis of "the third way". The intuition about the leftist shift toward centre as a natural consequense of the utopia of liber democracy is worth the entire book.
Read
August 31, 2025I have such a love/hate relationship with Mouffe. This time they managed to win me over again with some compelling argumentation. Touché.
October 11, 2014
Πολυ καλο βιβλιο για το θεμα της ελλειματικης δημοκρατιας των αρχων του 21ου αιωνα με αμεση προβολη και στη παρουσα κατασταση της νεοφιλελευθερης ηγεμονιας μετα την οικονομικη κρίση. Η κριτική που ασκείται τόσο στον Ρωλς όσο και στον Σμίτ βρίσκει τα κενά στις θεωρίες που έχουν αναπτύξει οι δύο προαναφερθέντες. Επίσης, το θέμα της αγωνιστικής δημοκρατίας, όπως το αντιλαμβάνεται η Μουφ μπορεί όντως να συνδράμει στην ανανέωση της ριζοσπαστικής πολιτικής. Ωστόσο, το βιβλίο παρουσιάζει κάποια "κενά". Ένα απο αυτά είναι η επίτευξη της αγωνιστικής δημοκρατίας: καλή ιδέα με προοπτική χωρίς όμως να υπάρχει σαφήνεια ως προς την επίτευξη της. Ένα ακόμη θέμα είναι η μεικτή σκέψη της απέναντι στην συναινέση και την σύγκρουση στην πολιτική. Ισχυρίζεται ότι δεν είναι κατά της συναίνεσης αλλά προτείνει μια συνεχή σύγκρουση πάνω στο επίπεδο της πολιτικής όχι με τους όρους του Σμίτ αλλά με όρους ανταγωνισμού στο πλαίσιο της δημοκρατίας, όπως την εννοεί η Μουφ. Συμπερασματικά, πολύ καλο βιβλίο με αρκετά κενά όμως ως προς την επιδίωξη των στόχων και των μηνυμάτων που θέλει να περάσει.
May 31, 2010
This book presents a branch of political theory I had never been exposed to before, and it is well argued and written. The central premise of Mouffe's position (via Schmidtt) is that there is a fundamental conflict between liberalism and democracy; in fact, liberal democracy is constituted and defined by this conflict. Consensus is impossible. Unlike Schmidtt, she does not take this to mean that liberal democracy is going to fail.
I agree with a lot of Mouffe's descriptions of the modern State, but I think her proposed solutions and strategies are stupid (Negriist alternative globalization, really?!?). Still, it was interesting to read someone defending liberal democracy in a fairly honest and inventive way.
I agree with a lot of Mouffe's descriptions of the modern State, but I think her proposed solutions and strategies are stupid (Negriist alternative globalization, really?!?). Still, it was interesting to read someone defending liberal democracy in a fairly honest and inventive way.
March 31, 2011
Un trabajo muy importante que nos recuerda la importancia de la división derecha / izquierda en el espectro político y la paradoja que implica el reconciliar los valores del liberalismo con aquellos de la democracia, en lo que hoy en día llamamos la democracia liberal. El punto mas importante es que nos recuerda que hoy mas que nunca existe espacio para la radicalización es decir para buscar expresiones fuera del consenso que excluye todo fuera del centro o fuera de lo que considera racionalmente apropiado de la discusión política y por lo tanto amenaza ala pluralidad y de esta forma a la democracia.
October 29, 2010
This book may be over my head, and while I'm finding it interesting, I need to downsize my reading to either the essentials or the pleasures, and this one isn't either. May return to it later, or may find something else that looks at the same topic in a more readable and illuminating fashion.
July 31, 2008
A difficult read, as philosphy often is, but this is an interesting argument about the role and structure of democratic society that uses interesting source material.
December 11, 2012
The most intelligent betrayal of utopia and embrace of liberal democracy.
June 29, 2014
This book is dead on!
Accurate description of the evolution of democracy and some concrete suggestions onhow it should proceed going forward
Accurate description of the evolution of democracy and some concrete suggestions onhow it should proceed going forward
Want to read
August 20, 2015Discutido en La razón populista Pág.210
Currently reading
April 16, 2009The struggle for identification is the constitutional component to a vibrant democracy.
January 21, 2019
Interesting in some respects but boring in others. Maybe the topic simply isn't my cup of tea but my eyes glazed over multiple times
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews