MODULE 1.21
Agonism
Agonism underscores the centrality of conflict in political systems, asserting that political life inherently involves contention, either as a descriptive or normative feature. In its descriptive form, agonism contends that conflict is an inescapable component of all political structures. In its normative sense, it emphasizes the value of conflict, suggesting that it plays a vital role in maintaining the vitality of political systems. A common argument in agonistic theory posits that efforts to eliminate conflict from politics are not only misguided but also detrimental, as such attempts often lead to negative consequences.
William Connolly’s critique of mid-20th-century pluralism in political science provides a key example of agonism in its descriptive form. Pluralist theorists, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, portrayed the American political system as an arena where diverse groups could advocate for their policies and eventually reach consensus. Connolly rejected this notion, arguing that it ignored the power imbalances inherent within society. Politics, he claimed, was not merely a process of reaching consensus, but a terrain of conflict where some groups impose their preferences over others. In response, Connolly advocates for "agonistic respect," a perspective that recognizes conflict as an enduring and necessary feature of politics, rather than an obstacle to be overcome.
Chantal Mouffe, in contrast, derives her understanding of agonism by challenging the normative assumptions of contemporary liberalism, especially John Rawls's concept of “reasonable pluralism.” Rawls argues that a liberal democracy must respect citizens' differing conceptions of the good, but limits this pluralism by insisting that citizens should not impose their views on others. Mouffe critiques this limitation, viewing it as a restriction on political debate that unfairly precedes political engagement. She argues that politics is inherently about fundamental, often irreconcilable, differences, and that a truly political pluralism must accommodate these conflicts rather than neutralizing them. Rawls’s attempt to declare certain conflicts “unreasonable” effectively undermines the political sphere itself, according to Mouffe.
Mouffe’s perspective on the role of conflict in politics is deeply influenced by Carl Schmitt’s theory, which posits that the defining feature of the political is the distinction between friend and enemy and the conflict that arises from it. While Mouffe concurs with Schmitt that conflict is essential to the political, she departs from his more confrontational view. Rather than advocating for the destruction of the enemy, Mouffe proposes a model of “agonistic pluralism,” where political conflict is framed as a contest between adversaries who may disagree but ultimately respect each other’s right to exist. This contrasts not only with Schmitt’s antagonistic struggle but also with the nonagonistic pluralism promoted by Rawls, which seeks to eliminate conflict altogether. In this light, Mouffe’s agonism champions a more respectful form of conflict, one that remains central to political life.
The practical application of agonism lies in fostering a political environment where conflict is not only acknowledged but actively maintained as a vital aspect of democracy and governance. In an agonistic framework, political systems embrace the reality of deep, irreconcilable differences between groups, recognizing that such conflict can spur necessary debate, innovation, and accountability. Rather than seeking to eliminate or neutralize disagreement, agonism encourages a political culture where adversaries, though in conflict, respect each other’s right to participate in the political process. This approach challenges the idea of consensus as an end goal, advocating instead for a system that allows for the expression of diverse, incompatible views, which, when managed constructively, contribute to a more dynamic and resilient political order. Practical applications of agonism can be seen in policies that protect minority voices, safeguard the freedom of speech, and ensure that political struggles are framed as part of the ongoing process of negotiation and public engagement.