Abstract
Agonism is a political theory that places contestation at the heart of politics. Agonistic theorists charge liberal theory with a depoliticization of pluralism through an excessive focus on consensus. This paper examines the agonistic critiques of liberalism from a normative perspective. I argue that by itself the argument from pluralism is not sufficient to support an agonistic account of politics, but points to further normative commitments. Analyzing the work of Mouffe, Honig, Connolly, and Owen, I identify two normative currents of agonistic theory: emancipatory agonism, aimed at challenging violence and exclusion, and perfectionist agonism, aimed at the cultivation of nobility. From a normative perspective the former presents an internal challenge to liberalism, while the latter constitutes an external challenge to liberalism by providing a competing account of the ends of politics. Recognition of the distinction between emancipatory and perfectionist agonism is crucial in assessing the purchase of agonistic critiques of liberalism. Furthermore, this analysis draws us beyond the simple opposition between contestation and consensus. It is not simply a question of valuing genuine pluralism and therefore criticizing consensus; rather the question comes to be: what are the ends of politics?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I express my gratitude to Herman Siemens and Bert van den Brink for invaluable discussions and commentary. I also thank David Owen and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Assessments of the agonistic critique have come mainly from the deliberative perspective (Brady, 2004; Dryzek, 2005; Knops, 2007). See also Schaap's response to this debate (2006) and his recent review article (2007). Deveaux (1999) examines agonism as a very broad category, including Arendt's theory of political action and Barber's republicanism. Villa (1999) critically examines agonism but takes its critique of liberalism for granted. Finally, Acampora (2003) and Siemens (2001) examine agonism in relation to Nietzsche.
It should be pointed out that rationalism is criticized as a starting point for political theorizing from within the liberal tradition as well (Waldron, 1999, 149–163; Friedman, 2000; van den Brink, 2005). For a critique of Mouffe's arguments on this point, see Knops (2007).
Tully (2002) makes a similar argument in which he situates the activity of critical reasoning within social practices.
The critique of depoliticization has historical roots that extend beyond the current agonistic critique of liberalism, for instance, in the work of Arendt (1998) and Schmitt (1996).
For an agonistic critique of this distinction in Arendt, see Honig (1993, 118–124).
Rawls's later work fares no better on Honig's account (1993, 195–199).
This is well illustrated by Knops (2007), who criticizes Mouffe's conception of reason and deliberation.
Note that Rawls (2005, 260) explicitly rejects a civic humanist account of politics as fundamentally opposed to political liberalism. This already points to the divide between these conceptions of politics that I aim to show below.
This distinction between the exercise and opportunity concepts of freedom was first drawn by Taylor (1985). See Siemens (2006) for an elaboration of Nietzsche's conception of freedom as the exercise of capacities.
References
Acampora, C.D. (2003) ‘Demos agonistes redux: reflections on the streit of political agonism’, Nietzsche-Studien 32: 374–390.
Arendt, H. (1998) The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barry, B.M. (2001) Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brady, J.S. (2004) ‘No contest? Assessing the agonistic critiques of Jurgen Habermas's theory of the public sphere’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 30 (3): 331–354.
Cavell, S. (1990) Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome: The Constitution of Emersonian Perfectionism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conant, J. (2001) ‘Nietzsche's Perfectionism: A Reading of Schopenhauer as Educator’, in R. Schacht (ed.) Nietzsche's Postmoralism: Essays on Nietzsche's Prelude to Philosophy's Future, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181–257.
Connolly, W.E. (1991) IdentityDifference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Deveaux, M. (1999) ‘Agonism and pluralism’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 25 (4): 1–22.
Dryzek, J.S. (2005) ‘Deliberative democracy in divided societies: alternatives to agonism and analgesia’, Political Theory 33 (2): 218–242.
Friedman, M. (2000) ‘John Rawls and the Political Coercion of Unreasonable People’, in V. Davion and C. Wolf (eds.) The Idea of a Political Liberalism, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 16–33.
Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hatab, L.J. (1995) A Nietzschean Defense of Democracy: An Experiment in Postmodern Politics, Chicago: Open Court.
Honig, B. (1993) Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Karagiannis, N. and Wagner, P. (2005) ‘Towards a theory of synagonism’, Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (3): 235–262.
Knops, A. (2007) ‘Debate: agonism as deliberation — on Mouffe's theory of democracy’, Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (1): 115–126.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (2001) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd edn, London: Verso.
Mouffe, C. (1993) The Return of the Political, London: Verso.
Mouffe, C. (1995) ‘Democratic Politics and the Question of Identity’, in J. Rajchman (ed.) Identity in Question, New York: Routledge, pp. 31–42.
Mouffe, C. (2000) The Democratic Paradox, London: Verso.
Mouffe, C. (2005) On the Political, London: Routledge.
Owen, D. (1995) Nietzsche, Politics and Modernity, London: Sage.
Owen, D. (2002) ‘Equality, democracy, and self-respect: reflections on Nietzsche's agonal perfectionism’, Journal of Nietzsche Studies (24): 113–131.
Rawls, J. (1999a) ‘Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical’, in S. Freeman (ed.) Collected Papers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 388–414.
Rawls, J. (1999b) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2005) Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
Raz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rorty, R. (1991) Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaap, A. (2006) ‘Agonism in divided societies’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 32 (2): 255–277.
Schaap, A. (2007) ‘Political theory and the agony of politics’, Political Studies Review 5 (1): 56–74.
Schmitt, C. (1996) The Concept of the Political, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sen, A.K. (2006) Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny, New York: Norton.
Siemens, H. (2001) ‘Nietzsche's political philosophy: a review of recent literature’, Nietzsche-Studien 30: 509–526.
Siemens, H. (2006) ‘Nietzsche Contra Liberalism on Freedom’, in K. Ansell-Pearson (ed.) A Companion to Nietzsche, New York: Blackwell, pp. 437–454.
Taylor, C. (ed.) (1985) ‘What's Wrong with Negative Liberty?’, in Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tully, J. (2002) ‘Political philosophy as a critical activity’, Political Theory 30 (4): 533–555.
Van den Brink, B. (2005) ‘Liberalism without Agreement: Political Autonomy and Agonistic Citizenship’, in J. Christman and J. Anderson (eds.) Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 245–271.
Villa, D. (ed.) (1999) ‘Democratizing the Agon: Nietzsche, Arendt, and the Agonistic Tendency in Recent Political Theory’, in Politics, Philosophy, Terror: Essays on the Thought of Hannah Arendt, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 107–127.
Waldron, J. (1999) Law and Disagreement, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fossen, T. Agonistic Critiques of Liberalism: Perfection and Emancipation. Contemp Polit Theory 7, 376–394 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2008.15
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2008.15