In Defense of Dissent
27,99 €
inkl. MwSt.
Versandkostenfrei*
Versandfertig in über 4 Wochen
  • Broschiertes Buch

The objective of this Book is to show that conceptualizing democracy in terms of "agonism" best addresses the ills of post-democracy. I characterize post-democracy as a democratic order that has all the trappings of democracy, including multi-party elections, but which has been enmeshed in a particular discourse or discourses that have become hegemonic. This has the effect of effacing real political difference as though various political actors in a democratic order might be different in word and name, they converge on major policy points. To show agonistic democracy as the best conception, I…mehr

Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
Produktbeschreibung
The objective of this Book is to show that conceptualizing democracy in terms of "agonism" best addresses the ills of post-democracy. I characterize post-democracy as a democratic order that has all the trappings of democracy, including multi-party elections, but which has been enmeshed in a particular discourse or discourses that have become hegemonic. This has the effect of effacing real political difference as though various political actors in a democratic order might be different in word and name, they converge on major policy points. To show agonistic democracy as the best conception, I compare and contrast it to deliberative democracy. Briefly, deliberative democracy emphasizes rational argument and reaching consensus, whereas agonistic democracy valorizes fierce political conflict between competing hegemonic projects. I argue that an emphasis on consensus does not address the specific nature of the post-democratic age, while a valorization of fierce conflict ensures the facilitation of real political difference requisite for a vibrant democratic politics. Focusing on Chantal Mouffe's conception of agonistic democracy, I identify some limitations which I attempt to overcome, namely her insistence on a form of consensus by which fierce political conflict should be bounded in order to stabilize democratic confrontations. I argue that it is possible to envision agonistic democracy in a purely procedural way, without any such consensus. Recognizing post-democracy to be a worrying reality in contemporary democratic societies, and the growing dissatisfaction with this situation, I believe democracy requires serious re-examination. This Book does exactly that.