Skip to main content

Thought and Action: The Theoretical Bases of Radical Democratic Agonism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 258 Accesses

Abstract

In order to set the theoretical parameters for the work, this chapter explores the projects of Chantal Mouffe, William Connolly, Bonnie Honig, and Jacques Rancière in detail, paying close attention to the similarities that provide the overall radical democratic vision with its bases as well as its political aims. Following from this, the chapter also furthers the discussion regarding the central theoretical weakness of the four theorists, namely their inability to account for the circumstances that allow for agonistic relations between political contenders to be maintained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Chapter 3 in Honig’s Emergency Politics and Chapter 2 in Rancière’s On the Shores of Politics for this type of demonstrative, though not analytical, use of case studies.

References

  • Althusser, L. (2001). ‘Lenin and philosophy’ and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W. (1991). Identity/difference: Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, W. (2005). Pluralism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B. (1993). Political theory and the displacement of politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B. (1995). Towards an agonistic feminism: Hannah Arendt and the politics of identity. In B. Honig (Ed.), Feminist interpretations of Hannah Arendt (pp. 135–166). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B. (2009). Emergency politics: Paradox, law, democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lefort, C. (1991). Democracy and political theory. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, A., Finlayson, A., & Tormey, S. (2015). Reconstituting realism: Feasibility, utopia and epistemological imperfection. Contemporary Political Theory, 14(3), 276–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (1993). The return of the political. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2001). The democratic paradox. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (1995). On the shores of politics. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (1999). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (2010a). Does democracy mean something? In S. Corcoran (Ed.), Dissensus: Politics and aesthetics (pp. 45–61). New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (2010b). Ten theses on politics. In S. Corcoran (Ed.), Dissensus: Politics and aesthetics (pp. 27–44). New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (2010c). The ethical turn of aesthetics and politics. In S. Corcoran (Ed.), Dissensus: Politics and aesthetics (pp. 184–204). New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, J. (2010d). Who is the subject of the rights of man? In S. Corcoran (Ed.), Dissensus: Politics and aesthetics (pp. 62–75). New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. (2008). The concept of the political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønder, L., & Thomassen, L. (2005). Radical democracy: Politics between abundance and lack. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Matijasevich .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Matijasevich, D. (2019). Thought and Action: The Theoretical Bases of Radical Democratic Agonism. In: Radical Democracy and Its Limits. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23014-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics