Integrating agonism with deliberation: Realising the benefits

Abstract

In ?Agonism as Deliberation? (Knops 2007) I suggest a reconciliation between Mouffe?s agonist version of democracy, adjusted to preserve consistency, and deliberation. Here I reply to two subsequent criticisms of this project: G?rs?zl? (2009) and Fives (2009). Although both hold agonism and deliberation incompatible impossible, they do so from opposing perspectives. G?rs?zl? defends Mouffe?s agonism as distinct and coherent on the basis of what he considers a correct understanding of her concept of hegemony. Fives argues Mouffe?s approach is separate but incoherent, and should be rejected. Against these two conflicting positions, I seek to demonstrate not only that integration between agonism and democracy is possible, but that it has distinct benefits for both agonism and deliberative theory. Divested of its contradictory assertion that universal rational consensus is impossible in principle, agonism can be interpreted as theory of the moment of difference within a broader deliberative dialectic that seeks to move from more to less partial consensus. Conceived in this way, we can better appreciate how these two approaches can complement one another, in pursuing shared goals, rather than the static and unnecessary opposition offered by the two critics I address here.U clanku ?Agonizam kao deliberacija? (Knops 2007) predlozio sam pomirenje izmedju agonisticke verzije demokratije Mufove, uz odredjene korekcije kako bi se ocuvala konzistentnost, i deliberacije. Ovde nudim odgovor na dve kritike ovog projekta koje su usledile: G?rs?zl? (2009) i Fives (2009). Iako oba autora smatraju da nije moguce pomiriti agonizam i deliberaciju, oni to cine sa suprotnih pozicija. Gursozlu brani agonizam Mufove kao poseban i koherentan projekat na osnovu onoga sto smatra ispravnim razumevanjem njenog pojma hegemonije. Fajvs tvrdi da je njen pristup poseban ali nekoherentan, i da zato treba da bude odbacen. Nasuprot ove dve suprotstavljene pozicije, nastojacu da pokazem ne samo da je moguca integracija agonizma i deliberacije, vec i da je veoma korisna kako za agonizam, tako i za deliberativnu teoriju. Oslobodjen kontradiktorne tvrdnje da je univerzalni racionalni konsenzus u principu nemoguce postici, agonizam se moze interpretirati kao teorija momenta razlike unutar sire deliberativne dijalektike koja pokusava da od parcijalnog, dodje do sireg konsenzusa. Ako ih posmatramo na taj nacin, mozemo da uvidimo kako se ova dva pristupa dopunjuju u traganju za zajednickim ciljevima, pre nego sto predstavljaju staticnu i nuznu opoziciju kako to smatraju kriticari kojima se u ovom clanku bavim.