The Democratic Paradox Free

FREE THE DEMOCRATIC PARADOX PDF

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book The Democratic Paradox. The Democratic Paradox by Chantal Mouffe. Political thought and practice are stifled by a misconceived search fro consensus and the promotion of a bland social unanimity which, as Chantal Mouffe shows, far from being the sign of progress, constitute a serious threat for democratic institutions. Taking issue with the work of John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas on one side, and with the tenets of the third way as practised by Tony Blair and theorised by Anthony Giddens on the other, Mouffe brings to the fore the paradoxical nature of modern liberal democracy. Get A Copy. Paperbackpages. Published July 17th by Verso first published July More Details Original Title. Other Editions 6. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about The Democratic Paradoxplease sign The Democratic Paradox. Be the first The Democratic Paradox ask a question about The Democratic Paradox. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of The Democratic Paradox. Aug 11, jasmine sun rated it it was amazing Shelves: politicstheory. Habermas, etc. View 2 The Democratic Paradox. Oct 10, Grace rated it did not like it Shelves: post-structuralism. In The Democratic ParadoxThe Democratic Paradox Mouffe seeks to get to the heart of the liberal-democratic project. Rather than seeing liberal-democracy as a stable, unified historical project, Mouffe instead sees a contingent and often-contested alliance between The Democratic Paradox distinct historical projects: the democratic project based on equality and the liberal project based on liberty. Writing in the 90s, Mouffe is especially critical of the "Third The Democratic Paradox and the acceptance by social-democratic parties of the hege In The Democratic ParadoxChantal Mouffe seeks to get to the heart of the liberal-democratic project. Writing in the 90s, Mouffe is especially critical of the "Third Way" and the acceptance by social-democratic parties of the hegemony of neoliberalism. This "consensus of the centre" and the foreclosure of a left alternative to neoliberalism has fueled, in Mouffe's eyes, the rise of far- right populist parties which threaten the very continuation of the liberal-democratic project. It's easy to see the parallels of this analysis with the current The Democratic Paradox political situation. As the Democratic Party has consistently failed to deliver substantive change for the working class and for people of colour, these populations became disillusioned with the democratic progress and did not vote for Hillary Clinton, allowing far-right populist Donald Trump to take power. In this her analysis seems prescient. What is missing from Mouffe's analysis is, of The Democratic Paradox, class. The Democratic Paradox takes a post-Marxist perspective in The Democratic Paradox and, rather than expanding her analysis, instead marginalizes the impact of class on contemporary democracy. The hegemony of neoliberalism is not an isolated event but one that is deeply connected to the evolving structure of global capital accumulation. Instead of offering an anti-capitalist alternative to liberal-democracy, Mouffe seems primarily concerned with preserving liberal-democracy against far-right populism. Indeed, in the introduction, Mouffe states offhand: "We might have given up the idea of a radical alternative to the capitalist system, but In the conclusion, Mouffe uses a Lacanian "ethics of the Real" which she sees as "particularly suited to a pluralist democracy. The Real threatens to rip apart the very symbolic order with its constitutive Law. Sep 17, Erdem Tasdelen rated it liked it. After having read this book I don't feel I've found out much more about Mouffe's thougts on democracy than I had already gathered from various sources before. The essays seem to be repetitive versions of the same ideas and reading one should be The Democratic Paradox - I don't see why they all needed to come together to constitute a book. Though I agree with her on most points, especially the vital necessity of envisioning a different conception of democracy, I find her argumentation slightly elusive. I am havin After having read this book I don't feel I've found out much more about Mouffe's thougts on democracy than I had already gathered from various sources before. I am having trouble imagining how her ideas of the political sphere can be turned into policies. She repeatedly argues that politics is not a representation of already established identities of a priori citizens, and that they are produced through politics and policies which sort of goes without saying at this pointbut doesn't elaborate on how dissensus and agonism can be practically implemented as systems The Democratic Paradox governing. Although the global liberal-democratic trend of the last 20 years or so might indeed be conceived as one that tries to present itself as the ultimate rational end that all societies should reach, where neo-liberalism is widely accepted as the truly contemporary way of The Democratic Paradox the relationship between politics and economics, don't we encounter dissensus and agonism all the time anyway I'm using the term agonism loosely here, since to me the distinction between antagonism and agonism seems to be semantic play? View 1 comment. The 4 stars out of 5 is appropriate. This book is quite observant and insightful until about page 98, when Mouffe takes her well- founded description of the problem and offers a very weak and The Democratic Paradox solution. I feel that for the study of The Democratic Paradox decline of democracy The Democratic Paradox classical liberalism this book is very useful, while The Democratic Paradox solutions to the problem are useless. Jul The Democratic Paradox, Nate Bohn rated it really liked it. Very interesting, she raises many interesting points and her analysis is quite good. This book presents a branch of The Democratic Paradox theory I had never been exposed to before, and it is well argued and written. The central premise of Mouffe's position via Schmidtt is that there is a fundamental conflict between liberalism and democracy; in fact, liberal democracy is constituted and defined by this conflict. Consensus is impossible. Unlike Schmidtt, she does not take this to mean that liberal democracy The Democratic Paradox going to fail. I agree with The Democratic Paradox lot of Mouffe's descriptions of the modern State, b This book presents a branch of political theory I had never been exposed to before, and it The Democratic Paradox well argued and written. I agree with a lot of Mouffe's descriptions of the modern State, but I think her proposed solutions and strategies are stupid Negriist alternative globalization, really?!? Still, it was interesting to read someone defending liberal democracy in a fairly honest and inventive way. Feb 16, Rebecca rated it it was ok. This book may be over my head, and while I'm finding it interesting, I need to downsize my reading to either the essentials or the pleasures, and this one isn't either. May return to it later, or may find something else that looks at the same topic in a more readable and illuminating fashion. Jul 31, Lee Ann rated it liked it. A difficult read, as philosphy often is, but this The Democratic Paradox an interesting argument about the role and structure of democratic society that uses interesting source material. Jun 24, Leonardo marked it as to-read. Dec 10, Egor Sofronov rated it liked it. The most intelligent betrayal of utopia and embrace of liberal democracy. May 31, Richard Gallagher rated it it was amazing. This book is dead on! Accurate description of the evolution of democracy and some concrete suggestions onhow it should proceed going forward. Will Gester rated it really liked it Jul 30, Anatol Itten rated it really liked it Apr 25, Molly Chlebnikow rated it it was amazing Mar 24, Ale rated it really liked it Apr 13, Ryan Healey rated it liked it Jul 02, Diane rated it it was amazing May 08, Peter Hickman rated it liked it Jul 08, Devran Dogaroglu rated it it was amazing Dec 03, Brendan Wright rated it really liked it Jul 29, Lucas Nonato rated it it was amazing Aug 01, Ted Led rated it it was amazing Oct 22, Eduard rated it really liked it Oct 13, Martin White rated it it The Democratic Paradox amazing Aug 04, Pratiksha rated it really liked it Feb 19, Carolina rated it really liked it Sep 08, There are no discussion topics on this book yet. The Democratic Paradox - Wikipedia

The Democratic Paradox, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date. For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now. Javascript is not enabled in your browser. Enabling JavaScript in your browser will allow you to experience The Democratic Paradox the features of our site. Learn how to enable JavaScript on your browser. Home 1 Books 2. Add to Wishlist. Sign The Democratic Paradox to Purchase Instantly. Members save with free shipping everyday! See details. Far from being signs of progress, such ideas constitute a serious threat to democratic institutions. She draws on the work of Wittgenstein, The Democratic Paradox, and the provocative theses of Carl Schmitt, to propose a new understanding of democracy which acknowledges the ineradicability of antagonism in The Democratic Paradox workings. Product The Democratic Paradox About the Author. Related Searches. Agonistics: Thinking The World Politically. Political conflict in our society is inevitable, and the results are often far from negative. How then should we deal with the intractable differences arising from complex modern culture? In Agonistics, Mouffe develops her philosophy, taking particular interest in international relations, View Product. Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on. How can universality be reformulated How can universality be reformulated now that its spurious versions have been so thoroughly criticized? Democracy Realized. Roberto Mangabeira Unger is widely regarded as one The Democratic Paradox the leading social thinkers of our Roberto Mangabeira Unger is widely regarded as one of the leading social thinkers of our time. In Democracy Realized Unger gives detailed content to a progressive and practical alternative to both neoliberalism and institutionally conservative social democracy. His efforts to A guide to the thinkers and the ideas that will shape the futureWhat happened to A guide to the thinkers and the ideas that will shape the futureWhat happened to the public intellectuals that used The Democratic Paradox challenge and inform us? Who is the Sartre or De Beauvoir of the internet age? General Intellects argues that Hatred Of Democracy. As America and its allies use their military might in the misguided attempt to export a desiccated In this hugely influential book, Laclau and Mouffe examine the workings of hegemony and contemporary In this hugely influential book, Laclau and Mouffe examine the workings of hegemony and contemporary social struggles, and their significance for democratic theory. With the emergence of new social and political identities, and the frequent attacks on Left theory for Ideologies of Theory. Ideologies of Theory, updated and available for the first time in a single volume, brings They chart a body of work suspended by the twin poles of literary Making Of Political Identities. This lively book examines the major issues raised by the emergence and transformation of various This lively book examines the major issues raised by the emergence and transformation of various political identities in the contemporary world. The contributors bring together many current trends of thought—Lacanian psychoanalysis, deconstruction, neo-Hegelianism and political philosophy—that are Verso Books. Radical Thinkers Series. The Democratic Paradox by Chantal Mouffe

A paradox is distinct from a contradiction. Sometimes the two ideas are confused. They are used interchangeably in ways which remove the impact of The Democratic Paradox concept of paradox. A contradiction is where two ideas are incompatible, so their combination becomes an impossibility. But a paradox is where a single idea brought to its logical conclusion becomes an impossibility on its own. I have often described democracy as a paradox. The idea of democracy exists only so long The Democratic Paradox its The Democratic Paradox conclusion is avoided, because democracy gives people absolute political freedom. And freedom involves choice. The most consequential decision in a democracy is to either embrace or deny democratic governance. The possibility of a complete denial of democracy through the expression of political freedom is what I call the Democracy Paradox. It means democracy is based upon a paradox. Its own impossibility becomes absolute upon its rejection. This paradox is like the supermassive black hole at the center of our own galaxy. Its existence makes the Milky Way possible. And yet, its existence is a negation of existence itself. She describes the paradox in terms of liberalism and democracy. I describe the tension between liberalism and democracy as a contradiction. It takes work to resolve the contradiction in order to understand how liberalism and democracy work in symbiosis. But Mouffe describes liberal The Democratic Paradox not as a contradiction but as a paradox. Hence its paradoxical nature. It is easy to get lost in the semantics. But I do not believe Chantal Mouffe has misused her terminology. It is important to remember a paradox involves a single idea while a The Democratic Paradox involves two distinct concepts. Liberalism and Democracy are typically viewed as two The Democratic Paradox. Schmitt The Democratic Paradox liberalism and democracy offer the theorist a choice between two different political traditions. Mouffe, however, believes she can bridge the gap The Democratic Paradox radical democracy. But the radicalism The Democratic Paradox her democracy is not so much a radical form of democracy, but the permission to embrace radical ideas within a democracy. She rebels against the traditions of democratic thought based around consensus and The Democratic Paradox. Her sense of democracy is not epistemic but grounded in conflict and polarization which she views as inherent to the political. It is likely she believes agonistic pluralism allows for intellectual diversity in politics. But this diversity collapses as a single perspective dominates the political The Democratic Paradox in a hegemonic viewpoint. There is a clear resentment of the embrace from the left of neoliberal political ideas in her writing which has gained a voice in the politics today of Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her ideas parallel the regret of Gramsci who looked back upon the alliance of Communists with the Socialists as an obstacle to their political emergence. Former British Prime Minister David Cameron has reflected upon the political risks of coalitions for junior partners. The Liberals formed a coalition government with the Conservatives after the parliamentary election. The Democratic Paradox Mouffe was clear in her abhorrence of the third way politics. The alternative is to remain in opposition where a new hegemonic coalition may become possible. The Southern Question was the challenge for Gramsci to transform the left from an opposition to fascism into a hegemonic power in its own right, but he was unable to offer rural peasants an alternative to fascism because he was incapable of projecting a political vision where the proletariat was not the hegemonic power. Hegemony as a political concept brings together a Downsian analysis of political parties with a more controversial embrace of polarization. It is not enough for political outsiders to moderate their views because there is a point where the moderation becomes surrender. Gramsci and his compatriots discussed extensively about where the left came to an end and the right began. Some believed the Social Democrats were the far right of their movement while others believed they were the far left of the capitalist class. The distinction was important because its location marked the point where cooperation became capitulation. Gramsci believed the The Democratic Paradox lacked the support as an opposition to overtake the Fascists without further inroads into rural Southern Italy. The magnitude of this dilemma is difficult to imagine. The Democratic Paradox is thrown around so often the word has lost some of The Democratic Paradox original meaning. Gramsci faced the very real challenge of Benito Mussolini in flesh and blood. And his failure had real consequences for world history. Ezra Klein describes how American political scientists had advocated for greater political polarization in politics a few generations ago. The lack of polarization left voters unclear in the differences between candidates. Many believed The Democratic Paradox was not enough difference between Republicans and Democrats. The debate between socialism and capitalism was largely resolved. Politics The Democratic Paradox become about the details of policies rather than values and ideas. Friedrich Hayek is portrayed as a lone voice as he rebelled against the convergence between the political parties into what he described as statist policies. The tolerance for racist policies by both political parties is described as fundamental for this era of political moderation. I believe their analysis gives too little credit to the The Democratic Paradox of Eisenhower which held back reactionary elements in his party that wanted to roll back the New Deal. It also fails to account for the similarities in political mood throughout the West which had different institutions, different methods of elections, and different The Democratic Paradox challenges in its different countries. There is some truth in the thesis of Levitsky and Ziblatt but there is also some overstatement. Political realignment and its subsequent polarization were likely inevitable not just in the United States but around the world. The glorification The Democratic Paradox polarization I find in Chantal Mouffe is unsettling. Pluralism gives the impression of multiple The Democratic Paradox and perspectives. But Mouffe allows this political diversity to disappear into a hegemonic opposition based around the force of her own ideology. The Democratic Paradox, polarization brings about the presence of two hegemonic political views which strive to exclude the other from political power. Ultimately, the political for Mouffe is about exclusion. But her solution necessitates the consolidation of these perspectives into a hegemonic opposition capable of overtaking the neoliberal worldview and displacing its influence on the policy agenda. This book is about a paradox that is endemic of liberal democracy. And yet, Mouffe overlooks the most obvious challenge of politics. Democracy is a postmodern idea. Its focus is on the process rather than the outcome. Sometimes this brings about welcome reforms such The Democratic Paradox the expansion of suffrage to women and racial or ethnic minorities. But it has also allowed leaders to undermine democracy. Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way developed the concept of competitive authoritarianism to refer to those regimes that hold competitive elections where the process remains neither free nor fair. Nic Cheeseman and Brian Klaas have shown the different avenues leaders have to manipulate elections in their book How to Rig an Election. Mouffe does not consider possibilities where The Democratic Paradox political process can be used to undermine the democracy. There The Democratic Paradox an a priori quality of democracy The Democratic Paradox Mouffe. This allows her to test the limits of conflict and to demean the compromise and conciliation which is fundamental to consensus. The danger in democracy according to Mouffe is a failure to challenge the hegemonic worldview. It is not enough for the opposition to demand reasonable concessions. They must offer a radical alternative to the dominant political ideology of the moment. Anything less allows space for a new political alternative beyond the scope of their influence. This interpretation offers a philosophical explanation for the emergence of populism. But it is an overstatement to assume that a greater fidelity to socialist or social democratic ideas would have suffocated the political space that allowed populism to emerge. Some theorists have falsely assumed populism emerged out of the concessions of left-wing parties. It is possible that populist ideas were likely to emerge even in the presence of polarization. Indeed, populism is The Democratic Paradox a consequence of a polarized electorate. Liberalism and Democracy have been able to coexist. Indeed, democratic pluralism is an impossibility without the foundations of liberalism such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The agonistic pluralism of Chantal Mouffe relies upon a liberal political environment. Democracy becomes an impossibility without the liberal rights that make political opposition possible. In the final analysis liberalism becomes a key foundation of democracy. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Like this: Like Loading Next Article Podcast Ep. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here