Agonism in divided societies

This article considers how reconciliation might be understood as a democratic undertaking. It does so by examining the implications of the debate between theorists of ‘deliberative’ and ‘agonistic’ democracy for the practice of democracy in divided societies. I argue that, in taking consensus as a r...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Philosophy & social criticism 2006-03, Vol.32 (2), p.255-277
Main Author: Schaap, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Consensus
Democracy
Discourse
Justice
Philosophy
Philosophy of history. Social and political philosophy. Philosophy of law
Political Action
Reconciliation
Reconstruction
Social and political philosophy
State Formation
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article considers how reconciliation might be understood as a democratic undertaking. It does so by examining the implications of the debate between theorists of ‘deliberative’ and ‘agonistic’ democracy for the practice of democracy in divided societies. I argue that, in taking consensus as a regulative idea, deliberative democracy tends to conflate moral and political community thereby representing conflict as already communal. In contrast, an agonistic theory of democracy provides a critical perspective from which to discern what is at stake in the politicsof reconciliation since it understands community as a contingent achievement of political action. As such, an agonistic account of democracy suggests the possibility of retrieving the concept of reconciliation from a statesanctioned project of nation-building for a democratic politics centred on the possibilities of self-determination and solidarity among citizens divided by a history of state violence.
ISSN:0191-4537
1461-734X
DOI:10.1177/0191453706061095