Abstract
This article’s guiding thesis is that the theory of radical democratic citizenship is built on a tension between a radical, conflictual element and a democratic element. As radical democrats, these philosophers point to the intimate relation between conflict and both emancipation and democracy. But as radical democrats, they also propose different methods that prevent conflict from breaking up the polis—the common ground that makes democratic conflict possible. I look at two radical democrats’ way of dealing with this tension: Chantal Mouffe and Étienne Balibar. My claim is that the former ends up
overemphasising the danger of division in her later democratic works and is therefore unable to account for more intense forms of democratic resistance (such as riots). In the work of Balibar, however, we find a way of dealing with this tension.
overemphasising the danger of division in her later democratic works and is therefore unable to account for more intense forms of democratic resistance (such as riots). In the work of Balibar, however, we find a way of dealing with this tension.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 529-544 |
Number of pages | 16 |
Journal | International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society |
Volume | 33 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Dec 2020 |
Externally published | Yes |