#mouffe

[lyricalcinema]

Robert Charlebois et Mouffe in Jusqu’au cœur.

[proseprunings]

From Gramsci, Mouffe takes the concept of hegemony; from Schmitt, the concept of the political. Hegemony names the form of power that cannot be reduced to brute repression alone. Rather, a dominant social group attains hegemony when subaltern groups voluntarily submit to its rule, not under the barrel of a gun but through the force of 'common sense' and affective attachments to the existing order. As a corollary, any counter-hegemonic movement from below must contest the prevailing order and the class interests it serves by engaging not only the state but also civil society. Churches, schools, trade unions, sports teams, and all manner of voluntary associations are the battlegrounds of hegemonic struggle. Schmitt’s definition of 'the political' dovetails with hegemony’s expansive view of politics: any action is political insofar as it admits of the distinction between the collectivities of 'friend' and 'enemy.' This distinction is what renders the political the most extreme form of antagonism. Even when it does not reach the pitch of war or revolution, political conflict always pits two groups with not only opposing but incompatible worldviews, the full realization of which would involve the other’s annihilation. For Schmitt, politics is inherently zero-sum. Liberal notions of compromise and consensus are delusions belied by liberals’ own ruthless political maneuvers.

Thea Riofrancos, “Populism Without the People,” a review of Chantal Mouffe’s For a Left Populism (Verso, 2018) in n+1

[kleewyck]

Bonne année to Robert Charlebois, born Juin/June 25, 1944.

Charlebois et Mouffe, 1968.

SOURCE: NFB instagram

[diskusikamissore-blog]

Demokrasi Zaman Now: Deliberatif vs Agonistik

Oleh: Daniel Jeremia

Tulisan ini merupakan upaya untuk dapat menelaah konsep dan praktik demokrasi dalam masyarakat plural di era modern melalui 2 perspektif keilmuan. Demokrasi Deliberatif dari Jurgen Habermas dan Demokrasi Radikal dari Chantal Mouffe.

Sumber: www.google.com

Secara etimologis, demokrasi berasal dari kata Yunani; demos (rakyat) dan kratos (pemerintahan) yang artinya pemerintahan rakyat. Salah satu implementasi dari negara yang menggunakan sistem perpolitikkan demokrasi adalah dengan hadirnya deliberasi atau musyawarah untuk mencapai suatu kesepakatan atau konsensus. Pada zaman kita hidup saat ini, konsep dan praktik demokrasi merupakan manifestasi dari gelombang demokratisasi ketiga yang terjadi pada tahun 1974.[1] Dari kudeta di Lisbon, Portugal, demokrasi bergema menjadi sistem perpolitikkan paling banyak diterapkan di dunia, dengan kontekstualisasi masing - masing negara. Dari keagungan para filsuf Yunani, kini praktik demokrasi pun dapat kita jumpai di warung kopi. Seiring berkembangnya sistem politik demokrasi dalam kehidupan yang plural hari ini, berbagai interpretasi demokrasi pun menawarkan babak baru akan perdebatan dari para intelektual. Salah satunya adalah benturan konsep demokrasi deliberatif menurut anak emas dari mazhab Frankfurt bernama Jurgen Habermas dan demokrasi agonistik dari mazhab Essex, yaitu Chantal Mouffe.

Demokrasi Deliberatif

“Umpamanya Desa Konoha, kedai mie ramen merupakan ruang publik yang dapat digunakan untuk membangun kehidupan desa” .

Jurgen Habermas memberikan pemikiran segar yang berkorelasi satu sama lainnya, dari konsep ruang publik, komunikasi rasional, dan tentunya yang menjadi pokok bahasan kita, yaitu demokrasi deliberatif. Habermas telah dianggap sebagai pemecah kebuntuan teori kritis dan modernitas, baik dari kritiknya terhadap Marx, Freud, dan sikap pesimistik para gurunya (Adorno dan Horkheimer) terhadap masyarakat modern era pencerahan, Hingga peletakkan ideologi-ideologi liberal dalam teorinya. Ia menilai bahwa praxis dalam orientasi Marx hanya berfokus terhadap aspek ekonomi dan kerja dalam menelaah modernitas, dan logika natural Marx mengenai masyarakat komunis merupakan bentuk positivistik yang baginya mengalir seperti teori – teori naturalis lainnya. Begitupula psikoanalisis Freud baginya kurang memiliki akses terhadap kebutuhan teoritis, terutama linguistik.[2] Habermas tidak begitu saja mengacuhkan pemikiran - pemikiran pendahulunya mengenai kondisi sosial. Ia melakukan rekonstruksi dari para pendahulunya tersebut melalui penelaahan terhadap dimensi komunikasi yang baginya merupakan dampak positif dari pencerahan.

Fokus Habermas untuk memperkaya demokrasi deliberatif merupakan penghubungan dimensi komunikasi sebagai jalan alternatif yang mempermudah partisipasi masyarakat sipil. Dalam bentuk masyarakat modern yang plural, deliberasi menjadi cara yang paling rasional untuk dapat memelihara hak - hak sipil bagi Habermas. Deliberasi sendiri sebagai sebuah terminologi berasal dari bahasa latin, yaitu deliberatio yang artinya menimbang-nimbang, konsultasi atau musyawarah (Hardiman, 2004:18). Ia merekonstruksi pandangan Kant dan Hegel mengenai makna dan diferensiasi rasio praktis-murni, dan menggagas rasio komunikatif sebagai wujud rasionalitas masyarakat modern. Namun, aktualisasi rasio komunikatif dalam masyarakat plural itu bukan dipraktikkan dengan komunikasi instrumental (memaksa/membujuk), melainkan komunikasi rasional. Pola komunikasi rasional yang dimiliki inidividu - individu ini yang akan berubah menjadi suatu perangkat politik, apabila terjadi suatu diskursus dalam tatanan politik demokratis antar masyarakat (civilized discussion). Arena dimana diskursus berlangsung inilah yang dinamakan rung publik (public sphere), dimana publik memperbincangakan pendapat-pendapatnya dengan bebas intervensi dari suatu golongan. Coffee Shop di Perancis merupakan gejala-gejala awal konsep ruang publik yang ditelaah Habermas. Ketika kelas atas dan kelas bawah mulai dapat memperbincangkan politik kenegaraan dengan wujud masyarakat sipil (civil society). Konsensus yang di dapat dari ruang publik ini yang nantinya akan menjadi menjadi opini publik (public opinion).

Habermas menegaskan bahwa sebuah proses intersubjektif  antar masyarakat plural dan pemerintahan negara di era modern dapat menghasilkan suatu konsensus/kesepakatan yang menjadi sebab-akibat dalam kepentingan bersama, dengan prosedur-prosedur yang ada dalam ruang publik. Sehingga diskursus rasional itu menjadi diskursus etis, dapat menjadi praktik demokrasi kenegaraan, yaitu:

Tidak ada orang yang dapat mendapat pengecualian dalam melakukan kontribusi yang relevan.

Semua partisipan diberikan kesempatan yang sama untuk melakukan kontribusi.

Partisipan harus memaknai apa yang ia katakan.

Komunikasi harus bebas paksaan dari luar ataupun dalam. [3]

Berikut skema untuk mempermudah memahami konsep ruang publik dan demokrasi Jurgen Habermas yang dibuat oleh F. Budi Hardiman.

Sumber: www.google.com

Demokrasi deliberatif bukan bermakna intervensi langsung ruang publik ke dalam sistem politik (bukan demokrasi langsung) dan juga bukan depolitisasi ruang publik. Demokrasi deliberatif dapat dimaknai sebagai peran politis aktif warganegara yang membangun opini mereka secara publik dalam mengontrol dan mengendalikan arah pemerintahan secara tidak langsung melalui media hukum (bahasa hukum). Dalam hal ini demokrasi deliberatif menghormati garis batas antar negara dan masyarakat, namun ingin agar negara hukum demorkatis mencarikan komunikasi-komunikasi politis di dalamnya (Hardiman, 2009:150)

Pandangan normatif dan etis ini didapat Habermas dengan pembaharuan terhadap tradisi demokrasi liberal. Konsep demokrasi deliberatif Habermas ini terletak pada model demokrasi prosuderalis yang mengendepankan diskursus melalui institusionalisasi prosedur korespondensi dan kondisi manusia.[4] Dengan syarat-syarat komunikatif proseduralis itulah kedaulatan hukum antar negara dan diskursus rasional masyarakat sipil dapat membentuk ruang publik.

Demokrasi Agonistik

“Inti dari Demokrasi adalah disensus” - Robertus Robet.

Beralih 782km ke Essex kita dapat menemukan sosok Sakura dari kelompok 7 yang bernama Chantal Mouffe. Setelah peninggalan Sasuke (Badiou), murid titisan Kakashi (Althusser) ini bersama Naruto (Laclau) mewarnai demokrasi di dunia ninja dari akar jutsu radikal. Pemikiran demokrasi agonistik Mouffe bermuara dari kritiknya akan konsep demokrasi liberal yang digagas dan diperdebatkan tradisi liberal, yaitu Habermas dengan demokrasi deliberatif dan John Rawls dengan demokrasi agregatif. Peletakan konstruksi teoritis Mouffe juga berakar dari penelaahanya terhadap awal perkembangan new social movement. Jika Habermas sudah menjelaskan bahwa rasionalitas komunikatif dalam masyarakat plural dapat menjadi konsensus dengan terbentuknya ruang publik. Berbeda halnya bagi Rawls. Menurutnya, sistem demokrasi harus berjalan dengan ketentuan hukum yang sudah diatur negara, dikarenakan tidak ada namanya argumen rasional yang memungkinkan dan merepresentasikan keseluruhan dari masyarakat plural.[5] Mouffe melihat,pandangan mereka berdua pada demokrasi terlalu sempit, dan tidak dapat melihat perbedaan prosedur antara otonomi publik dan otonomi individu. Konsep deliberatif dan agregatif justru berusaha menyeragamkan logika deduktif dan induktif masyarakat plural. Jika Rawls jatuh dalam konsep independensi suatu lembaga pemerintahan, begitupula Habermas yang tidak dapat memastikan bahwa masyarakat dapat bekerja sesuai dengan prosedural yang ia gagas. Hal ini tercantum dalam pendapat Habermas yang dikutip Mouffe:

That there are issues that have to remain outside the practices of rational public debate, like existential issues which concern not questions of “justice” but the “good life”.[6]

Argumen ini dapat kita lihat dalam realitas masyarakat dari golongan sosialita misalnya yang berkumpul dalam ruang publik bukan lagi memperbincangkan fungsi partisipatif politik yang dapat menunjang kesejahteraan bersama, melainkan untuk sekedar membahas kemewahan dari Lucinta lun.

“Kesetaraan” dan “Keadilan” dalam pengkultusan demokrasi dari tradisi liberal ini yang justru menjadi penyakit bagi demokrasi. Maka dari itu, Mouffe berusaha merombak tradisi demokrasi modern ini dengan mencantumkan 1 konsep lagi untuk memahami demokrasi, yaitu : “Perbedaan”. Suatu disensus yang terjadi dalam praktik demokrasi lah yang membuat demokrasi itu mungkin. Dalam buku yang ditulisnya bersama Laclau dengan judul “Hegemony and Socialist Strategies”, Mouffe mengemukakan tesis sentral; “objektivitas sosial dibentuk melalui tindakan - tindakan kekuasaan.” Baginya, pluralisme agonistik jauh dari membahayakan demokrasi ,konfrontasi agonis sebenarnya adalah kondisi eksistensi. Demokrasi modern spesifisitas terletak pada pengakuan dan legitimasi konflik dan penolakan untuk menekannya memberlakukan perintah otoriter.

“Salah satu new social movement misalnya melakukan kampanye anti-rokok dan melakukan diskusi bahaya rokok, dari dampak bronchitis, hingga dampak menjadi komunis. Dan mengajukannya pada pemerintah untuk menciptakan Undang - Undang larangan merokok. Apakah opini publik ini merupakan konsensus menyeluruh? Apakah seluruh masyarakat harus datang ke ruang publik? Apakah ini merupakan opini publik? Apakah ini opini?”.

Maka melalui proses deliberasi dengan tujuan menciptakan konsensus itu bagi Mouffe, sejatinya melemahkan kekuatan diri manusia, relasi sosialnya, dan bahkan membuat identitas dirinya mengalami kontaminasi oleh kesepakatan yang tunggal. Suatu konsensus dalam demokrasi itu sejatinya bersifat modus vivendi (sementara). Karena masyarakat akan selalu mengalami konflik bagaimanapun sistem pemerintahan itu. Sedamai-damainya Desa Konoha, selalu ada konflik untuk dapat melanjutkan ceritanya. Namun, deliberasi ini tidak berdampak secara langsung, melainkan membawa unsur hegemonik, dan melalui pendekatan deliberatif, kita mendapatkan masyarakat plural yang menghilangkan perbedaan – perbedaan dalam relasi sosialnya menjadi kesatuan politis yang disebut hukum.

“We are trapped in our own imagined worlds and perspectives, and that there is no way   we can fully understand other people, other groups and their claims”.[7]

Bagi Mouffe, demokrasi tidak dimaknai untuk menghilangkan kekuatan dan identitas diri masyarakat, namun untuk bagaimana mengkonstitusikan kekuatan diri manusia dengan bentuk baru dan nilai-nilai demokratis. Mouffe memberikan pengenalan terhadap distingsi antara “The Political ” dan “Politics” dalam konsep demokrasi. Konsep “The political” (sikap natural manusia) merupakan bentuk bentuk inheren dalam relasi sosial manusia dengan berbagai bentuk relasi sosial yang berbeda. Sedangkan “politics” (institusionalisasi) adalah bentuk pelembagaan, praktik, dan diskursus yang selalu berusaha mengatasi konflik antar manusia yang pada dasarnya merupakan identitas dan kekuatan diri dalam “The political”. Politik selalu mengacu pada pembentukan dari suatu kesatuan dalam konteks konflik dan perbedaan, itu selalu kuatir untuk pembentukan “kita” dan penghancuran “mereka”. Dalam konsep demokrasi agonistik, lawan/kawan dalam demokrasi dinamakan Mouffe “adversary”.  Adversary berarti seseorang yang pemikirannya dapat kita lawan, namun berhak untuk bertahan tanpa perlu dipertanyakan. Hal ini membedakan makna “agonistik” dan “antagonisme”. Jika masyarakat bar-bar memandang antagonisme untuk menghacurkan, maka agonistik dalam tatanan demokrasi masyarakat plural merupakan cara untuk memberikan kesamaan hak antar pendirian untuk pelaku politik tanpa harus menjadi keseragaman. Namun, Mouffe tidak pernah memaksakan masyarakat mengikuti konsepnya, karena baginya diri masyarakat bebas memilih bentuk demokrasi yang mereka mau. Baik itu dari agregatif, deliberatif, hingga agonistik.

Catatan Kaki

[1] Samuel P. Huttington, Gelombang Demokratisasi Ketiga, Terj. Asril Marjohan (Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti, 1997) hlm. 1

[2] Joel Whitebook. “The Marriage of Marx and Freud : Critical Theory and Psychoanalisis”, dalam The Cambridge Companion To Critical Theory (Cambridge University Press: Fred Rush, 2004), hlm. 92.

[3] Luke Good, Democracy and The Public Sphere. (London: Pluto Press, 2005) hlm. 73.

[4] Candra Kusuma, “Demokrasi Deliberatif Di Era Otonomi Daerah : Studi Kasus Forum Konstituen di Kabupaten Bandung” Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, UI, 2012, hlm. 38.

[5] Chantal Mouffe, “Deliberative Democracy Or Agonistic Pluralism”, Institute for Advanced Studies, Political Series Science, 2000, hlm. 6.

[6] Ibid

[7] Kari Karippen et. all., “Habermas, Mouffe, and Political Communication  A Case For Theoritical Eclecticism”, Javnost The Public, 2008, hlm. 7.

[archetypenull]

Agonistics ch5 - Agnostic Politics and Artistic Practices (Political-Affectual Art)

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Theorists of aesthetics have declared that art is no longer a viable form of cultural critique. Art's function has largely been the construction of new worlds, new perspectives, and thus new relationships, offering an outlet for the critique of society's constructions. As fordist modes of production bled their way into culture, it began to seem as though every critical artistic output became appropriated, neutered for use by the system of capitalist symbol production, for its benefit. Subversivenesses and counter-cultures became ads in magazines, trends, and then finally just forgotten pieces of yesteryear's gift guide.

 As political and artistic acts have been twisted into aesthetic baubles, citizens have become impotent consumers, left as "passive functions of the capitalist system" (86). This operation is reflexive. As art is commodified and harnessed for consumerist symbol-production, its mode of operation becomes that: art is taken as consumerist symbol-production from the start, without any deference to other possibilities of operation. As this process becomes business-as-usual, the other possibilities of art wither away - art as capitalist becomes a given, and is seen as naturally-occurring, due to the years of sedimentation within a cultural loop. But is the process really so veiled, is there really no way to attack the appropriation of artistic criticism, or at least to appeal to the passive masses?

 Because alternatives have become veiled within the capitalist mode of value production, art must point towards those very alternatives. To do so within a complex system of appropriation requires first appropriating the capitalist mode of value production, which largely lies within the creation of desire. Politically-charged art that brow-beats the viewer usually isn't very successful, because it offers no alternative. When the viewer is coaxed into a new subjectivity, by way of their own conscious attention to their current subjectivities (and the newly presented alternatives), then they become the critical agent. Though Mouffe's description of this process does not allude to it, it seems that the "new" critical art that she describes actually acts as proxy for criticism: it is an empty vessel which only has meaning in context, and can only have positive results when used by the viewer.

 A perfect illustration is Alfredo Jaar, whose work, if engaged, "create[s] little cracks in the system" of symbolic structures that most viewers will take for granted, allowing them to disarticulate those systems for themselves (95). His pieces, which are typically composed of small questions, only confront the viewer if the viewer engages, but when they do, the questions are so subtly subversive that the viewer must reflect upon them. Tapping into the viewer's affectuality, power dynamics become unveiled (at whatever level), propelling the viewer, at the very least, to discontentment, and perhaps even to action. This serves as a beautiful illustration of Mouffe's reasoning for relying on affect within the political. Logically-derived, subjectively-obtrusive art will not compel action, usually the opposite, but affectual-elicitation through the empty vessel of art certainly does.

[archetypenull]

Agonistics ch4 - Radical Politics Today

Sunday, December 31, 2017

To begin to address the issue of global neoliberal hegemony, common contemporary arguments have to be deconstructed. Underlying the majority of leftist criticisms of neoliberalist hegemonies is exodus. This escapist strategy purports to allow for new forms of hegemony (or the supposed lack of) to rise in the void left once the current hegemony is abandoned by its constituents, left to wither and disappear. As common as the strategy may be, it allows for empty movements, through which public dissent is expressed but no alternative is given, and for right-wing alternatives to rise from the shadows.

 The alternative, which is doubtless criticized as moderate and perhaps even neoliberal itself, is Mouffe's radical democracy, within which the institutions of the current hegemony are positively engaged for the new goals of the revolutionary governance.  She proposes this as a continual process, rather than the means to an idealized end. For this reason, Mouffe rejects the resurrection of communism on the basis that, ideologically, it is a fixed ideal: once put in place, it is perfected, ignoring the political and affective. To incorporate these facets of societal construction, her model of continual reform works with the current system to reinforce citizens' desires.

 On a conceptual basis, it would seem that Mouffe's reformist mentality is in fact revolutionary, but not in terms of a radical break with the current system. In keeping the basic structure, change is enacted in a way to secure its own resilience both as sufficient for the time in which it was developed, and as a groundwork to enable flexibility as circumstances change. That is, in and of itself, revolutionary in a time when capitalist-run bureaucracy petrifies the political landscape. Operating through capitalism, the social movements of the 60s and 70s were subsumed into the consumerist wave of identity construction through materialism. Once the movements were so easily nullified and channeled back into the system they sought to jam, they worked to benefit that system, becoming ghosts of their former selves. Reflecting counterhegemonic movements hegemonically onto consumers, thus discursively looping their actions like a hamster's wheel, became an extremely powerful tool for neoliberalism.

 Thus, Mouffe's Gramscian "war of position" seems to necessitate plural engagement within the institutions that support the neoliberal system. Each position must be taken individually, as the institutions are individual, but the groundswell of the altered movements will work against the Thing as a whole. For, in the most realistic terms, there is no way to pragmatically attack neoliberalism; it must be dismantled piece by piece. In this way, the system is not only dismantled conceptually, but it is immediately rearticulated in a different direction, working for the new goals and against neoliberalism. Rather than a living beast dissected, but unaffected, the system must be molecularly reordered into another organism entirely, all the while maintaining its breath and heartbeat, for we are its cells.

   I would also like to argue that the conceptions of communism and other absolutist formulations of government operate, by their very conceptualism, to reinforce neoliberalism as an unalterable monolith. If it seems as though the current system cannot be changed, perhaps that is in part because alternatives have been defined in such radical and utopian terms. Certainly, we must construct idealistic fantasies, but we need steps to work towards those ends, otherwise they will seem so distant and unattainable that they will impart an apathy that works to the advantage of the current system, as it will seem all the more everlasting.  

[archetypenull]

Agonistics ch3 - An Agonistic Approach to the Future of Europe

Saturday, December 30, 2017

In this chapter, Mouffe discusses the greatest example of a sort of unified but statified governance, the EU. She uses the he criticisms and challenges faced by the EU to further describe her agonistic model of governance. Finally, Mouffe begins to discuss the importance of regionalism in her model, and why it must play a part in this "new EU."

 First, some basics are outlined: the EU is in danger of falling apart, mainly due to challenges with the identities of its constituents; national identity is strengthened when the nation is perceived to be under threat; and the rationalistic conception of identity formation heretofore utilized to critique the EU lacks confrontation with the affectual aspects of identity formation. Mouffe is adamant here that communal identity development must be recognized as, at least in part, inherently affectual, and so any formulation of a unified governance based on the rationale of "greater unity," as a whole of the continent as one people, is impossible.* Not only does the hope for such a unified identity ignore the affectations of identity construction on a sociological scale, but also, perhaps more importantly, on a psychological scale.

 Mouffe quickly mentions Freud's contribution to this aspect, but I would hope to suggest that a reading of individual identity construction, especially in the early 21st century, is more a game of self-eroticization than that of a basic libidinous drive. The individual is gratified by the design, reinforcement, and the fantasy of their own identity, however it may have come to be. Some identities are based in fear, as is obvious in many forms of aggressive masculinity, but some are more neoliberal in nature, stemming from material accoutrements which, in and of themselves, have little to no meaning.

 Indeed, these are the two essential problems faced by the EU today: aggression and neoliberal forces. The first issue is usually dealt with rationally, but to little success. On the other hand, neoliberal forces are so deeply engrained in societal discourse, that few are able to imagine a world beyond their grasp. For both, however, Mouffe provides the solution of "A truly Gramscian 'intellectual and moral reform,'" "challenging the basic tenets of our current consumerist model" (63, 64). In this chapter, her deconstruction of this reform in respect to neoliberal forces is not fully developed. However, she does provide enough to mull over in respect to aggression.

 Mouffe supports the generation of a federation, within which states are sovereign, but deal with common issues not antagonistically, as the EU is haunted by today, but agonistically. How she proposes this is more nuanced than her explained desire to "combine solidarity and competition" (53). She seems to support trans-national regionalism, but explicitly refers to the continuation of national identities. I wonder if this is a stepping stone within her world order: to get nations to take part in an agonistic federation, allow them to govern sovereignly, but as the conflicts progress, more factions would arise, as they already are (Scotland, Catalonia, etc.), eventually forming sovereign regionalism. How far their sovereignty would go is another question: do these regions have economic regulations, must they abide by a human bill of rights?

 Readers at least get answers to the former as Mouffe begins to deconstruct the neoliberal hegemonic forces which rule all of Europe today. She is decidedly anti-free market, citing the usual downfalls of the system, and focusing on the necessity of domestically-focused economics, wherein the localized community benefits first, and fewer workers are taken advantage of on the grand scale allowed by neoliberal capitalist free markets. This, in turn, would help define regional identities, as well as aid in recognition of other regionalities and their respective value systems (via negotiations, both economically and politically). Within Mouffe's proposed "diversity of practices within a field of shared rules," the possibility of a shift away from EU consumership, towards EU citizenship is born.

 Towards this end, Mouffe suggests that the EU must abandon neoliberal capitalism and begin to work towards a new democratic socialism, taking the successful aspects from the past and applying them in novel ways, "integrating economic questions with social, environmental, and political ones," essentially rewriting the European social democracy for contemporary problems (60). Regionally specific, social democracy is the historic expression of new Europeanism, and would doubtless lead to the European citizenship Mouffe desires, depending on its implementation.

 And here we find the most difficult issue with Mouffe's proposal: how are the power dynamics within Europe to change? How can an entire continent shift from nationalism-born-out-of-colonialism-born-out-of-autocracy shift to a federation of states bound by a non-enforceable social democracy? And how are the gaps between the regional governments and the continental government to be handled? Simply granting regional sovereignty cannot be sufficient in gathering the European continent to a new social democratic table. Too many previous perceived wrongs need righted, and crises of late capitalism (proxy wars, waves of refugees, the need for global reparations) will not simply disappear. It is obvious that Mouffe's assertion that the ways of life of the global rich must change, but what can possibly initiate such a shift? The comfortably privileged will not willingly discard their luxuries.

   *And undemocratic, in the sense that it ignores the necessity derived from affect that drives political movements, such as Black Lives Matter, or, more specifically, the Ferguson protests in response to cop killings.

[archetypenull]

Agonistics ch2 - Which Democracy for a Multipolar Agonistic World?

Friday, December 29, 2017

 In her second chapter, Mouffe begins to describe how her concept of a multipolar governance system conflicts with other thinker's notions of world governance, and how democracy can still be found outside the model of Western development. Mouffe suggests that the violent outbreaks we have seen on our brave new globalized political stage are the result of "lack of political channels for challenging the [current global] hegemony" (19).

 The first, and perhaps most daunting, hurdle is the current unipolar political system which underlies all international politics today. When the United States declared itself victor in the Cold War, its modern system of capitalist imperialism became the norm for the entire world. Here, Benedict Anderson's depiction of a world divided into nation states in his Imagined Communities serves to lay a conceptual foundation of international conflict, with deep roots in the economic-political supremacy of the West. Mouffe's assertion that radical negative is insurmountable is a product of this history, both born of it and constantly reinstated through it. Given this backdrop of conflictuality and Western imperialism, how can a multipolar, agonistic world come to light?

 Mouffe's main argument is that the assumptions of Western/neoliberal need to be addressed and deconstructed, allowing the great multitude of "others" to flourish under their own capabilities, as regional poles. She constructs this argument in opposition to cosmopolitanism, portrayed as global governance under the rule of what amounts to one body. While this portrayal seems shallow, or at the very least unimaginative, Mouffe's argument is wholly realist and situated in the present, disallowing it an idealism. Perhaps more of this attitude is needed in academic writing of this sort, as daydreaming intellectuals too often write wandering tomes of utopianisms without providing any pragmatic means of attainment in the real and tractionable political landscape. It seems this is Mouffe's main driving point as she systematically draws others' cosmopolitan constructions against her own criticism. In doing so, she forces the reader (her other critical combatant in dialogue, her agonist) to discard any notion other than dealing with what we currently have (there can be nothing else, in this exact moment), situated in the history we rely on (however constructed), so that we may forge a path forward, in utterly realist terms.

 In doing so, we must recognize the unipolarity of the global affairs, consider it and its antagonisms as the causes of fractionalism today, and, from there and only there (or, logically, if and only if) begin to construct something different. Mouffe begins by suggesting a multipolar system of governance, in the form of separate, sovereign regions, free from the overwatch of Western neoliberalism, including the widely accepted notions of democracy, secularism, and human rights. Indeed, even if these constructions are "lost," a multipolar world "is better than a unipolar order because it is less likely to foster the emergence of extreme forms of antagonisms," such as terror attacks, drone strikes, construction of settlements, gassings, or invasions (29). Indeed, one man's definition may be different from another's: democracy, too, can be redefined, and so can our approaches to human dignity.

 For example, Mouffe brings the example of the "Far Eastern" concept of harmony, within which the human individual does not take precedence over its environment. The formulation of "human rights," as such, typically removes the individual from their context, so that they may be objectified, like a car in a production line: all components can be accounted for, and development can be tracked, as if on an assembly line. Mouffe's assertion is sound: this simply cannot be the only way humanity conceives of "human rights," or more specifically, the way in which human dignity is fulfilled.

 Though she names Martha Nussbaum as being of the individualist camp of philosophical/moral liberalism, my reading of Nussbaum shows these two academics' theories to parallel on another, not contradict one another. Though Nussbaum is focused on the individual, her focus is contextualized; the "weakest link" in the family, community, or country must be brought up to the point of dignity so that all may flourish. Nussbaum's driving march is for capabilities, which seems less obtrusive than the neoliberalist moral imperialism imposed by Mouffe's ideological enemies. It seems contradictory that Mouffe supports a plurality of personhoods, rooted in the acknowledgement of other culture's emphasis on cooperation, but opposes idealist conceptions of global unity.

 Overall, Mouffe wants regional cultures to be able to develop in their own way, devising their governance as they see fit. Given that she is so bound to an historical framework, I wonder how she imagines this will happen without internal strife. How will women be able to govern in misogynistic cultures? How can we assign value to these more subtle (to some) violences as compared to violent outbreaks of resistance? Mouffe's relativism is appreciable, but seems to lack any form of progressivity. A peace-maker is not necessarily a breaker of bonds. Though I fully support "vernacular forms of democracy," especially contextualized within their preceding cultures and religions, I can't support the continued oppression of any person under all others, be it a woman, a non-cis person, someone who isn't heteronormative, or someone of a religious or ethnic minority. I can't imagine that Mouffe has abandoned these considerations, but it is doubtless that there would not be regional poles of governance that were religiously opposed or ethnically biased.

 Westernization, which is the enemy of cultural plurality, is in and of itself racist and sexist, and so it cannot be argued as the solution. But, in the given form, I cannot fully support Mouffe's fledgling multiverse, at least not as-is. The institutional framework of agonism, within the multiverse may hold the key, but, given the hurdles faced by the EU and the UN, a full conception of such a framework will be difficult. Regionalism will likely play a part, as Mouffe has already thankfully mentioned the sad and ugly history of national border-drawing. Unfortunately, this too seems to bring up a quandary: how are separate parties to occupy the same space? I'm afraid that the very history Mouffe seems to hold so dear has only told stories of violent conflict in these cases. We shall see.