Between Deliberation and Agonism: Recasting the Habermas-Mouffe Debate on the Normative Basis of Democracy

Date of Award

12-1-2022

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy

First Advisor

Ranilo B. Hermida, PhD

Abstract

The search for the normative ground of democracy has generated two contrasting positions. On the one hand, there is deliberative democracy, which emphasizes rational consensus as the basis for democratic legitimacy; on the other hand, there is agonistic pluralism, which stresses contestation as the normative basis of democracy. The former is best represented by Jürgen Habermas, while the latter is by Chantal Mouffe. Although there are differences in their respective positions given their different ontological understanding of the political and differences in their theoretical starting points, there are similarities as well, especially in how they propose to expand and deepen the gains of modern democracy. In this study, I revisit the debate between Habermas and Mouffe, one of the broader discourse debates that place deliberation against agonism. I contend that although their positions are distinct, both deliberation and agonism share some common ground, even if their relationship remains conflictual. Their relationship illustrates that they mutually correct and enhance each other’s viewpoint and that together they constitute the normative bases of democracy. They are equally necessary dimensions of the normative ground of democracy.

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS