Introduction
Chantal Mouffe, in recent decades, has managed to offer a new definition of politics through disputing with prevailing intellectual traditions. The discussion of Mouffe is not merely ontic—in the Heideggerian sense of the term—but rather ontological/epistemological. Mouffe does not just examine a political phenomenon in the existing experimental situation, but strives to engage in a discussion about the nature and essence of the political, which is clearly a foundational debate. Furthermore, her foundational discussion emerges and crystallizes through philosophical reflection. Throughout her lengthy philosophical career, Mouffe articulates a newly established concept in political philosophy, which she refers to as the Agonistic Model which is profoundly philosophical in every sense. This paper attempts to demonstrate how new political concepts are created and constructed through tracing the conflicts and dialogues of her thoughts with other sometimes contradictory schools and thoughts.
materials and method
The method of this article is descriptive-analytical, focusing primarily on the process and manner in which a philosophical definition of the political is presented, while also answering the question of whether political philosophy in its ontological sense is still alive.
discussion
Mouffe has developed her political idea through dialogue and dispute with the political schools of her time. She criticizes the liberal theory under the concept of the post-political (especially the thoughts of John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas) and critiques Carl Schmitt's theory of antagonism to create the concept of agonism as a new ontology.
In most of her works, Mouffe discusses the shortcomings and weaknesses of political theory in providing an ontological definition of the political. On one hand, she strives to preserve the concept of the political as conflict, and on the other hand, she aims to maintain the necessary and essential solidarity and pluralism in radical democracy. In an attempt to reconcile these seemingly opposing tendencies, she creates the concept of "agonism." In her book on the political, Mouffe emphasizes from the start that her definition of the political is necessarily and inherently ontological and epistemological because it does not discuss political realities. Drawing from Carl Schmitt's concept of antagonism, Mouffe firmly believes that conflict is the essence of the political, and without it, politics fundamentally does not exist. The concept of the end of history, proposed by Fukuyama, which is based on the ultimate and definitive victory of liberalism, is, according to Mouffe, nothing but the end of politics or the absence of politics, which she considers an impossibility.
Mouffe's concept of agonism, like Schmitt's concept of antagonism, is based on the understanding of identity as relational; the definition of any identity is based on distinction from an 'Other'. Using Stuart Hall's concept of identity construction and Derrida's discussions, Mouffe believes that identity is constructed externally. 'We' are identified through 'them'. In her book on the political, Mouffe emphasizes that in the realm of social identities, the formation of 'us' necessarily involves the presence of 'them'. However, this does not mean that such a relationship is necessarily a friend/enemy or, in other words, a relationship based on hostility and antagonism. But we must acknowledge that under certain conditions, this 'us/them' relationship can turn into a hostile one. This happens when 'them' are portrayed in a way that seems to threaten the existence of 'us', perceived as a threat to our existence. Unlike Schmitt, for whom the constructed 'other' is necessarily destructive and hence, must be annihilated as part of the political essence, Mouffe's constructed 'other' is non-destructive and provides coherence, with a right to life and politics. According to Mouffe, one of the most important tasks of contemporary political theorists is nothing but the neutralization of the potential antagonism existing in social relations that threatens democratic politics with severe risks. Therefore, she seeks a way for dispute to be accepted as a legitimate matter while not leading the political community to destruction. In Mouffe's view, the task of agonistic democracy is to create legitimate channels for opposing views so that political disputes do not lead to hostility and enmity. Thus, in simple terms, agonism can be described as a domesticated and tamed form of antagonism that allows opponents to challenge the dominant hegemony according to democratic procedures and strive to become a hegemonic force themselves.
result
Mouffe's philosophical effort to provide an ontological definition of the political has been shaped through dialogue and dispute with the prevailing political schools and by critically examining the philosophical schools of liberalism and Marxism of her time. She offers not only a new definition of the political but also of democracy through her radical democracy project. According to her, the essence of the political is conflict; similar to what Carl Schmitt has expressed in the concept of antagonism. However, antagonism is destructive and ultimately leads the world into the chaos of war. On the other hand, the claim by liberals that the end of history has arrived and decrees the victory and superiority of liberalism is nothing but a destruction of the political. In her attempt to overcome the ideological problems faced by each of these schools, Mouffe delves into the political matter and strives to provide a new ontological definition of the political. Agonism is her solution—a definition of the political as conflict that saves politics from destruction but at the same time does not lead to destructive antagonism. Mouffe believes that democracy in this sense is nothing but the taming of antagonism that lurks in politics and social relations and may erupt at any moment. The rise of right-wing populism in recent decades or even radical religious movements like ISIS can be explained on this basis.