Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Martin Beckstein
(Email: martin.beckstein@unisg.ch)
Abstract
Since the 1990s Carl Schmitt has edged ever closer to the spotlight of Chantal Mouffe’s political
thought. Determining the function of her reconsideration of the controversial German thinker in her
writings, however, is no easy task. Although commentators, as well as Mouffe herself, suggest that
lacks plausibility. By scrutinising the authorial intention in writings such as The Return of the Political,
The Challenge of Carl Schmitt, and On the Political, I argue that Mouffe systematically uses her
“dialogue” with Schmitt to launch a polemic against the idea of a politics beyond left and right. In
consequence, we should not apply criteria such as logical consistency, viability, or originality when
evaluating these writings. We should content ourselves, instead, with asking in how far her writings
are suitable to increase the reader’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent. The examination
of the function of Mouffe’s dialogue with Schmitt allows, additionally, to raise more general questions
Keywords:
Mouffe, Schmitt, the political, pluralism, authorial intention, conceptual revision, polemics
1 Introduction
To talk about the political thought of Chantal Mouffe for many means to talk about
the political thought of Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau. Due to the
(Laclau and Mouffe 1985), the view of an authorial identity has been established in
large parts of the secondary literature (Wenman 2003b: 582, 602 Fn. 2). Varying from
some plausibility, one might be able to identify a distinct Mouffian political thought
already in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy;1 in any case, however, we have good
reasons to expect one in her later writings. First, most of them are single-authored;
and second, a novel influence enters her reflections that edges ever closer to the
spotlight. This influence is Carl Schmitt. Whereas in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy,
Schmitt is not even mentioned, the controversial German thinker increasingly takes
centre stage in her following work. Mouffe deals with him in many significant
writings, and tellingly, she has even published an edited book with the title The
Challenge of Carl Schmitt (Mouffe 1999a). Thus, in order to cast light on Mouffe’s
work, a promising way should be found in re-reading the dialogue she establishes
important feature of her political thought from the 1990s onwards. It is important to
note, however, that my claims in this article concern solely this facet, and that I do
Methodically, such an endeavour would require analysing and comparing all of her
texts: of the texts in which she deals with Schmitt and of those in which she does not,
of her writings from the 1990s onwards and of those written before, of those
published individually and of those authored in collaboration. Sure, the name under
which a number of writings are traded is not the worst reason to assume content-
1Examining Hegemony and Socialist Strategy Marc A. Wenman differentiates a more Mouffian, radical
democratic chapter (ch. 4) from a more Laclauian, post-marxist one (ch. 3), and sees acute, indeed
“incommensurate” differences that separate the work of these two authors (Wenman 2003b: 581).
1
specific continuity and coherence. It is nevertheless neither the best, because the
question of authorial identity is also relevant in cases where one person writes
different texts. Scrutinising the authorial intention in all texts written by Mouffe
could bring to light an early and later Mouffe; a Mouffe in authorial identity with
one of them: that Mouffe who enters into a dialogue with Carl Schmitt.2
Insofar as scholars have commented on this Mouffe, her dialogue with Schmitt
has often been treated as a conceptual revision of his political theory.3 This comes
interpretation is even more suggesting since Mouffe herself abets it. She frequently
philosophical answer to the “challenge” posed by (the political theory of) this
2 Her dialogue with Schmitt takes place primarily in the following works: The Return of the Political
(1993), which is a collection of essays written between 1988 and 1993; here, the introduction and the
articles 7-9 are of special interest. The Challenge of Carl Schmitt (1999a), which is an edited book with an
introduction (Mouffe 1999b) and one contribution (Mouffe 1999c) by Mouffe. Finally, On the Political
(2005c), a monograph, is of particular interest. Here, many topics are revisited and arranged anew. At
this point, the reader might play me at my own game and argue that I should better speak of
dialogues (pl.) between Mouffe and Schmitt in these writings. I definitely agree, especially because it
is likely that some of the texts are directed at a more academic audience, while others aim at
intervening into public discourse. For the central argument of this article, however, the similarities of
Mouffe’s dialogues with Schmitt carry more weight than the differences. Although the analysis of the
Mouffe-Schmittian dialogues would be certainly instructive, I consider it therefore legitimate to
portray them as a more or less coherent unity.
3 Mark A. Wenman, for instance, sees in Mouffe’s work the “attempt to both rework and circumvent
the ideas of Carl Schmitt” (Wenman 2003a: 179). Jacob Torfing discusses the work of Chantal Mouffe
as a “new theory of discourse”. Although in most occasions he treats Mouffe’s and Laclau’s work as a
coherent unity, he also suggests that Mouffe has revised Schmitt’s concept of the political by the
category of the adversary (Torfing 2003: 121). Benjamin Arditi, to give another example, believes that
Mouffe seeks to revise Schmitt’s concept of the political and to “sanitise” it by “morphing antagonism
into agonism” (Arditi 2008: 9). Others suggest that Mouffe intends to excoriate neoliberalism and third
way thinking by revising Schmitt’s concept of the political (e.g. Wenman 2007).
2
I will argue, by contrast, that interpreting Mouffe’s dialogue with Schmitt in
terms of a revision of his concept of the political is only of limited plausibility. On the
one hand, the expected revision comes pretty neigh to an actualisation on a closer
look. What we do find in her writings, on the other hand, are lavishly dosed blows
against any sort of a politics of consensus. Recalling the function that Schmitt
attributes to political theorising, I believe, should lead us to take issue with the
discourse.
The investigation is organised in the following way. The next section (2)
Here, I largely build on those passages in Mouffe’s writings that suggest such a
reading, and try to systematise them. In the third part I present two arguments
against this interpretation. The first holds that Mouffe actually desists from revising
Schmitt’s concept of the political (3.1). In the second I argue that apart from Schmitt’s
political theory, Mouffe has been inspired by his methodological considerations, too,
and primarily intends to polemicise (3.2). In concluding remarks, I raise more general
questions about the authorial intention and criteria of evaluation. I suggest that instead
revision, we should rather ask whether we find her account attractive and persuasive,
and thus might be willing to support her intervention into political discourse (4).
The assertion that frequently build the starting point of Mouffe’s reflections is that
1999a: 1-2, 5; Mouffe 1999b: 2–3; Mouffe 2005c: 1-2, 10). Most accounts, she tells us,
and rational deliberation. Worse still, because of communism’s demise in most parts
of the world, they vaticinate a “cosmopolitan future bringing peace, prosperity and
3
the implementation of human rights worldwide” (Mouffe 2005c, 1). Liberals would
thus concur with sociologists’ longing for an end of ideology. Yet, the “excess of
consensus,” Mouffe remarks, “usually masks a disquieting apathy” (Mouffe 1993: 6).
And instead of promoting their goal of a peaceful world in unison, the continuing
society” (Mouffe 2005c: 2). If we are to avert “the destruction of democracy” (Mouffe
1993: 133), Mouffe seems to suggest, it is necessary to rethink its working conditions.
In order to sort out the conditions of a stable and yet attractive democratic
unexpected move, because Carl Schmitt has been a red rag to political theorists after
World War II, and they made considerable efforts in the hope of not becoming
associated with his thought. In the charming words of Jacob Taubes, “every
give Carl Schmitt a kick in the arse.”4 Not so, however, Chantal Mouffe. “Not the
moral qualities,” she says, “should be the decisive criteria when deciding whether we
need to establish a dialogue” with a thinker’s work, but “the intellectual force;” and
In his essay The Concept of the Political Schmitt argues that to develop a viable concept
of the political, we must investigate its specific ultimate distinction just in the way we
proceed when determining the moral, the aesthetic, or the economic (Schmitt 1996:
25–6). Whereas the moral, the aesthetic, and the economic are traditionally explained
in terms of good and evil, beautiful and ugly, and profitable and unprofitable, there
4“[In den meisten Büchern] wird ein demokratisches ABC abgehört, und jeder Privatdozent in der
Politologie in seiner Antrittsvorlesung muß natürlich einen Tritt in den Arsch von Carl Schmitt geben,
daß Freund/Feind nicht die richtige Kategorie sei” (Taubes 1987: 76).
4
political. By contrast to Max Weber, who did believe this impossible (Weber 1978 vol
1.; I,17: 55), Schmitt is not at loss for an answer. The fundamentum divisionis of the
political, he tells us, is the distinction between friend and enemy (Schmitt 1996: 26).
The specificity of the political, however, is that it is not just another distinct domain
among others, but the “strongest and most intense of the distinctions and
categorizations” (Schmitt 1996: 27). The political lies at the ground of social life and
“The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not
appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage
with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger;
and it is sufficient to this nature that he is, in an especially intense way,
existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts
with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined
general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third
party” (Schmitt 1996: 27).
What we instantaneously gain from thinking with Schmitt and his friend/enemy-
discrimination, Mouffe points out, are four basal insights into the political: first, we
come to acknowledge that political identities are not given, but form relationally
(Mouffe 1993: 2; Mouffe 1999c: 43; Mouffe 2005c: 11, 15). The construction of a “we”
“other” serves as its constitutive outside (Mouffe in subsequence to Henry Staten in:
Mouffe 1993: 2; Mouffe 2005c: 15). The association of a group of people goes hand in
hand with the dissociation from another one. By necessity, therefore, “the political
world is a pluriverse, not a universe” (Schmitt 1996: 53; quoted in Mouffe 1999c: 48;
referred to in Mouffe On 2005c: 87). Already implicit in these remarks is, second, that
the political concerns collectives (Mouffe 1993: 2-3, 110, 140; Mouffe 1999b: 4; Mouffe
2005c: 11). The third insight is that political relations are inherently conflictual
(Mouffe 1993: 2–3; Mouffe 1999b: 4; Mouffe 2005c: 11–2). Whereas interests of
on rationality or reason is foreclosed. Implied again is, fourth, that the political does
5
not constitute a specific sphere or level of society, but determines our ontological
condition (Mouffe 1993: 3; Mouffe 2005c: 16). Taken together, in Mouffe’s view,
Mouffe leaves no doubt that she considers Schmitt’s concept of the political still
pertinent, forsooth “more relevant than ever” (Mouffe 2005c: 12). Nonetheless, she
also perceives a strong anti-pluralist bias looming in his concept which would make
it necessary to part company with Schmitt at this point and to start thinking against
him (Mouffe 1993: 4-5, 120; Mouffe 1999b: 6; Mouffe 2005c: 14).
The issue Mouffe has with Schmitt is that the only pluralism legitimate and possible
according to his concept is a pluralism of states (Mouffe 1993: 4–5; Mouffe 1999c: 49;
Mouffe 2005c: 14). This consequence stems from the “main limitation of Schmitt’s
(Mouffe 1999b: 4–5). In these remarks, Mouffe hooks up with a wide-spread critique
According to many critics (who still believe that the engagement with Schmitt’s
thought is worth one’s while) the problem is that Schmitt cannot (or is unwilling to)
political oppositions as not simply conflictual, but indeed bellicose (e.g. Sartori 1989;
Derrida 1997; Arditi 2008). Whereas most approaches that envisage politics “sub
specie bellum” and not “sub specie consensus” (Geuss 2001: 4–5) treat conflict
identified with war: The opposition of friend and enemy does not mean
6
for it is a fact that the entire life of a human being is struggle and every human
being symbolically a combatant. The friend, enemy, and combat concepts receive
their real meaning precisely because they refer to the real possibility of physical
killing” (Schmitt 1996: 33).
Admittedly, Schmitt makes some efforts not to conflate the conflictual reality of the
political with war: on the one hand, by describing physical killing as the “ever
present possibility“ and “leading presupposition“ (Schmitt 1996: 34) of the political.
On the other hand, he distances himself from Clausewitz’s dictum that war is the
bellicose tendency. The first faces a logical inconsistency. Schmitt singles out the
unconsciously confers war a teleological dimension; war turns out to be the essence
and the goal, not the precondition and mere possibility of the political (Sartori 1989:
66–8; Derrida 1997: 131-32, 139).5 An example that reveals the bellicose and
pacifism. Pacifist movements will not be political, he puts it, as long as they are not
prepared to actually conduct “war against war” (Schmitt 1996: 36). Without having
reached that grade of intensity and resolve, pacifists would not have grouped
5Benjamin Arditi explains: “if one places absolute peace or complete absence of conflict at one end of
the spectrum and war at the other, the intensity of an opposition will increase as we move away from
peace. Political oppositions – those structured around the friend-enemy relation – are unthinkable in
the case of zero conflict, because then there would be no enmity and therefore no possibility of
grouping people as friends or enemies. Yet, once you move away from pure stasis, the political can be
anywhere in the scale of intensity. The problem is that economic, ethnic, religious, and other
oppositions will be part of that spectrum too, so what is it that makes political oppositions so special?
Schmitt simply affirms that they are the most intense of all. But the measurement of intensity is
notoriously tricky, and if the intensity – and therefore the political nature – of an opposition increases
as it moves closer to war, then war would turn out to be the quintessence rather than the extreme or
exceptional manifestation of the political“ (Arditi 2008: 8).
7
Schmitt’s other remark – the rebuff of Clausewitz’s dictum – comes very close to
a diversionary tactic. After having rejected it nominally, he laments that the dictum is
generally cited incorrectly.6 Following the added footnote it turns out to the surprise
of the reader that Schmitt refrains from considering war as the continuation of
politics simply because tactics in diplomatic negotiations differ from those on the
deemed dispensable. No wonder that in a 1938 corollary to The Concept of the Political
Schmitt has no problems reviving Clausewitz’s dictum: reflecting about the “peace
are evident. If political oppositions make part of our ontological condition, they must
are eventually staged violently, there is no place for them inside a community (if it is
not to get caught up in turmoil), and they must be externalised. Accordingly, Mouffe
writes that Schmitt’s concept requires expelling “every division and antagonism outside
the demos – the exterior it needs if it is to establish its unity” (Mouffe 1999c: 49).
Mouffe intends to revise Schmitt’s concept of the political by arguing with and
6Instead of the abridged dictum of Clausewitz “war is the continuation of politics by other means,”
Schmitt insists on the literal term “[w]ar is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with a
mixture of other means” (Schmitt 1996: 34 Fn. 14). I doubt that there are significant differences in the
two phrases with regard to Schmitt’s context.
8
against him, her answer for allowing for a domestically non-violent treatment of
claims, because
“[w]hile antagonism is a we/they relation in which the two sides are enemies
who do not share any common ground, agonism is a we/they relation where the
conflicting parties [… share] a common symbolic space within which the conflict
takes place” (Mouffe 2005c: 20).
disruption of a society. But the necessary common bond must not be a common
good, which, after all, would eventually undermine substantial pluralism (Mouffe
community. People must not be unified under a substantial consensus, and not even
under a rational one – as Mouffe claims Rawls and Habermas would have it. It will
do, she says, a “conflictual consensus” (Mouffe 1999b: 4; Mouffe 2000: 26; Mouffe
argues, abide by the “democratic »rules of the game«” (Mouffe 1993: 4) when
confronting each other and thus enable “religious, moral and cultural pluralism, as
7In other instances, Mouffe writes that people in democratic societies accept the “principles of modern
pluralist democracy, i.e. […] liberty and equality for all” (Mouffe 1992: 30), or share a common
allegiance to the ethico-political principles of liberal-democracy” (Mouffe 1999b: 4).
9
3 Rethinking the Function of Mouffe’s Dialogue With Schmitt
forcefully argued against any project of ascribing intentions to authors and meanings
texts, we should, for instance, rather reflect about its public meanings today (Ricoeur
1981: 201). I am convinced that such a shifted focus leads us to many highly
the texts under review. But I believe an investigation about Mouffe’s reflections
around Carl Schmitt with a view to what her texts say to us now, does not render
redundant the quest for what Mouffe had been doing in arranging her dialogue with
Schmitt then. As Quentin Skinner compellingly argues (Skinner 2001), the anti-
“the man in the next field, who is waving his arms in a manner which, I come to
see, is not intended to drive off a wasp as I had initially supposed, but rather to
warn me that the bull is about to charge. To recognise that he is issuing a
warning is to recognise the communicative intentions embodied in his act of
waving. But to recover these intentions is not in the least a matter of successfully
re-creating the ideas inside his head at the moment when he first began to wave.
It is rather a matter of understanding a particular convention and recognising its
deployment in the given case” (Skinner 2001: 186).
modified, or discarded by more nuanced readings. But it can still help to make sense
of the texts, and to figure out for or against what she was arguing for.
These brief remarks about the authorial intention shall make clear that I do not
claim to think Mouffe’s thoughts after her or to extract of her texts the pure intended
arrive at an understanding of the texts under review that differs from Mouffe’s own
10
understanding – be it the understanding at the time she wrote her texts, or her
understanding when she reads them today (Passmore 1965: 32). There is no problem
with that, however, because what I am interested in when scrutinizing the authorial
intention is the meaning of the intervention she made by arranging her dialogue with
Schmitt.
are imaginable, as our experience from examining the authorial intention in other
cases shows. Mouffe might have argued for a revised concept of Schmitt’s political
historiographical character. Peter Caldwell, for instance, reads Mouffe in this way in
his review of recent literature on Carl Schmitt. Here, Caldwell (referring to Meier
1998) portrays the view that a rejection of political philosophy in the name of political
theology underlies Schmitt’s entire work. If this view is right, he concludes, Mouffe’s
2005: 363). Furthermore, many other possibilities are imaginable which shall not be
mentioned at this point. I will suggest another possibility in any case, namely, that
concept of the political?” play a secondary role in the texts considered at best. In the
first instance we find therein instead a normative critique of political thinking and
action beyond left and right – a course of action she believes dominant in the western
world.
anticipate, is that Mouffe makes little effort to revise Schmitt’s concept of the
8Cf. Fn. 3. Caldwell’s hermeneutical interpretation has found few companions. Actually, Caldwell
himself suggests this interpretation only where he is discussing Meier’s reading of Schmitt.
11
political. More precisely, she contents herself with reviving and actualising his
concepts are only one part of his philosophical heritage that reflects in Mouffe’s
immediately comes into focus. Here, considerable doubts have been uttered whether
this concept actually provides the key to transform antagonism into agonism
(Kapoor 2002: 472–3; Dryzek 2006: 221; Arditi 2008: 10). Why, exactly, should
opposed groups refrain from using violence when staging their conflicts? The
mitigation of antagonism could take place, of course, on the basis of habits (people are
used to dispense with violence), a regulative idea (e.g. the Kantian one informing
collectives believe that they can most effectively oppose their adversaries under the
aegis of the electoral game). Yet, on neither solution Mouffe can draw without
shifting her approach to politics into one “sub specie consensus,”10 in the end it is
9 Regarding this argument, I tried to answer questions such as: “Is the conflictual consensus a viable
means to organise the transformation of antagonism into agonism?” “Does Mouffe’s revision
effectively dismiss the bellicose tendencies of Schmitt’s concept of the political?” “Does it allow for a
substantially larger pluralism inside a political community?” “Is Mouffe’s revision valuable in terms
of originality?” And “How would a poststructuralist approach tackle the problems surrounding
Schmitt’s concept of the political?”
10 This impression is nourished by the inconsistent use of “antagonism” in her writings. At times,
antagonism is presented as “permanent” (Mouffe 1993: 8) or “ineradicable” (Mouffe 2005c: 12), and
she stresses that liberal political theories are flawed precisely because they negate the “irreducibility of
antagonism” (Mouffe 2005c: 12). She thus propagates the necessity of approaching politics “sub specie
bellum.” On other occasions, however, she speaks only of an “antagonistic potential present in human
relations” (Mouffe 1999b: 4), and antagonism is reduced to an “ever present possibility” (Mouffe
2005c: 13, 15) – a claim that everyone who approaches politics “sub specie consensus” will admit. If
antagonism is a simple possibility, then the possibility of antagonism belongs to our ontological
condition and not antagonism, as she claims (cf. Arditi 2008: 10 Fn. 7).
12
indeed antagonism which preserves the conflictual consensus in a political
community: it is the common opposition to a third party that affiliates the citizens. That
must be tolerated,” applies only “within the context of the political community […].
The category of the »enemy« does not disappear but is displaced” (Mouffe 1993: 4).
Hence, the citizens of a political community form a strategic alliance and are
associated insofar as they are opposed against a greater enemy. Mouffe’s agonistic
democrat inside or outside the political collective’s territory – are not adversaries to
category of the »enemy« […] remains pertinent with respect to those who do not
accept the democratic »rules of the game«” (Mouffe 1993: 4), because “[a] democratic
society cannot treat those who put its basic institutions into question as legitimate
antagonism among enemies she argues with rather than against Schmitt. Her call for
confronting enemies not in moral but political terms in order to avoid especially
violent conflicts (Mouffe 2005c: 2, 76-8, 120), and for a “truly global” Jus Publicum
Europaeum (Mouffe 2005c: 116) parallels Schmitt’s own attempts to extricate enmity
11 It is highly misleading when Mouffe writes that “those who do not accept the democratic »rules of
the game« […] thereby exclude themselves from the political community” (Mouffe 1993: 4, emphasis
added). According to the concept of hegemony (Mouffe 2005c: 17–9; cf. Mouffe 1992: 31), there is
always a de facto hegemon who enforces his order, and thereby excludes others from the political
community, if they are not willing to bend to his will.
12 In his self-apologetic preface to the 1963 German edition of The Concept of the Political Schmitt assures
the reader that the decisive challenge is the limitation of war which requires the mutual relativisation
of enmity (Schmitt 2002, 19). In the Theory of the Partisan he points out that by the “relativization of
enmity” he understands the “renunciation of the criminalization of the opponent […], the negation of
absolute enmity”; the abjuration of “a discrimination and denigration of the enemy” (Schmitt 2007:
90). The Westphalian System until the 1815 treaty of Vienna managed, in his view, to provide an
effective Jus Publicum Europaeum and thus to mitigate enmity (Schmitt 2007: 90). Having neglected to
explicitly specify different types of enemies is the reason, Schmitt believes, for the negative reception
of his work. The “enemy” he wanted to talk about is the “real enemy” which is “an enemy who […]
13
regard to the figure of transforming antagonism into agonism.13 What, then, is the
difference to Schmitt?
Mouffe does not tire to insist that her approach allows for pluralism inside of a
political community, whereas Schmitt’s theory would call for a homogeneous demos
(Mouffe 1999c: 48; Mouffe 2005c: 14). This would mean, first, that Schmitt is state-
centric: the political units are states, whose citizens are internally united as friends
and externally opposed to other states as enemies. The second claim contained is –
moderately formulated – that her concept allows for a substantially greater degree of
pluralism inside a political community. Both claims are hard to accept. On the one
hand, in the very beginning of The Concept of the Political Schmitt criticises the state-
centeredness of the political theorists of his time.14 Moreover, after World War II
political subject (Schmitt 2007). There is thus little reason to assume that Schmitt’s
concept forecloses pluralisms other than that of states, neither in terms of possibility
nor legitimacy.
must be compelled only to retreat into his borders,” not one who must be definitively destroyed
(Schmitt 1996: 36–7; also quoted in Schmitt 2007: 93 Fn. 93). The problem however is, as Giovanni
Sartori has pointed out, that Schmitt thus places an incompatible “historical” argument next to his
“logical” one (Sartori 1989: 67 Fn. 7). Mouffe makes no attempts to resolve the paradox, but draws on
both to back up her account. Because of Schmitt’s reflections about possibilities of containing violence,
in any case, Benjamin Arditi criticises Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism for being “not a true innovation”
(Arditi 2008: 10).
13 Schmitt derives the German word “Feind” from “Fehde” (engl.: feud, vendetta), and explains that in
the middle-ages “Fehde” was differentiated into “knightly and non-knightly feud” (“ritterliche und
nicht-ritterliche fehde”). “The knightly feud,“ however, “leads to fixed forms and thereby to treat the
feud opponent in an agonistic way” (“Die ritterliche Fehde,“ however, “führt zu festen Formen und
damit auch zur agonalen Auffassung des Fehdegegners”; Schmitt 2002: 104–5).
14 The first sentence of The Concept of the Political reads “the concept of the state presupposes the
concept of the political” (Schmitt 1996: 19). In the following pages, Schmitt criticises a number of
scholars – Max Weber included – for defining the political and the state by mutual reference and
rejects such attempts as “obviously an unsatisfactory circle” (Schmitt 1996: 20).
15 In his Italian 1972 preface to The Concept of the Political, Schmitt writes: “The new protagonists
become the core of the entire complex of problems called »political«. Here lies the beginning and
thrust of every attempt to recognize the many new subjects of the political, which become active in
political reality, in the politics of the state or nonstate, and which bring about new kinds of friend-
enemy groupings” (Schmitt quoted in Marchart 2007: 42).
14
On the other hand, considerable doubts arise on whether Mouffe’s concept really
allows for a domestic pluralism of higher quality. In The Concept of the Political,
community: in times of absolutism, he argues, the state had the monopoly over the
political (Schmitt 1996: 22). Political affairs within the domestic realm of an absolutist
order were basically limited to police (“Polizei”) in his view. Under absolutist
monarchies, “the political,” Oliver Marchart explains, “is a matter only of the
external politics between states, while internal politics turns into a question of
policing an already established order” (Marchart 2007: 43). Apart from that we are
left with pseudo-political forms of politics that Schmitt calls “Politesse” or “petite
politique,” i.e. courtly intrigues (Schmitt 2002: 117, 120). Yet under conditions of a
antagonisms exist within the domestic realm, too. He refers to the pluralism of
pressure groups supporting specific policies, and especially party politics (Schmitt
1996: 30; cf. also Schmitt 1999). Sure, we will stress that for Schmitt these domestic
government’s) decision about the order of the political community and its enemies.
But at the same time have perfect reason to conclude that there do exist domestic
contestations for Schmitt, and that the actions of political collectives within the state
explicit about this point: “[n]otwithstanding, the state encompasses and relativizes
all these antitheses. However an antithesis and antagonism remain here within the
state’s domain which have relevance for the concept of the political” (Schmitt 1996:
30). Internal conflicts for Schmitt are the expression of secondary friend/enemy-
groupings. The point is, however, that the pluralism Mouffe imagines within a
16Mouffe claims that “[p]olitics is about the constitution of the political community, not something
that takes place inside the political community” (Mouffe 1992: 30). Schmitt’s remarks in The Concept of
the Political suggest that he views politics in the process of constituting the political community (along
with the determination of the enemy) and inside the political community.
15
the antagonisms among “friends” in Schmitt’s account. The members of Mouffe’s
1992: 30). And because identities are created relationally, the primary political
words, in those who do not accept the democratic rules of the game and put its basic
What Schmitt calls homogeneity, Mouffe calls commonality; and what for Schmitt
is ensured by race, the nation, a religious conviction, arête or civic virtue (Schmitt
2000: 9), for Mouffe is provided by the democratic rules of the game, ethico-political
principles of liberal democracy, res publica, or the assertion of liberty and equality
for all (Mouffe 1992: 30–1; Mouffe 1993: 4, 67; Mouffe 2005c: 32, 52, 122). This sounds
more different than it is because the decisive criterion for both is that the common
bond (and the hegemonic force behind it) is strong enough to hold together people in
In Mouffe’s account the category of the enemy remains pertinent, and the
ways in which antagonism can be transformed into agonism” (Mouffe 1999b: 5). This
surprising result should cast doubts on the interpretation that Mouffe intends a
revision, I will outline such a poststructuralist revision with a few brief strokes.
16
Proceeding from the assumption that (political) identities form relationally, it
stands out clearly that no universal identity could ever exist, because every identity
essentially given, but construed – as Mouffe stresses and as she believes that Schmitt
anticipates (Mouffe 2005c: 14–5)17 – the central questions are who or what the
opposed “other” is and how it can be confronted. It seems to me at this point that
Mouffe providing two essentialist-Schmittian answers which are at odds with the
second is to assume it natural and effective to fight the “other” in its physical
existence. To recall, Schmitt spells out bluntly this idea by emphasising that
oppositions are political because and insofar as they are existential and include the
possibility of physical killing. Mouffe, for her part, makes no attempts to reject this
claim and in fact implicitly asserts it when she says that Schmitt’s category of the
First, there is no need to equate the “who/what” of the other with the human
(Derrida 1995: 268–9; cf. Wenman 2003c: 60). According to the assumption that all
identities are relational, the opposed other is literally “other.” It can be a human
being or a group of people, but also an animal, a plant, or a stone. The opposed
subject may be a more or less fictive “other” as the beast in William Golding’s novel
Lord of the Flies, or the aliens in Roland Emmerich’s science-fiction film Independence
Day. Arguably, the “other” might even be a rather abstract entity, for instance, an
could put itself into opposition to its own history, as illustrates the case of the Federal
Republic of Germany.18
17 Gabriella Slomp comes to the same conclusion: “identity is not given a priori or fixed. For Schmitt,
real politics is an Orwellian, never-ending series of shifting alliances and changing identities” (Slomp
2007: 208). Caldwell, however, reminds that in his Nazi-writings Schmitt perceived Jews to be “made
differently,” and in other occasions suggested that the French Revolution was in parts the
achievement of a preexisting national identity (Caldwell 2005: 367, 382).
18 I am indebted to Ursula Jasper for having raised this point.
17
Second, it is only of limited sense to fight the other in its physical existence
(granted that it actually has one in the concrete case). The political issue concerns the
case too strong influence on the social world. The effective target of action from the
perspective of the “we” is the “other’s” subject position in discourse, not the
constitutive outside itself, and especially not the bearers of this identity in their
physical existence. We know good enough that throughout history people availed
respective “other.” But we also know that to destroy an idea or to change a state of
affairs by attacking its advocates does not always prove particularly effective.
At the Nuremberg trial, Carl Schmitt emphatically affirmed that during the Nazi-
2000: 53). He thus took refuge – as Caldwell expresses it – in the claim of pure science
(Caldwell 2005: 382). Schmitt’s apologia falls beyond the pale already because
intellectuals have a certain duty to accept responsibility for what they do in their
about Jews made the impression of “crude outbursts of political hate” (Quaritsch
2000: 53), and not of “scholarly thes[e]s” (Schmitt quoted in Quaritsch 2000: 55), as
diagnostics. He stresses that “all political concepts, images and terms have a
19The fate of these persons additionally suggests that one should not expect too much from Schmitt’s
and Mouffe’s idea to domesticate hostility by framing conflicts not in moral but in political terms.
Bruno’s problem, for instance, was probably not so much that he was accused of being an ally of evil
(instead of being an enemy of the constitution), although the church might have perceived his
activities – as heresy in general – primarily as a political and worldly danger. His problem was rather
that the inquisitors and Pope Clement VIII opted for the strategy of countering the subversive effects
of his activities by extinguishing him.
18
polemical meaning” (Schmitt 1996: 30). Theorising, of course, is never a neutral act;
all theory has normative implication. Yet, Schmitt goes beyond this truism. A
political concept, he argues, is “incomprehensible if one does not know exactly who
Due to the function that Schmitt thus attributes to political theorising, The Concept of
the Political, as well as his other political writings, get an interesting twist. Polemics
are intrinsically appurtenant to diagnostics. They actually turn out to be the primary
purpose of his political theorising. Like few others, Schmitt fields his methodology as
becomes the only function of his rhetoric […] the nexus of Schmitt’s arguments is […]
the use of concepts. Mouffe is certainly a good reader of Schmitt, and an especially
good one of The Concept of the Political. But what suggests that she does not simply
ignore Schmitt’s remarks about the function of political theorising? Are there any
First, on some occasions Mouffe takes an explicitly partisan stance. In her speech
Exodus or War of Position? Which Future for Radical Politics?20 Mouffe introduces to
20“Exodus or War of Position? Which Future for Radical Politics?” speech held on 26. 2. 2004 at the
conference „Public Art Policies. Progressive Kunstinstitutionen im Zeitalter der Auflösung des
Wohlfahrtsstaates,“ in Vienna (Austria). The speech has been published in a German translation by
19
three basic pillars upon which a renewed project of the left should rest. One policy
economy” (instead of a free market system), and finally calls for the introduction of a
basic income (Mouffe 2005a: 57–61). However, her statements about the articulation
arguably lack a tight connection to her theoretical discussion of the concept of the
political. On other occasions Mouffe criticises populist right-wing parties for evoking
hence, identity patterns that Mouffe rejects for their exclusiveness (Mouffe 1993: 4;
Mouffe 2005c: 30, 71). Not least, in On the Political Mouffe even characterises her
theoretical nature, my central aim is a political one” (Mouffe 2005c: 9). But given that
she characterises this political aim as providing an “approach which will enable us to
grasp the challenges with which democratic politics is today confronted” (Mouffe
2005c: 9), doubts will endure whether this is actually the kind of polemics Schmitt
had in mind.21
essentialist approach (e.g. Mouffe 1993: vii, 71, 75, 86, 87; Mouffe 1992: 28; Mouffe
1999a: series description; Mouffe 2005c: 4). While it is odd enough that Mouffe makes
use of essentialisms, it is telling that her use of essentialisms is indeed excessive. She
citizenship, or democracy (e.g. Mouffe 1993: 2, 117; Mouffe 2005c: 17, 54, 56, 83, 120).
She tells us how things are “by essence” or “essentially” (e.g. Mouffe 2005c: 18;
Oliver Marchart under the title Exodus und Stellungskrieg. Die Zukunft radikaler Politik (2005a). My
references refer to this edition.
21 Applying Schmitt’s considerations on the polemic function of concepts to this passage would mean
that the terms “democracy” and “challenges” are intended to have polemical implications. While I
will precisely suggest this to be the case (see below), Mouffe’s disclosure of her “political” intentions
adds up to warning against objective dangers and creating tools for being better able to analyse and
control them. This does not seem particularly partisan.
20
Mouffe 1993: 30), and reminds us of questionable “facts” (e.g. Mouffe 1993: 8, 33, 70,
104, 111, 115; Mouffe 2005c: 15, 31. 38). Mouffe hardly intends to express serious
truth-claims with such formulations. Some of them might stem from habit or self-
mockery.22 But the bulk of essentialisms will not, and can neither be simply
condoned because they render the reading easier and more attractive. Consciously
weapons. By tracing, for instance, the effects of a thing to one cause (it’s “essence”),
complexity is reduced; less efforts must be expended to reflection, more time is left
for drawing the (theoretical or practical) consequences. When Mouffe makes use of
essentialisms she simulates a false scientificity that shall help her to facitilitate “de-
contestation” (Freeden 2005: 188) in the competition over the control of political
language.
“the political.” Mouffe makes clear that she understands the political not in terms of
2005c: 9). She urgently calls for acknowledging the political as she understands it
(Mouffe 1993: 4, 6, 7; Mouffe 2005c: 2), and to provide channels for allowing conflicts
to be staged in agonistic ways (Mouffe 2005c: 21, 69, 71).23 And, of course, she stresses
the ineradicability of conflict – i.e. the political – in social life (e.g. Mouffe 1993: vii, 1,
6; Mouffe 2005c: 3, 4, 10, 19, 119). At the same time, Mouffe cautions the reader
against its elimination: “it is indeed the political which is at stake here,” she writes in
The Return of the Political, “and the possibility of its elimination” (Mouffe 1993: 1). The
conditions for a vibrant public sphere where citizens can oppose each other, and it is
22 At least in one example Mouffe displays a delightful sense of humour: “[s]everal contemporary
theoretical currents converge in stressing how participation in a community of language is the sine
qua non of the construction of human identity and allow us to formulate the social and political nature
of man in a non-essentialist way” (Mouffe 1993: 57, emphasis added).
23 Obviously, channels to stage conflicts in an non-violent way are the conditio sine qua non of any
political order which is not an anarchy or exclusively based on oppression. Dissafection with politics,
populist movements, and terroristic organisations stem from the (perceived) lack of institutionalised
channels to make their voice efficiently heard.
21
this what we must fear to lose. So, “the political” from the beginning does not simply
stand for antagonism, but is brought into close connection, nearly equated with
pluralism, individual liberty rights, and the taming of antagonism that is necessary
political, to provide channels for it, and by warning against its elimination, Mouffe
pluralism is not the result of a reconceptualisation but the partisan goal from which
she starts off, and which she intends to propagate in her writings. Only rarely Mouffe
insinuates that the pluralism and political conflict she calls “our ontological
condition” (Mouffe 1993: 3; Mouffe 2005c: 16) actually is the value she strives to
promote. In one passage the bone of contention becomes nonetheless palpable: in For
an Agonistic Public Sphere she complains that due to the dominance of “post-political”
visions “[a]ll those who put into question the very possibility of such a rational
consensus and who affirm that the political is a domain in which one should always
rationally expect to find discord are accused of undermining the very possibility of
“absolutism,” or “total state” cannot be simply descriptive terms (Schmitt 1996: 30–
polemicisation. The term “political” itself, according to his view, has no existence
“[a]bove all the polemical character determines the use of the word political
regardless of whether the adversary is designated as nonpolitical (in the sense of
harmless), or vice versa if one wants to disqualify or denounce as political in
order to portray oneself as nonpolitical (in the sense of purely scientific, purely
moral, purely juristic, purely aesthetic, purely economic, or on the basis of similar
purities) and thereby superior” (Schmitt 1996: 31–2).
As Benjamin Arditi and Jeremy Valentine point out, Schmitt perceived the non-
political to enjoy superiority over the political in his day, and intended to change this
22
situation (Arditi and Valentine 1999: 38).24 Mouffe, for her part, criticises sociologists
(like Ulrich Beck), politicians (like Tony Blair), and intellectuals (like Antonio Negri
48, 60-1, 110). The main political parties promote a non-political understanding of
politics, she contends, by reducing it to “spinning” (Mouffe 2005c: 63). Major current
partnerships “with the state putting up the money for investments and the
entrepreneurs reaping the profits […] with the citizens […] suffering accordingly!”
(Mouffe 2005c: 63). Likewise, the growth of right-wing populisms in Europe results
from the delegitimation of partisanry and the resulting lack to have a real choice
discourse with non-political mindsets one should not wonder that citizens
elections (Mouffe 2005c: 63). Mouffe suggests even that George W. Bush’s strategy of
waging a “war against terrorism” was not political, and in any case far from being
2005c: 77–9). The consequence about which Mouffe claims to warn us, is the
acknowledge “the political,” by contrast, if we would get ourselves into thinking and
acting in a political – i.e. partisan and pluralist – manner, we could avert the danger
that citizens completely lose faith in democratic and non-violent procedures (Mouffe
2005c: 63). With all this, Mouffe gives a broad hint that she intends to embark on
24According to Arditi and Valentine this polemical strategy amounts to the “autopolemicization of the
concept” (Arditi and Valentine 1999: 38).
23
Who takes the line that Mouffe carries out a conceptual revision of Schmitt’s political,
originality, has a hard time growing fond of it: because the absence of a conceptual
revision of Schmitt’s political theory, and not least because her emphasis on the
necessity to acknowledge the political in her way systematically begs the question.
Her decision for reviving Schmitt’s political thought is of course courageous. And
there is no doubt that her selective reading of Schmitt’s work and the application of
his concepts to current circumstances is innovative enough and highly inspiring. But
we should keep in mind that she falls short of her pledge to part company with
poststructuralist direction.
especially to the use of the term “political,” lends further credence to the view that
Mouffe’s purpose does not consist in a conceptual revision, and leads us to consider
Schmitt on this possibility, sufficient evidence can be found that Mouffe indeed
systematically aims at polemicising against third way thinking and a politics beyond
left and right; Blair’s New Labour, Beck’s reflexive modernisation, Hardt and Negri’s
delegitimised. Nevertheless, her polemic is far from being trite and unpersuasive.
4 Concluding Remarks
when I ceased to be an Althusserian. And, in fact, Gramsci was for me a way to find a
24
different approach” (Angus n.d.). Labelling seldom proves particularly useful, and it
is not my purpose now to label Mouffe a Schmittian from the 1990s onwards. Suffice
that there is a Chantal Mouffe who engages in a dialogue with Schmitt in a number
of writings, and gets inspired thereby to think about politics in a special way. She
some of its immanent paradoxes and aporias. But what makes her dialogue with
Schmitt so special is that the heritage Schmitt passes on Mouffe exceeds the
polemics.25
Like sophistry and rhetoric, polemics often has a derogatory connotation in daily
and academic usage. Polemics, from one stance, is not concerned with truth and
justice, but instead opinion and defamation. It relies on discursive weapons and not
on the force of reason. There are, however, others who reject a strong
dichotomisation of truth and opinion. Chaïm Perelman suggests, for instance, that
even those scholars who appeal to truth, objectivity, or reason employ such appeals
one might conclude that what makes for good scholarship are not consistent theories,
viable concepts, and original revisions but simply effective arguments, i.e. arguments
that are capable to “induce or […] increase the mind’s adherence to the theses
presented for its assent” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 2000: 4). The readers cease
dialogue with the author; it might therefore be not particularly relevant whether the
25 The question of whether the polemical character of Mouffe’s dialogue with Schmitt is exclusively
linked with her intellectual experience with Schmitt clearly exceeds this investigation. By intuition,
however, I would say that earlier works lack this tendency, that, for instance, Hegemony and Socialist
Strategy primarily is directed towards renewing Marxist theory – and should thus legitimately be
interpreted as a conceptual revision. Given, however, that the relation of theory and practice in
Marxist and Gramscian thought is extraordinary in a similar way, there might be excavated certain
parallels. In any case, the question of whether and in how far we come across the author Mouffe, as
characterised in this article, in earlier, co-authored, or feminist writings, too, seems worthy of
investigation.
25
arguments match specific logical modalities (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 2000:
163). Suffice that they are suitable to mobilise the addressed audience’s passions.
As is often the case, so this article, too, raises more questions than it is able to
merely place their intervention equitably next to any other opinion. How should we
characterise such claims, then? Certainly not truth claims, but arguably neither
validity claims hit the point. Moreover, why does Mouffe apparently desist from
adherence? A possible, though speculative answer is that doing so she would be led
to conclusions which badly fit into her polemical programme.26 Not least, questions
argued that in certain writings a political theorist (Mouffe) launches a polemic over
the work of another political theorist (Schmitt) who, again, took pleasure in
appropriate argument by a third scholar (me)? Finally, might the choice of the subject
matter prompt us (the readers) to conclude that the present article has a polemical
dimension likewise?
thought. And apart from which position we reckon plausible, the function attributed
to theorising should be taken into account when interpreting and evaluating another
writer’s text – at least, if one is to do justice to the author’s intentions. In this article I
26If the constitutive outside of a political opposition, as I argued before (3.1), needs not be human, the
pluralism Mouffe intends to promote will not be a plausible claim. However, given that Mouffe
desists from conceptually revising Schmitt’s concept of the political, we can only speculate about her
reasons.
26
argued that we have good reasons to interpret Mouffe’s recent work in terms of an
might legitimately criticise her on metatheoretical grounds, or for the partisan goal
she adapts, and we can do that out of (ethico-)political, moral, or aesthetic reasons.
Moreover, we might assess her argumentative persuasiveness and thus ask whether
her strategy is likely to obtain the adherence of her audiences’ minds. And, while the
assessment of the latter may sample out ambiguously, I believe, the coherent
case, there is little sense in pitting these writings against traditional requirements for
conceptual revision is not what is aimed at. On Jakob Taubes’s reproach that every
lecturer commenting on Schmitt would get the urge to give him a kick, I might
answer “you’re right” or “you’re wrong;” but most of us will see little use in the
polemicisation.
27
References
Angus, Ian. n.d. An Interview With Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau. Transcript. From
the Television Series "Conflicting Publics" on Knowledge Network. n.d. Available
online at: http://www.ianangus.ca/ (accessed 23 October 2008).
Arditi, Benjamin. 2008. “On the Political. Schmitt Contra Schmitt,” Telos 142: 7–28.
Arditi, Benjamin, and Jeremy Valentine. 1999. Polemicization. The Practice of
Afoundationalism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Caldwell, Peter C. 2005. “Controversies Over Carl Schmitt. A Review of
Recent Literature,” The Journal of Modern History 77: 357–87.
Derrida, Jacques. 1995. “»Eating Well,« or the Calculation of the Subject.” In Points…
Interviews 1974-1994, edited by Elizabeth Weber. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 255–87.
–––. 1997. Politics of Friendship. London: Verso.
Dryzek, John S. 2006. Deliberative Global Politics. Discourse and Democracy in a Divided
World. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Freeden, Michael. 2005. “What Should the »Political« in Political Theory Explore?”,
The Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (2): 113–34.
Geuss, Raymond. 2001. History and Illusion in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hefler, Günter. 1999. “Wissenschaftlichkeit als Einsatz. Methodologie als politische
Strategie bei Carl Schmitt und Hans Kelsen.” In Gegen den Ausnahmezustand. Zur
Kritik an Carl Schmitt, edited by Wolfgang Pircher. Wien; New York: Springer, 249–
84.
Kapoor, Ilan. 2002. “Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism? The Relevance
of the Habermas-Mouffe Debate for Third-World Politics,” Alternatives 27: 459–87.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a
Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
Marchart, Oliver. 2007. Post-Foundational Political Thought. Political Difference in Nancy,
Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Meier, Heinrich. 1998. The Lesson of Carl Schmitt. Four Chapters on the Distinction
between Political Theology and Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1992. “Citizenship and Political Identity,” October 61: 28–32.
–––. 1993. The Return of the Political. London: Verso.
––– (ed.). 1999a. The Challenge of Carl Schmitt. London: Verso.
–––. 1999b. “Introduction. Schmitt’s Challenge.” In The Challenge of Carl Schmitt,
edited by Chantal Mouffe. London: Verso, 1–6.
–––. 1999c. “Carl Schmitt and the Paradox of Liberal Democracy.” In The Challenge of
Carl Schmitt, edited by Chantal Mouffe. London: Verso, 38–53.
28
–––. 2000. Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism. Vienna: Institute for
Advanced Studies.
–––. 2005a. Exodus und Stellungskrieg. Die Zukunft radikaler Politik. Wien: Turia und
Kant.
–––. 2005b. “For an Agonistic Public Sphere.” In Radical Democracy. Politics Between
Abundance and Lack, edited by Lars Tønder, and Lasse Thomassen. Manchester:
University of Manchester Press, 123–32.
–––. 2005c. On the Political. London; New York: Routledge.
Passmore, John. 1965. “The Idea of a History of Philosophy,” History and Theory 5 (5),
1-32.
Perelman, Chaïm. 1963. The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument. New York:
Humanities Press.
–––, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 2000. The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argument.
Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Quaritsch, Helmut. 2000. Carl Schmitt. Antworten in Nürnberg. Berlin:
Duncker&Humblot.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1981. “The Model of the Text. Meaningful Action Considered as a
Text.” In Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences. Essays on Language, Action and
Interpretation, edited Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197-221.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1989. “The Essence of the Political in Carl Schmitt,” Journal of
Theoretical Politics 1 (1): 63–75.
Schmitt, Carl. 1996. The Concept of the Political. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––. 1999. “Ethic of State and Pluralistic State.” In The Challenge of Carl Schmitt, edited
by Chantal Mouffe. London: Verso, 195–208.
–––. 2000. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Translated by Ellen Kennedy.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
–––. 2002. Der Begriff des Politischen. Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei
Corollarien. Berlin: Duncker&Humblot.
–––. 2007. Theory of the Partisan. Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the Political.
New York: Telos.
Skinner, Quentin. 2001. “The Rise of, Challenge to and Prospects for a
Collingwoodian Approach to the History of Political Thought.” In The History of
Political Thought in National Context, edited by Dario Castiglione and Ian
Hampsher-Monk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 175-188.
Slomp, Gabriella. 2007. “Carl Schmitt on Friendship. Polemics and Diagnostics,”
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 10 (2): 199–213.
Taubes, Jacob. 1987. Ad Carl Schmitt. Gegenstrebige Fügung. Berlin: Merve.
Torfing, Jacob. 2003. New theories of discourse. Laclau, Mouffe and Žižek. Oxford:
Blackwell.
29
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wenman, Marc Anthony. 2003a. “»Agonistic Pluralism« and Three Archetypal Forms
of Politics,” Contemporary Political Theory 2: 165–86.
–––. 2003b. “Laclau or Mouffe? Splitting the Difference,” Philosophy and Social
Criticism 29 (5): 581–606.
–––. 2003c. “What Is Politics? The Approach of Radical Pluralism,” Politics 23 (1): 57–
65.
–––. 2007. “On the Political. Chantal Mouffe,” Contemporary Political Theory 6: 374–6.
30