Agonism is a political theory that places contestation at the heart of politics. Agonistic theorists charge liberal theory with a depoliticization of pluralism through an excessive focus on consensus. This paper examines the agonistic critiques of liberalism from a normative perspective. I argue that by itself the argument from pluralism is not sufficient to support an agonistic account of politics, but points to further normative commitments. Analyzing the work of Mouffe, Honig, Connolly, and Owen, I identify two normative currents of agonistic theory: emancipatory agonism, aimed at challenging violence and exclusion, and perfectionist agonism, aimed at the cultivation of nobility. From a normative perspective the former presents an internal challenge to liberalism, while the latter constitutes an external challenge to liberalism by providing a competing account of the ends of politics. Recognition of the distinction between emancipatory and perfectionist agonism is crucial in assessing the purchase of agonistic critiques of liberalism. Furthermore, this analysis draws us beyond the simple opposition between contestation and consensus. It is not simply a question of valuing genuine pluralism and therefore criticizing consensus; rather the question comes to be: what are the ends of politics?

No abstract

No abstract

There are at least two politically salient senses of “representation”—acting-for-others and portraying-something-as-something. The difference is not just semantic but also logical: relations of representative agency are dyadic (x represents y), while portrayals are triadic (x represents y as z). I exploit this insight to disambiguate constructivism and to improve our theoretical vocabulary for analyzing political representation. I amend Saward’s claims-based approach on three points, introducing the “characterization” to correctly identify the elements of representational claims; explaining the “referent” in pragmatic, not metaphysical terms; and differentiating multiple forms of representational activity. This enables me to clarify how the represented can be both prior to representation and constituted by it, and to recover Pitkin’s idea that representatives ought to be “responsive” to the represented. These points are pertinent to debates about the role of representatives, the nature of representative democracy, and the dynamics of revolutionary movements.

Eva Erman and Niklas Möller have recently criticised a range of political theorists for committing a pragmatistic fallacy, illicitly drawing normative conclusions from politically neutral ideas about language. This paper examines their critique with respect to one of their primary targets: the pragmatist approach to political legitimacy that I proposed in earlier work, which draws on Robert Brandom's theory of language. I argue that the charge relies on a misrepresentation of the role of pragmatist ideas about language in my analysis of legitimacy. Pragmatism's significance for thinking about political legitimacy does not lie in the normative conclusions it justifies but in the way it reorients our thinking towards political practice. This raises the deeper question of what we are to expect from a theory of legitimacy. I argue that Erman and Mö ller presuppose a widely held but unduly restrictive conception of what a normative theory of legitimacy consists in and that pragmatism can broaden the scope of enquiry: a theory of legitimacy should not focus narrowly on the content and justification of criteria, but more fundamentally aim to explicate the forms of political activity in which such criteria are at stake. KeywordsMethodology in political theory, normative political theory, philosophy of language, political legitimacy, pragmatism, Robert Brandom