A ‘them’ alone does not determine how an ‘us’ is united internally.

Evidence

Let us return to the idea that democracy requires political equality, which stems from partaking in a common substancethis, as we have seen, is what Schmitt means by the need for homogeneity. So far, I have stressed the necessity of drawing a frontier between the ‘us’ and the ‘them’. But we can also examine this question by fucusing on the ‘us’ and the nature of the bond that unites its components. Clearly, to assert that the condition of possibility of an ‘us’ is the existence of a ‘them’ does not exhaust the subject. Different forms of unity can be established among the components of the ‘us’. To be sure, this is not what Schmitt believes, since in his view unity can exist only on the mode of identity. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 228

Categorization

• XREF: This slide from ‘them’ to internal constitution of ‘us’ is where Mouffe finds space for a non-exclusionary pluralism — the exact theoretical opening the reader seeks. — connects to: Imaginative geography designates a familiar ‘ours’ and unfamiliar ‘theirs’ that need no external acknowledgment. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 154
• DEEPTHINKING: Mouffe’s key move: breaking the identity-mode of the ‘us’ opens pluralist possibility within the friend side without erasing the frontier.

Broader Connections

• Imaginative geography designates a familiar ‘ours’ and unfamiliar ‘theirs’ that need no external acknowledgment. #complicates (0.78) — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 154