Ethical approaches to pluralism omit the limits and hegemonic violence consensus requires

Evidence

The problem with them, however, is that, while being generally more receptive to the role of rhetorics and persuasion and the importance of ‘differences’, they either avoid or do not emphasize enough the need to put some limits to pluralism, and they do not acknowledge the hegemonic nature of every possible consensus and the ineradicable violence that this implies. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 581

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Democracy’s task is converting antagonism into agonism, not erasing it — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 584; Deliberative democracy eliminates pluralism to achieve consensus, leaving it unable to answer Schmitt — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 225; Modern reason must embrace value pluralism to shed its absolutist medieval heritage — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 579 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Decentered pluralism requires continuous deconstruction of sacralized identity narratives #expands (0.75) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 863
• The perceived permanent Enemy binds pluralist societies into cohesive defense societies #exemplifies (0.72) — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 235
• Pluralistic institutional openness can disguise strategic defense against political attacks on humanities #exemplifies (0.72)
• Plural societies need maximal free speech, not speech limits #contradicts (0.72) — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia, 653