Taking pluralism seriously requires abandoning the dream of rational consensus.
Evidence
Seeing things in that way should make us realize that taking pluralism seriously requires that we give up the dream of a rational consensus which entails the fantasy that we could escape from our human form of life. In our desire for a total grasp, says Wittgenstein, ‘We have got on to the slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground.’ — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 444
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the reader’s agonistic-pluralism project: Mouffe grounds pluralism negatively (against rational consensus) rather than in the enemy/adversary distinction yet here — key to testing whether her exclusionary framing is necessary or a later addition. — connects to: Agonistic pluralism rejects the ideal of a fully inclusive rational consensus — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 327; The limits on pluralism are political choices, not moral or rational dictates. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 428; Deliberative democracy eliminates pluralism to achieve consensus, leaving it unable to answer Schmitt — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 225 (+3 more)
Broader Connections
- Deliberative consensus theories wrongly deny pluralism’s constitutive conflict
#corroborates(0.92) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 469 - Deliberative democracy eliminates pluralism to achieve consensus, leaving it unable to answer Schmitt
#corroborates(0.88) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 225 - Ethical approaches to pluralism omit the limits and hegemonic violence consensus requires
#expands(0.85) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 581 - Common allegiance to pluralist democratic principles is necessarily a conflictual consensus
#qualifies(0.82) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 464