Violence and antagonism are ineradicable and admit no final political solution

Evidence

As an ethics which strives to create among us a new form of bond, a bond that recognizes us as divided subjects. the psychoanalytical ‘ethics of the Real’ (:2:ifek) is, in my view, particularly suited to a pluralist democracy. It does not dream of an impossible reconciliation because it acknowledges not only that the multiplicity of ideas of the good is irreducible but also that antagonism and violence are ineradicable. What to do with this violence. how to deal with this antagonism, those arc the ethical questions with which a pluralistic-democratic politics will for ever be confronted and for which there can never be a final solution. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 605

Categorization

• XREF: Ties antagonism’s ineradicability to the reader’s enemy/adversary conversion test — if violence cannot be eliminated, pluralism hangs on converting it to agonism. — connects to: Democracy’s task is converting antagonism into agonism, not erasing it — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 584; Subtracting distortion from a discursive field would cause the field to disintegrate — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 596; The civilizing process makes violence invisible rather than eliminating it — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 285 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• The civilizing process makes violence invisible rather than eliminating it #qualifies (0.82) — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 285
• Every political violence theory must assume contingency or inherency as basic #corroborates (0.78)
• Democratic negotiation is agonistic struggle without final resolution #contradicts (0.75)
• Civility veils rather than ends sanctioned state violence #exemplifies (0.75) — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 250
• Violence gets overproduced by competition even after it is no longer required #corroborates (0.72) — Diego Gambetta, The Sicilian Mafia The Business of…, 107