The text considers points of view of theoreticians of the radical pluralism (democracy): Connolly (William Connolly), Mouffe (Chantal Mouffe) and Tully (James Tully) with regard to the status and the nature of concepts in the political discourse, as well as the consequences of these conceptual presumptions to understanding democracy. The three authors emphasize the essential contestability of political concepts, the paradox of liberal democracy and the need to revise standard rational consensus theories of democracy. Also, the three authors take over the specific interpretation of Vittgenstein to the direction of political theory the centre of which consists
of everyday contingent practices of politics as well as dissent about their assessment. The text analyzes the extent to which this reading is compatible to Wittgenstein’s position. The author defends the opinion that the essential contestability does not imply agonism and denial of the significance of rules and tries to indicate t...o the points of illegitimate transition from antiessentialism to unconsensus rules. Also, the text underlines the flaws of dissent conception of democracy and social integration.
TY - JOUR
AU - Sládeček, Michal
PY - 2010
UR - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/329
AB - The text considers points of view of theoreticians of the radical pluralism (democracy): Connolly (William Connolly), Mouffe (Chantal Mouffe) and Tully (James Tully) with regard to the status and the nature of concepts in the political discourse, as well as the consequences of these conceptual presumptions to understanding democracy. The three authors emphasize the essential contestability of political concepts, the paradox of liberal democracy and the need to revise standard rational consensus theories of democracy. Also, the three authors take over the specific interpretation of Vittgenstein to the direction of political theory the centre of which consists
of everyday contingent practices of politics as well as dissent about their assessment. The text analyzes the extent to which this reading is compatible to Wittgenstein’s position. The author defends the opinion that the essential contestability does not imply agonism and denial of the significance of rules and tries to indicate to the points of illegitimate transition from antiessentialism to unconsensus rules. Also, the text underlines the flaws of dissent conception of democracy and social integration.
PB - Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju
T2 - Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society
T1 - Demokratija : između esencijalno spornog pojma i agonističke prakse
T1 - Democracy : Between the essentially contested concept and the agonistic practice
SP - 65
EP - 87
DO - 10.2298/FID1001065S
ER -
@article{
author = "Sládeček, Michal",
year = "2010",
abstract = "The text considers points of view of theoreticians of the radical pluralism (democracy): Connolly (William Connolly), Mouffe (Chantal Mouffe) and Tully (James Tully) with regard to the status and the nature of concepts in the political discourse, as well as the consequences of these conceptual presumptions to understanding democracy. The three authors emphasize the essential contestability of political concepts, the paradox of liberal democracy and the need to revise standard rational consensus theories of democracy. Also, the three authors take over the specific interpretation of Vittgenstein to the direction of political theory the centre of which consists
of everyday contingent practices of politics as well as dissent about their assessment. The text analyzes the extent to which this reading is compatible to Wittgenstein’s position. The author defends the opinion that the essential contestability does not imply agonism and denial of the significance of rules and tries to indicate to the points of illegitimate transition from antiessentialism to unconsensus rules. Also, the text underlines the flaws of dissent conception of democracy and social integration.",
publisher = "Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju",
journal = "Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society",
title = "Demokratija : između esencijalno spornog pojma i agonističke prakse, Democracy : Between the essentially contested concept and the agonistic practice",
pages = "65-87",
doi = "10.2298/FID1001065S"
}
Sládeček, M.. (2010). Demokratija : između esencijalno spornog pojma i agonističke prakse. in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society
Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju., 65-87.
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1001065S
Sládeček M. Demokratija : između esencijalno spornog pojma i agonističke prakse. in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society. 2010;:65-87.
doi:10.2298/FID1001065S .
Sládeček, Michal, "Demokratija : između esencijalno spornog pojma i agonističke prakse" in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society (2010):65-87,
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1001065S . .
