the old normal

Globalisation is all around us these days. You can’t pick up a newspaper without reading about the effects of global capital on all kinds of processes, social, economic and cultural. What is not often talked about is the hegemonic and depoliticising nature of American global dominance. Chantal Mouffe takes this topic head on in an engaging and practical discussion of recent discourse on globalisation, democracy, and human rights.

Mouffe’s central thesis is that our post-political discourse has led to a hegemonic, technocratic ignorance of politics which preaches equality and human rights, but in practice is discriminating and undemocratic. By disregarding the conflictual nature of political engagement with the aim of creating a discursive democracy where difference is subsumed in a cloud of mysterious consensus, democratic praxis is failing to acknowledge true differences. The result is a new hegemony based on the will of a unipolar superpower.

Instead, Mouffe calls for a agonistic model of political engagement that is adversarial and not based on friend/enemy moral absolutism. Instead, institutions and processes are established on a political rather than moral basis, recognising the we/they relation inherent in political discussion, but often articulated in moral terms, particularly in the past seven years.

The challenges of such a project are not lost to Mouffe. But she believes that the alternatives presented by a number of scholars do not satisfy the need to engage in a true political discussion. Instead, she challenges the work of Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck, Antonio Negri, and Michael Hardt. Each of these scholars, she claims, promote an non-political approach toward consensus building that leads to a unipolar vision of a globalised world where local, regional, and national differences are subsumed under a new global order. Mouffe instead sees the emergence (continuity?) of a multipolar, multiscalar world where adversaries meet in a political realm to discursively challenge one another, respectful of different approaches toward government, governance, and human rights.

Though she is critical of the universalising, Westernising nature of current democratic projects, Mouffe observes the need for some universal principles underlying the institutions of an agnostic political system. These universal, foundational beliefs, she says, would be open to interpretation, but not absolute rejection of equality and liberty. But who defines equality and liberty? Do we just know it when we see it? How can we interpret these concepts without a priori definitions? As I understand her argument, these universal truths can have open interpretations, but wars have been fought over interpretation of these concepts and I can’t imagine a future where resolution of difference will come solely in the political realm and not on the bloody pitch.

On The Political presents a well articulated and practical engagement with a wide variety of arguments on contemporary democratic issues. Recent events bolster her argument of a multipolar emerging political environment, with the economic decline of the United States, the strengthening of Europe and Southeast Asia, and the potential of South American political identity. Whether this process will reclaim the political as a legitimate means of discussion rather than something to be squashed under the march of progress remains to be seen.

Posted in book review