- JAPANESE POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION
- 年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)
- vol.58, no.1, pp.1_143-1_162, 2007 (Released:2012-02-22)
So-called “radical democracy” has been concerned with problems of inclusion and exclusion, discussing difference, identity or citizenship. Now radical democracy seems to be divided into two models, agonistic and deliberative. Chantal Mouffe strongly criticizes deliberative democracy through insisting conflict as a fundamental element of “the political”. On the other hand, Iris Young, whose democratic theory is not simply labelled as agonistic or deliberative, conceptualized inclusive democratic model which can be bound on Mouffe’s. Both of them reject the essentialist idea of identity and acknowledge the fact that the constitution of “we” needs the determination of “they”. Mouffe’s idea of “adversary” and Young’s recognition of communication as “struggle” show that democratic dialogue can be a non-violent conflict in a public sphere. Such a conflict should be a type of inclusion because any identity cannot exist without others. The acknowledgement of changeableness of self-identity or self-interest seems to require what Young called “reasonableness” as “hearing the other”, which is not based on particular culture (e. g., white male) nor contain any notion of the common good which might oppress diversity. This can meet Mouffe’s emphasis upon a “practice of civility” which is based on Michael Oakeshott’s notion of societas.