|Title||Cosmopolitanism or agonism? Alternative visions of world order|
In The divided west and in On the political Jrgen Habermas and Chantal Mouffe transpose their political philosophies into the realm of contemporary international politics and put forward two different models for a more equitable order. Habermas defends a legal cosmopolitanism, while Mouffe supports a multipolar order which acknowledges the ever present possibility of conflicts and antagonisms. The paper examines the arguments which Habermas and Mouffe make in support of their models, identifies their differences and assesses their strengths and weaknesses. It argues that although Mouffe's idea of pluralising hegemony by constructing counter hegemonic projects is certainly, critically, more powerful than Habermas's legal cosmopolitanism, it stresses that Habermas's model is by no means without its merits. For it builds reconstructively on what is at hand, global institutions and international law. The problem, however, with Habermas' reconstructive project, argues the paper, is that it is heavily dependent upon philosophical presuppositions, which are convincingly exposed by Mouffe's understanding of the political.
|Journal||Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy|
|Journal citation||12 (1), pp. 101-116|
|Publisher||Taylor & Francis|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230902738619|