Mouffe on Rawls' Liberal Theory

In this video I discuss Chantal Mouffe's take on John Rawls' version of liberal social contract theory. Mouffe is not impressed, ultimately, but she does want to take away the liberal respect for the dignity of the individual while strengthening the person as a citizen, member of community, embedded in the public context. Can she have both--and what dangers do we court when we try to have stronger citizenship and public participation. Can we escape what liberals feared--open conflict--when we try to have stronger democratic participation? The question hasn't yet been answered by Mouffe, but her critique of Rawls lays the groundwork for her attempt to answer it.
Here's the URL to the Political Philosophy Facebook group: / 608141959786172
For more from me:
lauriemjohnson...
politicalphilo...

[@kseniahoroshenkova2614]

This chapter sounds *very* reminiscent of many of the themes brought up by Arendt in The Human Condition - the loss of the political, the resulting denial of human freedom, the confusion of ends/means and the reduction of human activity to the pursuit of utility. Arendt views the Ancient tradition as promoting politics as an end in itself that life is for the sake of - for it is the ability to experience and participate in political life that constitutes freedom - contrast with the modern experience of politics, which has become a means (and instrument) of achieving certain material outcomes. Thank you for making these videos, as ever!

[@maurinacademy]

Thanks for that reference--that's a connection I hadn't thought of.

[@brymtb]

Thanks...good stuff

[@m.rebman7221]

Another comment on an old thread, but I think this discussion is exactly what is needed today - particularly in those United States of America. Mouffe may be a little excessive in her post-modern, anti-enlightenment posture, but she is correct, notwithstanding, in her critique of act utilitarianism (for example, Rawls); utilitarian approaches to social problems of distributive justice are trivially valid, but to assume there exist some “ground zero” where we’d all agree to a game theory-like outcome is to impose a final truth on humankind by sneaking in through the back door. The real truth is that solutions are always relative to the changing physical and social realties of the moment. Rawls makes a certain minimum case a kind of logically necessary truth when in fact his legal solution based on an admittedly ingenious thought experiment is just that: a single solution - one of countless many. Politics of discussion is more aligned with what we usually see in human social life. To assume a truth that is eternally true in the social arena is to play God. But we are not gods. Worse still, it encourages a self-righteousness that eventually results in the termination of all real discussion, and a move into the realm of the violent, such as we saw in the events of January 6th 2021…

[@DD-hz4dw]

When Mouffe criticises liberalism for the death of 'the political' and says communitarianism (Civic republicanism) can help us to restore dignity to political parti caption but at the same time warns us of 'huge danger' communitarianism to recede into fascism. How not to be a Liberal in politics and not to recede into fascism while choosing to be communitarain? Does she have any ROBUST theory or ideas how to be neutral?

[@maurinacademy]

I'm not sure I'd say robust, but she seems to argue that we do need to retain some liberal values (procedural representation, speech rights) and combine them with new practices like workplace democratic decision making. She doesn't want to throw all out all liberalism. You need some restrictions and you need rules on procedure so that people can put the brakes on leadership in order to try and avoid authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

[@robertflury3349]

I really enjoyed that. I can't wait to see who you get next.

[@talbachman7159]

Just subscribed. Really nicely done, and very thought-provoking.

[@leamariekerst4576]

Really thankful for this