جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "chantal mouffe" در نشریات گروه "علوم انسانی"

The present research is about the pragmatics of the discourse of commitment and the problem of autonomy in the paintings of 1960s and 1970s in Iran, particularly the institutes that produced such a discourse. The method of research is qualitative content analysis. We answer the following main question: How did the discourse of commitment from the perspectives from the viewpoints of Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, and Norman Fairclough affect the visual language of Iranian painting in 1960s and 1970s? The findings indicate the factors the contributed to the formation of this discourse of commitment in the paintings of those decades. According to the discourse of commitment that was prevalent then, the main visual elements of a committed autonomous painting is as follows: the paintings were often figurative (formalist) and narrative (content-centered); the content and form were visible separately; formalistic innovation was not accepted in the forms of the paintings; they were easy to understand by laypeople; masses of people were encouraged to cut off the hands of the corrupt regime and imperialism, particularly America, from the public wealth of the country, which was accompanied by communication of concepts such as fight against injustice, pursuit of justice, pursuit of Islam, return to oneself, autonomy, nativism, etc.; all those concepts were against the Pahlavi regime, and the central node for religious groups was Islamism, and for leftist groups was populism

The present research was conducted with the aim of investigating the main elements of the discourse of the government after the Islamic Revolution of Iran, and to explain the main elements of the discourse, Laclau and Mouffe's discourse approach and descriptive books and research articles were used. Since every discourse has signifiers, the findings of the research show that the reformist discourse forms signs such as freedom, legalism, religious democracy, human rights, and having fair and free relations with the whole world around the central signifier of the people. They gave. On the other hand, fundamentalists have formed their semantic system by adding signs such as justice, security, values, cultural invasion, etc. around the central sign of the province.

The vacuum of an appropriate theory for the outcasts, blacks, refugees, and women has always been evident in the history of thought. After the student movements of the 1960s, measures were taken to overcome this shortcoming, but no suitable theory was proposed in the field of politics. Using the ideas of her predecessors, Mouffe took steps to fill the gap. This article seeks to answer the following two research questions: 1. What new perception does radical citizenship in Chantal Mouffe’s anti-essentialist approach create in the field of politics? 2. What steps should be taken towards radical citizenship in the political community?
Using a qualitative approach, and the method of conceptual content analysis, first citizenship and the principle of compromise in democracy in liberal tradition, and then Mouffe’s concept of citizenship in radical tradition are discussed. By rethinking politics, hegemony, and antagonism, Mouffe has sought to provide new political alternatives to transform antagonism into agonism in a way based on democratic tolerance. Within the framework of the logic of equivalence, she considers immigrants and blacks as citizens who can be called citizens through the democratic process. In the context of non-discrimination, she believes that citizens, regardless of gender, religion, skin color or transgender issues, can enjoy citizenship rights within the framework of radical democracy, but ethnic-religious groups and fundamentalists are suppressed. Mouffe maintains that we need a populist left front which achieve consensus on the revival of the idea of citizenship in order to radicalize (and strengthen) democracy. Influenced by postmodernism, she has considered the existence of various types of idealism in the field of citizenship in human beings in the West.
In addition to Moufee’s distinct understanding of the meaning of the political, her argument on citizenship —which has centered around how to see and define citizens— has been among her ideas which have influenced other thinkers. In her works, Mouffe tries to criticize and deconstruct the politics of liberal democratic discourse, and present new political alternatives based on a constructive approach. Mouffe discusses the idea that liberal thought contemplates about politics in an economic way, and is never able to understand the specificity of the political. In contrast, radical democracy emphasizes the particularity, the existence of different forms of rationality, and the role of tradition (i.e., behavioral traditions). Citizenship in liberal theory should be called monocultural citizenship, which neglects distinct cultures in the society and its cultural pluralist nature. This type of thought has caused antagonistic radical citizenship to be proposed as an alternative to compromise-based liberal citizenship.
Using an anti-essentialist, poststructuralist approach and combining these perspectives with the views of Antonio Gramsci, Mouffe has presented an alternative anti-essentialist approach, which can create a "chain of equivalence" by paying attention to the demands of the working class together with the demands of new movements with the aim of achieving "common will" in order to "radicalize democracy" by understanding the plurality of struggles against different forms of domination. In accordance with Schmidt’s arguments, Moffee considers the political as conflict and does not consider this conflict to be separate from politics. Mouffe believes that the acceptance of conflict as an intrinsic part of politics is the origin and background of radical democratic politics. It is on this basis that she establishes a close link between the political and antagonism, and then tries to present a different definition of the political by proposing the concept of agonism versus antagonism. Moffee believes that the desired political identity in radical democracy requires the creation of radical democratic citizens. This belief is based on a certain understanding of pluralism and the fundamental role of power and conflict. Mouffe's conceptualization of democratic citizenship suggests that politics is not about radical transformation at all, but instead it is a constructive response to social frustration. Moffee's citizenship is equal to feeling and logic, and there is a possibility of political mobilization through passion and feeling, which have indeed led to the formation of new social movements such as Al-Qaeda. She  argues that fundamentalist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS cannot be included in the domain of citizens due to their violent nature.

There is no doubt nowadays about the attractiveness of democracy as an accepted model of government, and concurrently there is an awareness of its shortcomings and drawbacks. Consequently, many scholars including political philosophers are trying to use different approaches in order to develop proper and more efficient models of democracy. From a post-structuralist point of view, Habermas, Laclau, and Mouffe seek to provide models of democratic politics and government that are more successful in establishing a good democratic order. Considering the conflictive and clashing political and social interests, ideas, and tendencies, it is not an easy task to address the inadequacies of previous models of democracy. By comparing Jürgen Habermas's deliberative theory with the agonistic democratic approach of Laclau and Mouffe, the authors’ objective is to study the two models of democracy proposed by these three thinkers, and find suitable answer to the following key research question: Which of these two post-Marxist theories has more democratic and realistic possibilities? They use qualitative content analysis of written texts to examine the two models of democracy in dealing with the pluralism of values ​​and sources of political and social power. The strengths and weaknesses of each of the two theories are explained, and the democratic possibilities, specifically in terms of the underlying factors of feasibility and achievement are discussed. The conclusion is that Habermas post-structuralist theory of deliberative democracy will not be able to pave the way for inclusive, adequate and long-lasting democratic rule by bridging the gap between opposing views and interests of a plurality of groups in the social sphere, and overcoming power struggles and conflict of interests through deliberation. In contrast, Laclau and Mouffe's model of democracy is based on the acceptance of dissent and antagonisms, and the idea that oppressive power relations in the societies must be challenged through agonistic contestation. The authors argue that Laclau and Mouffe's model of democracy is more realistic than Habermasian model due to its emphasis on the impossibility of ignoring or removing power struggles, hegemony, antagonisms and conflicts from the society. By recognizing the relations of power in societies and the need to change them, it is more effective for establishing a proper political order.

Chantal Mouffe and Jürgen Habermas's thoughts, despite their very serious differences, are one of the most important sources of thought in the field of facing the other. This article tries to retrieve the ideas of these two thinkers about facing the other due to their weaknesses and shortcomings, and by their theoretical reconstruction, a more complete typology offers a variety of facing the other. Another purpose of this article is to show the strengths and weaknesses of each of these types to show which of them can be more justified and rational. Accordingly, the main question of the present article is what types of confrontation can there be with the other? And which type of confrontation is more rationally justified? The main hypothesis is that the types of encounters with the other can be summarized into 5 types: becoming another, another taboo, antagonism, agonism, and another reflective understanding. Another reflective understanding seems to be more rationally justified. The method of research will be a descriptive and critical analysis.

The discussion of ‘the political’ is a new topic in the field of political philosophy, which flourished in the second half of the twentieth century under the influence of thinkers such as Schmitt and Arendt, and continued with the intellectual work of Foucault, Derrida, Badiou, Žižek and Rancière. Chantal Mouffe is one of the notable contemporary political thinkers, who has discussed the political. Mouffe  has tried to provide a postmodern and post-Marxist reading of the political, and to present a critique of the intellectual implications of the dominant traditions in the discussion of the political revolving around key concepts such as antagonism, power and hegemony. The research questions to be addressed by the authors are: 1. How is Chantal Mouffe's approach to the analysis of the political related to the postmodern turn? 2. How has Mouffe concurrently integrated consensus versus dissent,  friendship versus antagonism in relation to ‘the other’ in her articulation of the political as a central theme in her work?   One of her key propositions is that disagreement is both legitimate and necessary in a pluralist democracy. By reformulating Schmitt's account of the ‘friend/enemy’ relation, and Derrida's philosophical concepts such as supplement and difference, Mouffe is able to present a logic of the political that places this phenomenon between the acceptance of the other and antagonism. Thus, Mouffe explains a kind of agonistic politics that is consistent with the postmodern turn, because Mouffe's reading of the political is based on elements such as anti-essentialism and anti-foundationalism. Mouffe has placed the concepts of rivalry and antagonism at the heart of her understanding of the political. She has tried to distinguish between the political and politics by drawing attention to the antagonistic dimension of the political inherent in human societies, which  leads to conflict and forms of violence. She criticizes the Habermasian vision of deliberative democracy for its deficiencies of ignoring the central role of the conflictual dimension of power and antagonism in politics. In other words, she contends that there is a persistent and all-too-real likelihood to see the transformation of a us/them relation into a friend/enemy one. Accordingly, she put forward an alternative model of agonistic pluralism, and makes a distinction between two types of relations in political sphere: a) antagonism between enemies, and b)  agonism between adversaries.  She asserts that the objective of  democratic politics is to establish the we/they relation in such a way that an antagonism is transformed into an agonism, and suggest that agonism is a mode of political interaction. By studying the post-political trend, she takes issue with the argument that politics in its conflictual dimension is a phenomenon of the past, and the belief that the best type of democracy is  a consensual, and depoliticized one. The article proceeds as follows: In the first section, the main points in Mouffe’s political theory as related to her argument about the political, and what she wants the readers to consider in her writing about the distinction between politics and the political are introduced. The focus of the second section is on a discussion of her concepts of agonistic pluralism, friend/enemy distinction and characterization of self and the other, struggle for hegemony, and the relations of oppression and subordination in modern societies. The latter sections are devoted to the debate that politics is a public space, in which the rules, actors, and configurations of power relations are never easily and fully discernible. Thus, we must proceed with caution when we discuss the flawed notion that we can create a situation in which we can reach a universal rational consensus on the basis of liberal democratic values and guard against hegemonic tendencies. In the final section, the authors  conclude with a brief analysis of Mouffe's idea of radical democracy as a  form of political community against the backdrop of her notion of the political, and adversarial, agonistic politics.