Конфликт как норма

Abstract

This article examines the agonistic turn in democratic theory, focusing primarily on the work of Chantal Mouffe. The starting point is the diagnosis of a systemic crisis of liberal democracy, which, contrary to the optimistic predictions of the late twentieth century, has not disappeared but has assumed new and more acute forms. The author demonstrates that classical deliberative models (Rawls, Habermas), oriented toward rational consensus, prove theoretically untenable and politically dangerous, as they bracket out the ineradicable antagonism inherent in any pluralistic political community. The core of the analysis centers on Mouffe's key concepts: hegemony as a temporary and contestable representation of totality; agonism as a “tamed” form of antagonism; and her critical reconceptualization of citizenship and the public sphere. Particular attention is paid to Mouffe's intellectual sources, especially her polemical engagement with Carl Schmitt, from whom she borrows the understanding of the political as a field of conflict while radically reworking his conclusions in a democratic direction. However, the article goes beyond exposition to consider productive correctives proposed by Nancy Fraser (on material inequality and subaltern counterpublics) and Adela Cortina (on the ethical foundation of agonism and the cultivation of moral subjects), which help overcome the weaknesses of the agonistic approach — its institutional underdevelopment and neglect of socio-economic conditions for participatory equality. Ultimately, the agonistic model emerges not as a completed political program but as a critical optic that demands ongoing reflection and incompleteness — an invitation to a struggle waged not for annihilation, but for recognition of the opponent's legitimacy.