From Moral Combat to Societas: The Civil Grammar of Democratic Conflict

Abstract

This article investigates the institutional challenges inherent in Chantal Mouffe’s theory of agonistic democracy. While Mouffe strongly critiques the depoliticization fostered by deliberative liberalism, proposing a conflictual “agonistic” citizenship instead, her work is faced with a significant gap on its implementation. Drawing on the critiques of Daniel de Mendonça and Alexandre Franco de Sá, the article argues that Mouffe’s theory suffers from an “institutional deficit”: it lacks a concrete political design to channel the passions it seeks to mobilize. Consequently, without adequate institutional containment, the agonistic distinction between “adversary” and “enemy” risks collapsing into a destructive “moral combat” characteristic of contemporary cultural wars. To resolve this dilemma, the article proposes a theoretical synthesis with the political philosophy of Michael Oakeshott. Specifically, it mobilizes Oakeshott’s distinction between Universitas (enterprise association) and Societas (civil association). The central argument is that the concept of Societas defined by adherence to non-instrumental rules of conduct (lex) rather than a substantive common purpose provides the necessary normative framework to sustain agonism. By reframing the state as a civil association, it becomes possible to house the “hot” conflict of populist demands within the “cold” structure of institutions. Ultimately, the article posits that Oakeshott’s metaphor of politics as an “endless conversation” offers the missing praxis for Mouffe’s project, ensuring that radical pluralism does not degenerate into civil fragmentation.