In their article, Mouffe argues in favor of pluralism as a component of democracy because it allows differences between individuals to be viewed in a positive light and it "refuses the objective of unanimity and homogeneity which is...based on acts of exlcusion" (246). Mouffe acknowledges the extent to which pluralism can play a role in democratic politics by contrasting her definition of pluralism with one in which heterogeneity and incommensurability is emphasized (246). This contrast is crucial because the author acknowledges that certain differences are socially constructed based on how much (or little) an individual's identity and physicality is valued in society. By emphasizing these socially constructed differences through an idealistic democratic pluralism, a integral characteristic of pluralism-- antagonism.
In sharp contrast to Rawl's argument, Mouffe favors acknowledging the existence of the relations of power within a democratic society in order to transform them. Negating the "ineradicable character of antagonism and aim at a universal rational consensus" threatens democracy and enforces hegemony of the a certain social group because of the existing power relations (248). Differences are flattened to the point of "equality," which threatens the viability of certain social groups due to institutional practices by the ruling majority.
In this democratic ideal, those who are different from the hegemonic group in power are institutionally excluded under the pretense of "neutrality." I personally agree with this passage of Mouff's piece as I see many examples of this false neutrality manifesting itself as institutional biases and discrimination. The opposition to Affirmative Action typically argues that non-minorities are "discriminated against" because minorities are given the opportunities they deserve. As flawed as that argument may be, I think their opposition to Affirmative Action is rooted in the false equivalency that things like the college admissions process do not fall under the pretense of being "neutral" and therefore favorable to whites. The fact that Affirmative Action is the antithesis of "neutral" is misconstrued by those with the most social capital in our democratic society to be discriminatory against them.
I agree with Mouffe's assertion that neutrality and equality are not synonymous and should not be used that way. When certain political policies or philosophies assert that in order to achieve equality for certain social groups neutrality must be implemented miss the point that dominant power relations inform our conception of neutrality. If a dominant group is not inhibited by a power relation then that group will be used as the standard for neutrality and equality will be measured to that standard. This is the pitfall of liberal feminism which ignores the power relations that position men and masculinity as more valid than women or femininity. I agree with Mouffe that a more true or correct democratic politics would take into account difference and use difference to inform conceptions of policy.
ReplyDelete