Identity/Difference: Agonistic Democracy

1586 Words7 Pages

William E. Connolly is a political theorist who is a professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University. He is known for his writings on democracy and pluralism. In Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, Connolly argues that the process of creating identity is inextricably linked to the defining of difference. When the created identity is treated as natural, then those traits that are different from that identity become unnatural. They become other. It is possible, however, to find a way for disparate groups to interact without othering. While the creation of identity and difference may be inevitable, othering is not. Connolly first suggests that the creation of identity is necessary to deal with the concept …show more content…

According to Connolly, agonistic democracy is “a practice that affirms the indispensability of identity to life, disturbs the dogmatization of identity, and folds care for the protean diversity of human life into the strife and interdependence of identity\difference” (Connolly: x). Agonistic democracy acknowledges that people and groups must form identities, and thereby create defining differences. What is different about agonistic democracy, however, is that it turns away from normalizing one group to the disadvantage of the other, and endeavors instead to work with the multiple identities while allowing for “reciprocal respect across difference” (Connolly: …show more content…

Says Connolly, “democratic agonism contends that spaces in which differences may constitute themselves as contending identities are today most effectively established by political means” (Connolly: xi). So, politics and democracy, can create spaces in which different identities are able to meet in a respectful manner and work through difference, if the practice of agonistic democracy is