Resumo

FRANZE, Javier et al. Agonism and Deliberation: Conceptual Differences between two Perspectives on Politics and Conflict. Andamios [online]. 2014, vol.11, n.24, pp.59-82. ISSN 2594-1917.

There are two ways of understanding the relationship between politics and conflict: according to agonism, conflict is inerradicable from politics since the latter is the struggle between contingent and particular perspectives; according to deliberative democracy, conflict is present in politics but can be dissolved with rationality. The main difference between both perspectives is rooted in the way the sources of human action are understood. For authors such as Habermas, Rawls or MacIntyre, the rationality-irrationality dichotomy accounts for human action, while for authors such as Weber, Foucault or Rancière, human action is composed of affection, faith and "rationality" and cannot be reduced to that dichotomy. Hence, for agonism, unfounded values are indispensable, whereas for deliberative democracy, rationality repairs or neutralizes the unfoundedness present in the choice of values.

Palavras-chave : Deliberative democracy; Agonism; Politics; Values; Pluralism.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Espanhol     · Espanhol ( pdf )