Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:27:44.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Squabbles

Beyond the Conflict-Consensus Divide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Henrik P. Bang
Henrik P. Bang*
Affiliation:
University of Canberra, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis
*
Henrik.Bang@canberra.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the consensus-conflict divide within contemporary democratic theory as manifested in the works of Jürgen Habermas, Chantal Mouffe, Jacques Rancière, and John Rawls. It relates the democratic crisis diagnosis to the presence of this conceptual divide and suggests overcoming it by focusing on the work of Michel Foucault, especially his concept of the “rectangle of the good parrhesia.” Foucault's analysis goes beyond conflict-consensus through its positive and creative reconceptualization of political authority featuring a transformative capacity linked to the idea of telling the truth.

Keywords

conflictconsensusFoucaultpoliticspoliticizationpolicyproblematization

Information

Type
Which Crisis of Democracy?
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 1 , Issue 2: The Crisis of Democracy: Which Crisis? Which Democracy? , December 2014, pp. 56 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Democratic Theory 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1984. The Modern Reconstruction of Classical Thought: Talcott Parsons. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bang, Henrik P. 2011. “The Politics of Threats: Late-Modern Politics in the Shadow of Neoliberalism.” Critical Policy Studies 5 (4): 434–449.10.1080/19460171.2011.628065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bang, Henrik P. 2014. “Foucault's Political Challenge.” Administrative Theory and Praxis 36 (2): 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flinders, Matthew. 2010. “In Defence of Politics.” The Political Quarterly 81 (3): 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2010. The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the College de France 1982-1983. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230274730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1978. Knowledge and Human Interest. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. “Questions and Counterquestions.” Pp. 192–217 in Habermas and Modernity, ed. Bernstein, Richard J.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1997. Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Colin. 2007. Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 1998. “The Radical Centre. A Politics without Adversary.” Soundings 9: 11–23.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Rancière, Jacques. 2010. Dissensus. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Belknap Press. 10.2307/j.ctv31xf5v0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, Gerry. 2006. Why Politics Matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar