Talk:Agonism

message: The description of agonistic pluralism, as it currently stands, is framed in such a way that it conflates agonistic pluralism with the tradition of agonism more broadly. It is important to establish these as two separate entities. Agonism, broadly constructed, holds a certain inevitability of conflict in the political. Agonistic pluralism, on the other hand, describes a distinct conception of democracy that is posited by agonists. In this sense, it is a particular extension of the agonistic structure. I will add a narrower section on agonistic pluralism. Ajsorota (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Agonistic Pluralism

message: It seems this sentence is tautological: "It (meaning agonism??) can also, in some sense, be seen as a development of theories which emphasised, even celebrated conflict, in a potentially less sensitive and responsible manner than agonism." In any event, the sentence is unclear.
 Yergnaws (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tautology?

message: There does need to be a brief description of critics of this school of political thought, surely. Are there any from the Habermasian or Foucauldian schools of social and political theory who have criticised this model of political practice? Otherwise, this entry seems to uncritically assess this particular POV without offering critiques of its position.
Calibanu (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics of Agonistic Pluralism

message: William E. Connolly#Agonistic democracy:
Connolly is one of the founders of this subfield of thought in political theory. He promotes the possibility of an "agonistic democracy", where he finds positive ways to engage certain aspects of political conflict...
Could somebody integrate him into the discourse?--DadaNeem (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  William E. Connolly 

message: This article doesn't describe much of anything about what this political theory actually proposes. -- Beland (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic details needed 

message: In section "Agonism and other traditions in political thought", the first sentence reads,
:'Agonism is opposed to a strand in the Marxist conception of politics known as "materialism".'
The word "materialism" is linked to the article "Materialism".  There is another article called "Dialectical materialism", which seems a better target for the link in this context.  If other editors with more subject knowledge agree, the perhaps the word "materialism" ought also to be substituted with "Dialectical materialism".Hedles (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialectical Materialism 

message: I am proposing a review of naming of articles with the keywords "agonism" and "agonist" in order to improve accessibility via the disambiguation page and, therefore, general searches on these two words as well as more immediate subject area identification from some of the articles' names themselves.
I propose that this article be renamed, "Agonism (political philosophy)" or "Agonism (philosophy)" or, possibly, "Agonism (politics)".
Please see my section in Talk:Agonist (disambiguation) 'Add link to article "Physiological agonism and antagonism" and review Agonism/Agonist article naming'.
Assuming there are no contrary opinions or improved suggestions within a couple of weeks, I'll go ahead and make these proposed changes.Hedles (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested retitle - "Agonism (political philosophy)"