Political liberalism in a pluralistic age : a critique of Rawls’ original position

Abstract

This dissertation argues that John Rawls’ notion of pluralism in Political Liberalism and A Theory of Justice, due to its internally limited nature, is insufficient for addressing the constitutive role of conflict within politics. It argues that although his framework offers a comprehensive model of stability through overlapping consensus, that notion of overlapping consensus and the original position can only provide a consensus amongst those that already believe in liberalism. The work then examines Chantal Mouffe’s alternate proposal of agonistic democracy and agonistic pluralism, which centres conflict as constitutive of the political. However, Mouffe’s agonistic theory is shown to lack clarity and sufficient normative grounding. To address these shortcomings, the dissertation introduces a synthesis between Charles Taylor’s communitarian framework and Mouffe’s agonistic theory. The work focuses on Taylor’s account of recognition, horizons of meaning, and his communitarian theory of politics. This proposed “agonistic communitarianism” seeks to reconcile the constitutive role of conflict with the need to be cohesive and institutionalised. While this synthesis offers a more grounded response to the limits of political liberalism, it remains unclear whether this synthesis can fully sustain pluralism, conflict, and long-term stability without introducing underlying tensions.