CONCEPT
Consensus as Concealed Hegemony
Mouffe's argument that the pursuit of rational consensus — the integration of competing perspectives into a balanced synthesis — is not the transcendence of political conflict but its suppression in favor of positions that have won without acknowledging the victory.
The core claim organizing Mouffe's critique of both liberal deliberative democracy and the structural tendency of serious thinking about contested questions. Synthesis feels earned. The author who has absorbed competing perspectives, weighed them fairly, and arrived at a balanced position appears to have transcended the conflict rather than chosen a side. Mouffe's framework identifies this feeling as the marker of hegemonic success. The synthesis is not the outcome of balanced deliberation but the articulation of one position, presented as the position any reasonable person would arrive at. The consensus does not eliminate the conflict; it renders alternative positions illegitimate by their failure to integrate into the balanced center.
