Reclaiming the End(s) of Politics: Considerations on the Possibility of a Renewed Agonistic Understanding of the Post-Political
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis seeks to combine two concepts that are generally considered to be antithetical: agonistic democracy and the post-political.The starting place for the thesis is Chantal Mouffe`s understanding of the political, an account that links the construction of political identities, politics and radical democracy.Suggesting that Mouffe`s treatment offers a fertile ground for thinking about the future of democracy, this thesis develops a political approach where the post-political is placed at the forefront of democratic efforts, with the hope that it will counteract the interconnected problems of the securitization of politics and the devaluation of pluralism that plagues Chantal Mouffe`s political thought.Unearthing the conceptual connections between Alexandre Kojeve`s understanding of political subject formation and Chantal Mouffe`s empty/floating signifier, this thesis looks for the possibility of articulating an understanding of the concept of the postpolitical that does not result in a totalitarian utopia as the Mouffean critique of the concept suggests.Consequently, the purpose of this articulation is to provide democratic politics with a radical democratic imaginary; a goal Chantal Mouffe`s agonistic democracy sets out yet ultimately fails to accomplish.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".