From agonism to antagonism? Exploring the role of and reasons for different types of dislike in the relationship between affective polarisation and democracy

This paper aims to contribute to emerging efforts to link the literature on affective polarisation with agonistic theories of democracy. It proceeds in two main steps. First, building on Chantal Mouffe’s theory of agonistic democracy, conceptual work on affective polarisation, and in-depth, qualitative interviews with affectively polarised individuals, I argue that it is important to differentiate between different types of “out-group dislike” when assessing the relationship between affective polarisation and democracy. Specifically, I suggest that one should distinguish between a political and a social dimension of dislike and that each can take a more agonistic (i.e. tolerant and differentiated) and a more antagonistic (i.e. intolerant and undifferentiated) form. I then reflect on the theoretical implications of the resulting types of dislike for democracy. In a second step, I leverage the insights from a qualitative study of the dynamics of affective polarisation in the context of the German debate on climate politics to discuss why some people adopt more antagonistic – as opposed to agonistic – out-group orientations. With those insights, I hope to complement existing research by offering a perspective that takes into account the stories people themselves tell about their dislike. I focus on five narratives which build on the notions of threat, responsibility, epistemological incommensurability, feeling alone and feeling left alone. I conclude by stressing the importance of looking beyond individual-level factors to include political and contextual factors in understanding and ultimately tackling affective polarisation of the politically and socially antagonistic type.