The crisis of liberal democracy has given rise to attempts to think the political in non-representational terms, such as by focusing on agonism. But it remains unclear exactly what it means to characterize the essence of the political in terms of conflict. A huge gap separates Schmitt’s conception of the enemy, from Rancière’s disagreement, and from Connolly’s pluralism. To understand the divergent conception of agonism, I will pursue a short genealogy of agonism to show how it enters the academic discourse of the 19th century. The pivotal figure who links 19th century agonism to recent articulations is Nietzsche, who under the influence of Greek thought based his conception of agonism on instrumentality. By contrast current versions of agonism reject instrumental calculation following the “critique of instrumental reason.” I will explain the huge implications of this seemingly minor difference. What is ultimately at stake is nothing less than the conception of praxis is the so-called continental philosophical tradition.

Dimitris Vardoulakis was the inaugural chair of Philosophy at Western Sydney University. Some of his books are Freedom from the Free Will: On Kafka’s Laughter (2016); Stasis Before the State: Nine Theses on Agonistic Democracy (2018); Spinoza, the Epicurean: Authority and Utility in Materialism (2020); The Ruse of Techne: Heidegger’s Magical Materialism (2024); and The Agonistic Condition (2025). He is the co-editor of the book series “Incitements” (Edinburgh University Press) and the new journal Philosophy, Politics and Critique. He is currently serving as the chair of the Australasian Society for Continental Philosophy (ASCP) and Vice President of the Council of the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS).