Chantal Mouffe (born 1943) is a Belgian political theorist whose work has had a major impact on contemporary democratic theory, critical theory, and political philosophy, despite being trained primarily in political science rather than academic philosophy. Emerging from the European New Left and influenced by Marxism, Gramsci, and post-structuralism, she is best known for her collaboration with Ernesto Laclau on a post-Marxist theory of hegemony and for developing the influential concept of agonistic pluralism. Mouffe argues that conflict and antagonism are ineradicable features of the political, and that attempts to ground democracy in universal rational consensus are both illusory and politically dangerous. Her writings challenge liberal and deliberative models of democracy, especially those associated with Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls, and propose instead a vision of radical democracy that embraces contestation within a shared framework of basic institutions. Through works such as "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy", "The Democratic Paradox", and "On the Political", Mouffe has shaped debates on pluralism, identity, populism, and the role of affects in politics. Her ideas have influenced fields ranging from political philosophy and cultural studies to urban planning and contemporary party strategy, particularly in discussions of left populism and the renewal of democratic politics.
At a Glance
- Field
- Thinker
- Born
- 1943-06-17 — Charleroi, Belgium
- Died
- Floruit
- 1970–presentPeriod of main intellectual and publishing activity
- Active In
- Belgium, United Kingdom, France, Argentina, Global
- Interests
- Democratic theoryPluralismPopulismHegemonyRadical democracyLiberalism and its critiquesPolitical identityConflict and antagonism
Chantal Mouffe’s core thesis is that liberal-democratic politics must be understood as an arena of ineradicable conflict, where social identities and demands are contingently constructed through hegemonic practices, and that a viable democratic project should not seek rational consensus or the elimination of antagonism but should instead transform antagonistic relations between enemies into agonistic relations between legitimate adversaries within a shared, but contestable, institutional framework.
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics
Composed: Early 1980s–1985
The Return of the Political
Composed: Early 1990s–1993
The Democratic Paradox
Composed: Late 1990s–2000
On the Political
Composed: Early 2000s–2005
Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically
Composed: Late 2000s–2013
For a Left Populism
Composed: Mid 2010s–2018
The aim of democratic politics is not to arrive at a rational consensus in the public sphere, but to create the institutions that will allow conflicts to take an agonistic form.— Chantal Mouffe, On the Political (London: Routledge, 2005).
Here Mouffe summarizes her conception of agonistic pluralism, rejecting consensus as the telos of democracy and emphasizing the need to domesticate rather than abolish conflict.
What is at stake in politics is the construction of a ‘we’ in a necessarily conflictual relation to a ‘they’.— Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso, 2000).
This quote expresses her view that political identities are always relational and involve drawing boundaries between in-groups and out-groups, making exclusion constitutive of the political.
Every order is the temporary and precarious articulation of contingent practices.— Chantal Mouffe, The Return of the Political (London: Verso, 1993).
Mouffe here deploys a post-structuralist ontology, arguing that social orders lack any ultimate foundation and are always open to contestation and rearticulation.
A well-functioning democracy calls for a clash of democratic political projects. If such a confrontation is missing, it can be provided by non-democratic forces.— Chantal Mouffe, Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically (London: Verso, 2013).
She warns that attempts to suppress conflict in a ‘post-political’ consensus risk fueling the rise of authoritarian or extremist movements that channel discontent outside democratic channels.
The task for left populism is to construct a people, not as a homogeneous unity, but as a chain of equivalence among heterogeneous democratic demands.— Chantal Mouffe, For a Left Populism (London: Verso, 2018).
In this programmatic statement, Mouffe applies her theory of hegemony and articulation to contemporary political strategy, advocating a plural and democratic version of populism.
New Left Formation and Post-Marxist Turn (1960s–early 1980s)
Mouffe’s early involvement in the European New Left and her engagement with Marxism, Althusserian structuralism, and Gramscian theory led her to critique economic determinism and essentialist notions of class. During this period she gradually adopted a post-structuralist understanding of discourse and power, laying the conceptual foundations for her later work on hegemony and political identity.
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy with Ernesto Laclau (1980s)
In collaboration with Ernesto Laclau, Mouffe co-authored "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" (1985), which reinterprets Gramsci through the lenses of Lacanian psychoanalysis and discourse theory. They rejected orthodox Marxism’s conception of a unified working class subject and instead theorized social identities as contingent, constructed through hegemonic articulation. This phase established her as a central figure in ‘post-Marxist’ political theory.
Agonistic Pluralism and Democratic Paradox (1990s–2000s)
After the publication of "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy", Mouffe developed her own distinctive approach to democratic theory. She criticized liberal and deliberative accounts for seeking consensus and depoliticizing conflict, formulating instead the notion of agonistic pluralism: a model in which opponents are treated as adversaries rather than enemies. Key works like "The Democratic Paradox" and "On the Political" argue that the tension between liberal rights and popular sovereignty is constitutive of modern democracy and should be maintained rather than resolved.
Applied Agonism and Left Populism (2000s–present)
In her later work Mouffe applies her theoretical insights to concrete political strategies, artistic practices, and urban politics. She engages debates on the ‘post-political’ condition, the rise of right-wing populism, and the crisis of neoliberalism. Books such as "The Return of the Political", "Agonistics", and "For a Left Populism" advocate constructing a democratic ‘people’ through left populist strategies, emphasizing the role of affects, symbols, and leadership in mobilizing citizens within an agonistic framework.
1. Introduction
Chantal Mouffe (b. 1943) is a Belgian political theorist whose work has reshaped debates about democracy, conflict, and political identity in late 20th- and early 21st‑century thought. Writing largely from within political science and critical theory rather than academic philosophy departments, she has nonetheless become a central reference point in contemporary political philosophy.
Mouffe is best known for two closely related contributions. First, in collaboration with Ernesto Laclau, she developed a post‑Marxist theory of hegemony that reconceives social and political order as the contingent result of discursive struggles rather than the expression of underlying class essences or economic laws. Second, she advanced a model of agonistic pluralism, according to which conflict is ineradicable and democracy should transform relations between enemies into legitimate contestation among adversaries instead of aiming at final consensus.
Her writings engage critically with liberal and deliberative theories of democracy, especially those of Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls, while drawing on Gramsci, Althusser, Foucault, Derrida, and Lacanian psychoanalysis. From these influences she develops an account of “the political” as a domain marked by antagonism and exclusion, in contrast to “politics” as the institutional organization of this conflictual dimension.
Mouffe’s ideas have influenced a wide range of fields, including democratic theory, cultural and media studies, urban planning, and contemporary party strategy. Her later work on left populism and the role of affects in politics positions her as a key interlocutor in discussions about the crisis of neoliberalism, the rise of populist movements, and the prospects for renewing democratic politics in pluralistic societies.
2. Life and Historical Context
Chantal Mouffe was born on 17 June 1943 in Charleroi, an industrial and predominantly working‑class city in French‑speaking Belgium. Commentators often note that this milieu of labor politics and social conflict provides an important—though not mechanically determining—background for her enduring concern with class, exclusion, and democratic struggle.
She studied political science and philosophy in the 1960s, a period marked by decolonization, the Cold War, and the emergence of the European New Left. Student uprisings in 1968, debates over Soviet socialism, and disillusionment with both Stalinism and social‑democratic reformism formed the broader context in which she first encountered Marxism, structuralism, and existentialism. Mouffe became involved in radical intellectual networks that were rethinking the Left beyond traditional party structures and economic determinism.
In the 1970s she participated in the transnational theoretical milieu around Ernesto Laclau. Shared interests in Gramsci, Althusser, and emerging post‑structuralist currents in France (notably Foucault and Derrida) helped shape a distinctive “post‑Marxist” orientation. The crisis of Fordist capitalism, the rise of new social movements (feminist, ecological, anti‑racist), and debates over Eurocommunism all provided empirical and strategic stimuli for her later emphasis on plural struggles and hegemony.
From the early 1990s, as Professor of Political Theory at the University of Westminster in London, Mouffe’s work unfolded against the backdrop of neoliberal consolidation, “Third Way” centrism, and claims about the “end of history.” She interpreted these developments in terms of a post‑political condition, in which technocratic governance and centrist consensus appeared to marginalize ideological conflict, thereby informing her subsequent advocacy of agonistic democracy and renewed partisan contestation.
| Period | Contextual factors relevant to Mouffe |
|---|---|
| 1940s–60s | Post‑war reconstruction, early Cold War, rise of welfare states |
| 1960s–70s | New Left, 1968 uprisings, crisis of orthodox Marxism |
| 1980s | Neoliberal turn, decline of traditional working‑class parties |
| 1990s–2000s | “End of history” discourse, EU integration, post‑political debates |
| 2010s–present | Global financial crisis, populist upsurge, crisis of neoliberal democracy |
3. Intellectual Development
Mouffe’s intellectual trajectory is often described in phases that correspond to changing theoretical influences and political conjunctures, while retaining a continuous preoccupation with conflict and democracy.
New Left and Post‑Marxist Turn (1960s–early 1980s)
Her early engagement with the European New Left brought her into contact with Marxism, Althusserian structuralism, and debates over base/superstructure. Over time, she became critical of economic determinism and essentialist class identities, turning instead toward Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and the idea that ideology and culture are central terrains of struggle. Exposure to French post‑structuralism—especially Foucault’s analyses of power and Derrida’s deconstruction—encouraged a more discursive, anti‑foundational orientation.
Collaboration with Ernesto Laclau (1980s)
The collaboration with Ernesto Laclau culminated in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985). Here, Mouffe contributed to a systematic reworking of Marxism through discourse theory and Lacanian psychoanalysis. The pair argued that social identities are constructed through articulation and chains of equivalence, undermining the idea of a unified revolutionary subject. This work established her as a prominent figure in “post‑Marxist” and post‑structuralist political theory.
Agonistic Pluralism and Democratic Paradox (1990s–2000s)
In later solo works such as The Return of the Political and The Democratic Paradox, Mouffe developed her own account of agonistic pluralism. She distinguished “the political” (antagonism, exclusion) from “politics” (institutional practices), arguing that attempts to erase conflict under liberal or deliberative models are both unrealistic and dangerous. Her notion of the democratic paradox—the tension between liberal rights and popular sovereignty—became a central theme.
Applied Agonism and Left Populism (2000s–present)
From the 2000s onward, Mouffe increasingly applied her conceptual framework to concrete political issues. In works such as On the Political, Agonistics, and For a Left Populism, she analyzed globalization, the “post‑political” condition, and the rise of right‑wing populism, proposing a left‑wing populist strategy grounded in hegemony, affect, and democratic contestation. This phase is marked by direct engagement with contemporary movements and party politics, while remaining anchored in her earlier theoretical commitments.
4. Major Works
Mouffe’s major works trace the development of her hegemony‑centered and agonistic approach to democracy. The following overview highlights central texts and their main contributions.
| Work | Year | Main themes |
|---|---|---|
| Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (with Ernesto Laclau) | 1985 | Post‑Marxist theory of hegemony, discursive construction of social identities, critique of class essentialism |
| The Return of the Political | 1993 | Reassertion of conflict against “post‑political” consensus, distinction between “the political” and “politics” |
| The Democratic Paradox | 2000 | Tension between liberalism and democracy, critique of rationalist consensus theories, outline of agonistic pluralism |
| On the Political | 2005 | Compact restatement of the political/ politics distinction, institutionalization of conflict, normative defense of agonistic democracy |
| Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically | 2013 | Application of agonistic theory to global politics, cosmopolitanism, and artistic practices |
| For a Left Populism | 2018 | Strategic proposal for constructing a democratic “people” against neoliberal elites, role of affects and leadership |
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (1985)
Co‑authored with Ernesto Laclau, this book reinterprets Gramsci’s hegemony through discourse theory and psychoanalysis. It argues that social orders are contingent articulations of heterogeneous demands and that political subjects are discursively constructed rather than given by economic position.
The Democratic Paradox (2000)
This work elaborates the idea that liberal‑democratic regimes combine two logics—liberal rights and democratic sovereignty—that cannot be finally reconciled. Mouffe argues that this paradox should be maintained and politicized rather than resolved, and she sketches the notion of agonistic pluralism as an alternative to deliberative democracy.
On the Political and Later Works
On the Political and Agonistics present compressed formulations of her core concepts—“the political” as ineradicable antagonism, and democracy as the taming of this antagonism into an agonistic struggle among adversaries. For a Left Populism extends these ideas into a prescriptive account of how contemporary left forces might re‑articulate popular demands within an agonistic, pluralist framework.
5. Core Ideas: Hegemony and Agonistic Pluralism
Mouffe’s thought is organized around two interrelated concepts: hegemony and agonistic pluralism.
Hegemony as Contingent Articulation
Developed with Ernesto Laclau, Mouffe’s notion of hegemony reworks Gramsci through post‑structuralist lenses. Social orders are seen as contingent and precarious outcomes of articulatory practices that link diverse demands into chains of equivalence. No social identity—class, nation, people—has an essential foundation; instead, identities emerge through political struggles over meaning.
“Every order is the temporary and precarious articulation of contingent practices.”
— Chantal Mouffe, The Return of the Political
This framework challenges both economic determinism and purely institutional accounts of politics. It emphasizes that any political settlement is accompanied by exclusions, leaving open the possibility of contestation and re‑articulation by subordinated groups.
The Political vs. Politics
Mouffe distinguishes “the political”—the dimension of antagonism inherent in human coexistence—from “politics”, the concrete institutions and practices through which this antagonism is organized. The political involves constitutive conflicts over who “we” are, which cannot be dissolved into technical problem‑solving.
Agonistic Pluralism
Within this ontology of conflict, Mouffe proposes agonistic pluralism as a model of democracy. Rather than aiming to eliminate antagonism through rational consensus, democratic institutions should transform relations between enemies (who question one another’s legitimacy) into relations between adversaries (who accept shared ethico‑political principles while disagreeing about their interpretation).
“The aim of democratic politics is not to arrive at a rational consensus in the public sphere, but to create the institutions that will allow conflicts to take an agonistic form.”
— Chantal Mouffe, On the Political
Agonistic pluralism thus combines a recognition of ineradicable conflict with a normative commitment to maintaining a common, though contestable, democratic framework in which different hegemonic projects can confront one another without resorting to violence or exclusion of opponents as enemies of the polity itself.
6. Critique of Liberal and Deliberative Democracy
Mouffe is widely discussed for her systematic critique of liberal and deliberative models of democracy, particularly those associated with John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas.
Targeting Rational Consensus
Deliberative theorists typically present democracy as a process of reaching rational consensus through argument under fair conditions. Mouffe argues that this ideal underestimates the role of power, passions, and exclusion in political life. For her, any consensus is always the expression of a specific hegemony, not a neutral meeting point of universal reason.
She contends that efforts to ground political legitimacy in rational agreement risk delegitimizing dissenting positions as “unreasonable” or “irrational,” thereby contributing to depoliticization. In her view, such exclusion is unavoidable but should be rendered visible and contestable rather than presented as the outcome of pure reason.
The Democratic Paradox
In The Democratic Paradox, Mouffe claims that liberal democracy combines two logics that cannot be finally harmonized:
| Logic | Emphasis |
|---|---|
| Liberal | Individual rights, rule of law, checks and balances |
| Democratic | Popular sovereignty, majority rule, collective self‑government |
Proponents of deliberative and liberal constitutionalism often seek principles (e.g., public reason, overlapping consensus) that would reconcile these logics. Mouffe maintains that the tension is constitutive and should be sustained as a site of ongoing political contestation over how to interpret rights and sovereignty.
Post‑Political Critique
Mouffe also criticizes contemporary liberal democracies for what she, following other theorists, calls a post‑political tendency: the narrowing of political space to technocratic management and centrist consensus. She argues that this marginalization of antagonism creates fertile ground for non‑democratic forces, including right‑wing populism, which channel discontent that mainstream actors have failed to articulate.
Critics of Mouffe’s critique respond that deliberative theory already acknowledges disagreement and power, or that her emphasis on conflict risks undermining shared norms. The debate remains central in contemporary democratic theory, with Mouffe positioned as a leading exponent of agonistic alternatives to deliberative and liberal‑constitutional models.
7. Methodology and Theoretical Influences
Mouffe’s methodology combines post‑structuralist anti‑foundationalism with a Gramscian focus on hegemony and a normative commitment to radical democracy. Her approach is often described as discourse‑theoretical and constructivist, emphasizing how political identities and institutions are constituted through language, practices, and symbolic forms.
Key Theoretical Influences
| Thinker / Tradition | Influence on Mouffe |
|---|---|
| Antonio Gramsci | Concept of hegemony, importance of civil society and culture in political struggle |
| Louis Althusser | Structuralist Marxism, critique of economism, notion of ideology |
| Michel Foucault | Power as relational and productive, critique of universal reason |
| Jacques Derrida | Deconstruction, undecidability, rejection of ultimate foundations |
| Jacques Lacan | Psychoanalytic account of subjectivity and lack, role of affect and desire |
| Carl Schmitt | Concept of the political as friend/enemy distinction, emphasis on antagonism (reworked by Mouffe into an agonistic key) |
Mouffe appropriates these influences selectively. From Schmitt she takes the idea that politics involves constitutive exclusions, but she rejects his authoritarian conclusions, insisting on transforming enemies into adversaries within a democratic framework. From Derrida and Foucault she draws an anti‑essentialist ontology of the social as contingent and contested, which underpins her notion of hegemony.
Methodological Features
-
Anti‑foundationalism: Mouffe denies the possibility of ultimate rational or moral foundations for politics. All orders are contingent, and norms are historically sedimented.
-
Discourse analysis: She treats political identities, institutions, and “the people” as discursively constructed, paying close attention to language, symbols, and narratives.
-
Strategic normativity: While rejecting universal foundations, Mouffe does not adopt a purely descriptive stance. She advances a normative project—radical, pluralist democracy—justified in terms of its capacity to manage conflict and include diverse demands.
-
Interdisciplinarity: Her work engages political theory, sociology, psychoanalysis, and cultural studies, and is often applied to art, urban design, and media.
Supporters see this methodology as offering a flexible, historically attuned framework for analyzing politics without resorting to essentialism. Critics argue that her anti‑foundationalism may weaken the basis for strong normative claims or underestimate material economic structures.
8. Populism, Affect, and Contemporary Politics
In her later work, Mouffe addresses the rise of populism and the role of affect in contemporary politics, proposing left populism as a democratic strategy.
Populism as Political Logic
Drawing partly on Laclau’s On Populist Reason, Mouffe understands populism not primarily as a specific ideology but as a political logic that constructs a frontier between “the people” and “the elite” (or “oligarchy”). She argues that in neoliberal societies, widespread discontent with inequalities and technocratic governance has been more effectively articulated by right‑wing populists, who mobilize nationalist and xenophobic affects.
For a Left Populism
In For a Left Populism, Mouffe contends that progressive forces should themselves engage in populist articulation, forming a chain of equivalence among heterogeneous democratic demands (e.g., workers’ rights, feminism, anti‑racism, ecological struggles) against neoliberal elites. This project aims to construct a plural, inclusive “people” committed to democratic values, rather than a homogeneous or ethnically defined community.
Supporters interpret this as a realistic response to the erosion of traditional class‑based politics. Critics worry that any populist logic, even on the left, may encourage simplification of complex conflicts or personalization around charismatic leaders.
Affects and Passions
Mouffe emphasizes that politics is driven not only by interests and arguments but also by affects and passions. Against rationalist models, she maintains that successful democratic projects must mobilize emotions such as hope, indignation, and solidarity through symbols, rituals, and aesthetic practices.
“A well-functioning democracy calls for a clash of democratic political projects. If such a confrontation is missing, it can be provided by non-democratic forces.”
— Chantal Mouffe, Agonistics
Her analyses extend to urban planning and art, where she sees potential for creating spaces that stage conflict and pluralism rather than smoothing them over. Debates continue over whether her emphasis on affect sufficiently addresses risks of demagogy and whether left populism can remain firmly within an agonistic, pluralist framework in practice.
9. Impact on Political Philosophy and Related Fields
Mouffe’s work has had a significant and multi‑faceted impact across political philosophy, democratic theory, and adjacent disciplines.
Democratic Theory and Political Philosophy
Her critique of deliberative democracy and defense of agonistic pluralism has generated an extensive secondary literature. Some theorists, such as Bonnie Honig and William Connolly, develop related “agonistic” approaches, while others, including defenders of deliberation, engage her as a key interlocutor. Her concept of the democratic paradox has become a standard reference in discussions of liberalism’s internal tensions.
Critical Theory and Post‑Marxism
In collaboration with Laclau, Mouffe helped define post‑Marxism as a major current in critical theory. Their discourse‑theoretical reading of hegemony has been influential in debates over ideology, identity politics, and the role of culture in domination and resistance. It has also shaped discussions in the so‑called “Essex School” of discourse analysis.
Cultural Studies, Media, and Urban Theory
Mouffe’s ideas have been widely cited in cultural and media studies, where scholars use her concepts of hegemony, articulation, and agonism to analyze popular culture, social movements, and public discourse. In urban studies and planning theory, her critique of the “post‑political” city and her call for agonistic public spaces inform debates about participatory planning and conflict in urban governance.
Political Practice and Party Strategy
Her arguments for left populism have been discussed in relation to contemporary parties and movements in Europe and Latin America. Some political actors and advisors have drawn explicitly on her work, while others interpret it as offering a theoretical rationale for strategies pursued by movements such as Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece. Analysts debate how directly her theories have shaped practice and whether such influences have been successful.
Reception and Critique
Supporters credit Mouffe with revitalizing attention to conflict, passion, and hegemony in democratic thought. Critics from liberal, Marxist, and republican perspectives question aspects of her anti‑foundationalism, her account of power, or the institutional feasibility of agonistic democracy. Regardless of evaluation, her work is widely regarded as a central reference point in contemporary debates about democracy, pluralism, and populism.
10. Legacy and Historical Significance
Mouffe’s legacy is often framed in terms of her role in re‑politicizing debates about democracy at a time when many commentators proclaimed the end of ideological conflict.
Reframing Democracy Around Conflict
Historically, her most distinctive contribution is the reorientation of democratic theory around antagonism and hegemony. By foregrounding the ineradicability of conflict and challenging consensus‑oriented models, she has shaped a broad “agonistic turn” in political thought. Scholars frequently cite her as a key figure—alongside, for example, Connolly and Honig—in shifting attention from idealized deliberation to contestation and power.
Post‑Marxist and Discourse‑Theoretical Influence
Together with Laclau, Mouffe helped institutionalize a post‑Marxist, discourse‑theoretical approach in political theory and sociology, especially through the “Essex School.” Their reconceptualization of hegemony has had enduring effects on how academics analyze social movements, identity politics, and the construction of “the people.”
Engagement with Contemporary Crises
Her interventions on post‑politics, right‑wing populism, and left populism position her as a theorist closely tied to the political crises of late 20th‑ and early 21st‑century neoliberal democracies. Commentators often treat her as a bridge figure between abstract theory and strategic debates within progressive politics.
Ongoing Debates
Mouffe’s work continues to stimulate controversy. Some view her as offering essential tools for understanding and revitalizing pluralist democracy; others argue that her emphasis on conflict and populism may risk undermining liberal protections or obscuring economic structures. These disagreements themselves testify to her significance: her concepts have become unavoidable points of reference for a wide spectrum of positions.
In historical retrospect, many scholars place Mouffe among the most influential democratic theorists of her generation, particularly in Europe and Latin America. Her insistence that democracy must institutionalize, rather than suppress, conflict has entered the canon of contemporary political thought and continues to inform analyses of emerging political movements and transformations.
How to Cite This Entry
Use these citation formats to reference this thinkers entry in your academic work. Click the copy button to copy the citation to your clipboard.
Philopedia. (2025). Chantal Mouffe. Philopedia. https://philopedia.com/thinkers/chantal-mouffe/
"Chantal Mouffe." Philopedia, 2025, https://philopedia.com/thinkers/chantal-mouffe/.
Philopedia. "Chantal Mouffe." Philopedia. Accessed December 11, 2025. https://philopedia.com/thinkers/chantal-mouffe/.
@online{philopedia_chantal_mouffe,
title = {Chantal Mouffe},
author = {Philopedia},
year = {2025},
url = {https://philopedia.com/thinkers/chantal-mouffe/},
urldate = {December 11, 2025}
}Note: This entry was last updated on 2025-12-10. For the most current version, always check the online entry.