The main goal of examining a single philosophical theory, connected with social and political disciplines, is not just to identify its incoherence or to restate the theory in a more elegant way. More important in that kind of investigation is to show its possible impact on people’s lives and the functioning of communities. Thus, it seems more reasonable to conduct a critical analysis of the possible consequences for a real society than to undertake a simple study of the argument’s logical consistency. The main aim of this paper is to introduce doubts about the thesis of Chantal Mouffe presented by her in Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically and Passion and Politics. Main hypothesis is that thinking about the “political” and “politics” with reference to enmity as well as claiming that the source of every political and social activity is antagonism, can provoke an attitude that social and political scenes are battlefields rather than an agora or the space of human interactions. First of all, the author provides the critical analysis and reconstruction of the most important claims connected with the “political”, which can have strong negative effects-i.e. brutalization and creating a negative basis for social relation. Then presents a few possible sources of thinking of “political” as a “competition” or rather “enmity”. The last part it is the critic of what Mouffe claims about reason why people get involve into politics, based on the psychological experiments and in result of this the author shows the importance of validity the high standards in politics, diplomacy and relation on the social level.