Pluralism as apolitical philosophy is the diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, ideologies and lifestyles.[1] While not all political pluralists advocate for apluralist democracy, this is the most common stance, becausedemocracy is often viewed as the most fair and effective way to moderate between discrete values.[2]
Political theoristIsaiah Berlin, a strong supporter of pluralism, wrote: "let us have the courage of our admitted ignorance, of our doubts and uncertainties. At least we can try to discover what others ... require, by ... making it possible for ourselves to know men as they truly are, by listening to them carefully and sympathetically, and understanding them and their lives and their needs... ."[3] Pluralism thus tries to encourage members of society to accommodate their differences by avoidingextremism (adhering solely to one value, or at the very least refusing to recognize others as legitimate) and engaging ingood faith dialogue. Pluralists also seek the construction or reform of social institutions in order to reflect and balance competing principles.
One of the more famous arguments for institutional pluralism came fromJames Madison inThe Federalist paper number 10. Madison feared that factionalism would lead to in-fighting in the new American republic and devotes this paper to questioning how best to avoid such an occurrence. He posits that to avoid factionalism, it is best to allow many competing factions (advocating different primary principles) to prevent any one from dominating thepolitical system. This relies, to a degree, on a series of disturbances changing the influences of groups so as to avoid institutional dominance and ensure competition.[citation needed]
LikeEdmund Burke, this view concerns itself with balance, and subordinating any single abstract principle to a plurality or realistic harmony of interests. Pluralism recognizes that certain conditions may make good-faith negotiation impossible, and therefore also focuses on what institutional structures can best modify or prevent such a situation. Pluralism advocates institutional design in keeping with a form of pragmaticrealism here, with the preliminary adoption of suitable existing socio-historical structures where necessary. One of the problems plaguing any discussion of pluralism is that it is a multi-faceted concept. There are at least four distinct ways in which the term pluralism has been used.[4]
William E. Connolly challenges older theories of pluralism by arguing for pluralization as a goal rather than as a state of affairs. Connolly's argument for the "multiplication of factions" followsJames Madison's logic in engaging groups, constituencies, and voters at both the micro and macro level. Essentially, he has shifted the theory from a conservative theory of order, to a progressive theory of democratic contestation and engagement.[5] Connolly introduces the distinction between pluralism andpluralization. Pluralism, whether the interest-group pluralism ofRobert A. Dahl or political liberalism's "reasonable" pluralism, is oriented towards existing diversity of groups, values, and identities competing for political representation. Pluralization, by contrast, names the emergence of new interests, identities, values, and differences raising claims to representation not currently legible within the existing pluralist imaginary.[6]
Pluralism is connected with the hope that this process of conflict anddialogue will result in a quasi-common good. This common good is not an abstract value or set in stone, however, but an attempt at balancing competing social interests and will thus constantly shift given present social conditions. Proponents in the contemporary political philosophy of such a view includeIsaiah Berlin,Stuart Hampshire andBernard Williams. An earlier version of political pluralism was a strong current in the formation of modernsocial democracy (to balance socialist and capitalist ideals), with theorists such as the earlyHarold Laski andG. D. H. Cole, as well as other leading members of the BritishFabian Society. In the United States, PresidentDwight Eisenhower's "middle way" was arguably motivated by a belief in political pluralism.[7]
While advocated by many pluralists, pluralism need not embrace social democracy given it does nota priori assume a desirable political system. Rather, pluralists advocate one based on the pre-existing traditions and cognizable interests of a given society, and the political structure most likely to harmonize these factors. Thus, pluralists have also includedMichael Oakeshott andJohn Kekes, proponents of something close toliberal conservatism (although will often reject such political labels). What pluralists certainly do have in common is the notion that a single vision or ideological schema, whetherMarxism or unbridledneoliberalism, is likely too simplistic and rigid to advocate human beings' natural plurality of values. Pluralists likewise rejecthistoricism andutopian thinking. While some, likeJohn N. Gray, repudiate historical progress altogether, others, likeEdmund Burke, indicate that human progress has occurred, as a function of improved social harmony.
For pluralism to function and to be successful in defining the common good, all groups have to agree to a minimal consensus that shared values are at least worth pursuing. The most important baseline value is thus that of mutualrespect,understanding ortolerance. If no such dialogue is possible,extremism and physical coercion are likely inevitable.
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(November 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
