Pluralism

Learn more about Pluralism

Jump to: navigation, search
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Elections

This series is part of
the Politics series

Politics Portal · edit

Pluralism is, in the general sense, the affirmation and acceptance of diversity. The concept is used, often in different ways, in a wide range of issues. In politics, the affirmation of diversity in the interests and beliefs of the citizenry, is one of the most important features of modern democracy. In science, the concept often describes the view that several methods, theories or points of view are legitimate or plausible. This attitude may arguably be a key factor to scientific progress. The term pluralism is also used, in several different senses, in the context of religion and philosophy.

For pluralism as a concept in the philosophy of mind, opposed to monism and dualism see Pluralism (philosophy of mind) see Irrealism, Nelson Goodman.
For pluralism in ethical theory, see value-pluralism
For pluralism in regard to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, see cosmic pluralism
For pluralism in the sense of holding multiple ecclesiastical offices, see benefice
For pluralism as it relates to the diversity of religions, see religious pluralism

Contents

[edit] Pluralism in politics

In democratic politics, pluralism is a guiding principle which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. Unlike totalitarianism or particularism, pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it imperative that members of society accommodate their differences by engaging in good-faith negotiation.

One of the earliest arguments for pluralism came from James Madison in The Federalist Papers 10. Madison feared that faction 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 in order to avoid faction, it is best to allow many competing factions to prevent any one dominating the political 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.

There are some objections to this model of pluralism however. Critics argue that groups need a high level of resources and the support of patrons in order to be able to contend for influence and this observation formed the basis for the theory of elite pluralism which was advanced by writers such as Elmer Eric Schattschneider who wrote that 'all groups sing with an upper-class bias'.


[edit] Neo-Pluralism & Corporatism

While Pluralism as a political theory of the state and policy formation gained its most traction during the 1950s and 1960s in America, many scholars argued that the theory was too simplistic (see Connolly (1969) The Challenge to Pluralist Theory) - leading to the reformulation of neo-pluralism, and that it did not apply to Westminsterian democracies or the European context - leading to the application of Corporatism. Charles E. Lindblom who is seen as positing a strong neopluralist argument, still attribtued primacy to the competition between interest groups in the policy process; but recognised the disproportionate influence business interests have in the policy process.

Corporatism is the idea that a few select interest groups are actually (often formally) involved in the policy formulation process, to the exclusion of the myriad other 'interest groups'. For example, Trade Unions and Major Sectoral Business Associations are often consulted about (if not the drivers of) specific policies.

[edit] Pluralism and the common good

Pluralism is connected with the hope that this process of conflict and dialogue will lead to a definition and subsequent realization of the common good that is best for all members of society. This implies that in a pluralistic framework, the common good is not given A priori. Instead, the scope and content of the common good can only be found out in and after the process of negotiation (a posteriori).

Consequently, the common good does not, according to pluralists, coincide with the position of any one cohesive group or organization.

Still, one group may eventually manage to establish its own view as the generally accepted view, but only as the result of the negotiation process within the pluralistic framework. This implies that, as a general rule, the "operator" of a truly pluralistic framework, i.e. the state in a pluralistic society, must not be biased: it may not take sides with any one group, give undue privileges to one group and discriminate against another one.

Proponents of pluralism argue that this negotiation process is the best way to achieve the common good: since everyone can participate in power and decision-making (and can claim part of the ownership of the results of exercising power) there can also be widespread participation and a greater feeling of commitment from society members, and therefore better outcomes. By contrast, an authoritarian or oligarchic society, where power is concentrated and decisions are made by few members, forestalls this possibility.

Proponents in contemporary political philosophy of such a view include Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire and Bernard Williams. And earlier version of political pluralism was a strong current in the formation of modern social democracy, with theorists such as Harold Laski and G. D. H. Cole, as well as other leading members of the British Fabian Society. Horace Kallen coined the term cultural pluralism to express the condition of a democatic nation which sustained, and was sustained by, many cultural traditions.

Note, however, that political philosophers such as Charles Blattberg have argued that negotiation can at best compromise rather than realise the common good. Doing the latter is said to require engaging in "conversation" instead, room for which is made within what Blattberg calls a patriotic, as distinct from pluralist, politics.

[edit] Conditions for pluralism

For pluralism to function and to be successful in defining the common good, all groups have to agree to a minimal consensus regarding shared values, which tie the different groups to society, and shared rules for conflict resolution between the groups:

The most important value is that of mutual respect and tolerance, so that different groups can coexist and interact without anyone being forced to assimilate to anyone else's position in conflicts that will naturally arise out of diverging interests and positions. These conflicts can only be resolved durably by dialogue which leads to compromise and to mutual understanding.

Examples of misapplied pluralism include multiculturalism, cultural relativism, anarcho-capitalism, and post-modernism. Pluralism's tolerance for difference, its fostering of diversity, its promotion of different individuals' pursuit of variable modes of life and their expression of different cultural values does not conflate all cultures as more or less equal (multiculturalism), nor is it indifferent to some cultural differences that are unacceptable to social standards of decency, e.g., genital mutilation (cultural relativism), nor is its without cognizance of the need for social institutions to provide "space" for diversity to meet minimum standards of decency and order (anarcho-capitalism), nor is it silent or uncritical of inferior standards and values (post-modernism), but engages different social and personal values in a critical, but respectful, dialectic of reciprocal evaluation. Coercive action is used only when another mode of life or cultural expression causes harm, otherwise it engages in a dialogue of critical evaluation of different modes and expressions through persuasion. Unlike many of the misapplications, pluralism's tolerance is intolerant of intolerance (which is self-defeating and anti-pluralistic).

To illustrate, anarcho-capitalism takes self-ownership as a shared a priori value. Derived from this come the principles of non-aggression and private property. To resolve conflicts over the use of property, both-benefit voluntary trade is conducted according to subjective theory of value. From the single shared value of self-ownership, voluntary trade thus enables individuals with differing values to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

[edit] Pluralism and Subsidiarity

However, the necessary consensus on rules and values should not unnecessarily limit different groups and individuals within society in their value decisions. According to the principle of subsidiarity, everything that need not be regulated within the general framework should be left to decide for subordinate groups and, in turn, to individuals so as to guarantee them a maximum amount of freedom.

In ultimate consequence, pluralism thus also implies the right for individuals to determine values and truths for themselves instead of being forced to follow the whole of society or, indeed, their own group.

[edit] Pluralism in the scientific community

It can be argued that the pluralistic nature of the scientific process is a major factor in the rapid growth of knowledge. In turn, an increase in knowledge arguably leads to increased human welfare due to, for example, greater productivity, economic growth and better medical technology.

Image:Wiki letter w.svg Please expand this article.
Further information might be found in a section of the talk page or at Requests for expansion.

[edit] Pluralism in philosophy

Pluralism in philosophy is another name for the marketplace of ideas. Theoretically, many different schools of thought will influence each other, which may eventually lead to a more advanced and logical way of thinking. See Dualism, Irrealism.

Image:Wiki letter w.svg Please expand this article.
Further information might be found in a section of the talk page or at Requests for expansion.

[edit] Legal Pluralism

Basic thought:

  • many things that lack the formal status law fulfill a similar function
  • unwritten rules
  • should these be considered as "law" as well?

Legal Pluralism allows for moral laws that are unwritten as formal laws. These laws include religious accommodations that are unjustified to receive a full pedigree and hence in the eyes of a positivist, law.

Sources of such pluralist laws include the Koran, Sunna, Ijma ... whereas most modern western nation-states take the basis of their legal system from the Christian superpowers of old (i.e. Britain, France, etc), which is also why moral laws found in the Bible have actually been made fully-fledged laws, with the initial grund-norm set far back in legal history, hence fulfilling the priority of both the positivists and the naturalists.

Broaldy any country that has more than one legal system could be considered to be following a legal pluralism. among many countries that had come under colonialism there exists plurality of law. some of which were guided by the western law paradigm. While people living in countries had their own way of organising the society there emerged a situation where their practices were in conflict with that of the modern western laws.


Image:Wiki letter w.svg Please expand this article.
Further information might be found in a section of the talk page or at Requests for expansion.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

In epistemology and ontology:

In political philosophy and ethics:

[edit] External Links


ar:جمعوية

bg:Плурализъм de:Pluralismus (Politik) fr:Pluralisme id:Pluralisme it:Pluralismo he:פלורליזם lt:Pliuralizmas (tarptautiniai santykiai) hu:Pluralizmus nl:Pluralisme no:Pluralisme pl:Pluralizm ro:Pluralism sr:Плурализам fi:Pluralismi (sosiaalitieteet) sv:Pluralism vi:Đa nguyên yi:פלארעליזם zh:多元

Pluralism

Views
Personal tools
what is world wizzy?
  • World Wizzy is a static snapshot taken of Wikipedia in early 2007. It cannot be edited and is online for historic & educational purposes only.