Pluralism (political philosophy)

This article is about pluralism in politics as acknowledgment of diversity. For the theory that political power in society does not lie with the electorate but is distributed between a wide number of groups, see Pluralism (political theory). For other uses, see Pluralism (disambiguation).

Pluralism is, in the general sense, the acknowledgment of diversity. The concept is used, often in different ways, in a wide range of issues. In politics, pluralism is often considered by proponents of modern democracy to be in the interests of its citizens, and so political pluralism is one of its most important features.

The term pluralism is also used to denote a theoretical standpoint on state and power - which to varying degrees suggest that pluralism is an adequate model of how power is distributed in societies. For information on the political theory of pluralism see Pluralism (political theory).

In democratic politics, pluralism is a guiding principle which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. In this context it has normative connotations absent from its use to denote a theoretical standpoint. 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 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 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.

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).

Proponents in contemporary political philosophy of such a view include Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire and Bernard Williams. An 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 democratic nation which sustained, and was sustained by, many cultural traditions.

The Fourth Way

Coined by Pluralist Party leader Jonathan Bishop, the Fourth Way is meant to represent a particular approach to pluralist integrated bargaining where one finds two opposing view points, the third way compromise between them, and then a fourth way which takes the best parts of the first and second ways which dismisses all the conclusions of the third way. For instance, in political systems; the first way might be for a government to make public services based on the involvement of private sector firms, the second way using public sector organisations, and the third way to use a Public–private partnership. The fourth way would be to allow the public to chose the service provider best for them based on their principles and values and not the ideological biases of government or civic officials.

Likely, this fourth way will eventually manage to establish its own view as the generally accepted view, and then over time become the first way as science and society develop. This can only occur as the result of the negotiation process within the pluralistic framework, which implies the "operator" as a general rule 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, particularly based on the fourth way, 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.^{[citation needed]}

Note, however, that political philosophers such as Charles Blattberg have argued that this 'win-win negotiation' can at best compromise rather than realise the common good through being able to reach a fourth way. 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.

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.

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.

See also

• Cultural mosaic
• Elite theory (philosophically opposite view)
• Polyarchy
• List of democracy and elections-related topics
• Liberal democracy
• Multiculturalism
• The political theory of pluralism
• Global Centre for Pluralism
• Tax choice

Notable Pluralists

• G. D. H. Cole
• Harold Laski
• James Madison

References

In epistemology and ontology:

• A Pluralistic Universe, James, William (1909).

In political philosophy and ethics:

• Morality and Conflict, Hampshire, Stuart (1983).
• From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics, Blattberg, Charles (2000).
• Liberty, Berlin, Isaiah (2002).
• In the Beginning Was the Deed, Williams, Bernard (2005).
• In Pursuit of Justice, Skillen, James W. (2006).
• On legal pluralism and communities, see: Gad Barzilai, Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.

External links

• The Pluralist Party of Great Britain
• Global Centre for Pluralism
• The Pluralism Project at Harvard University