Talk:Pluralism (political theory)

Untitled

Perhaps this page could benefit from discussion of the theory of Hyperpluralism -- which contends that that too many groups are getting too much of what they want, resulting in a government policy that is often contradictory and lacking in direction. ~ Angst And Avarice (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Although "hyperpluralism" could possibly be used as viable terminology, this usage puts forth a value judgement that would render the term less useful for discursive applications. Furthermore, I don't see how you could distinguish between "pluralism" and "hyperpluralism" except by reference to normative personal judgment in which case one person's pluralism would constitute "hyperpluralism" to someone else, and vice versa. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

pluralist multiculturalism

My sense is that pluralism refers to a certain approach to social multiplicity in which society is presumed to exist of multiple monocultures. As such it is a replication of the monoculturalist/assimilationist model that subordinates individual culture to group identification. This would be distinguished from multiculturalism that avoids monoculturalist relations between individual and group-identity by recognizing the possibility of multiple identities and cultural alternatives without necessarily grouping them into "blocks." Pluralism tends to insitutionalize sub-territories that unify the distinct "plural" group-identities. Examples would be distinguishing "races" or "racial/ethnic groupings" within the U.S. or nationalized ethnicities in the E.U. Whether these plural subgroups are recognized as distinct "nations" or "races" does not alter the basic commonality that the plurality is conceptualized as subgroups imagined as more or less unified by identity yet distinct from each other as groups.

It also seems that pluralism may refer to any kind of subgrouping logic of a society. Therefore political parties may be referred to as collective entities in a "pluralist" government, but also corporations within an industrial sector, nation-states within a supranational society, social classes, etc. The main distinguishing factor between pluralism and other forms of multiculturalism would be that pluralism assumes multiple/plural monocultures whereas other possibilities of multiculturalism may approach difference without the logic of organized monoculture at all.

An example of non-pluralistic multiculturalism would be to recognize ethnicity, nationality, etc. not as groups of individuals but rather as identities that operate at the level of individual ideology. A multicultural individual, then, may be multi-ethnic or identify with various national identities without reference to or subordination to the notion of ethnic or national groups. One could say they are French-European or African-American because of identification with a parent, or a sense of kinship with a cultural idea identified by these names without reference to the notion of other individuals identifying with the same group-name, let alone recognizing all such individuals as constituting a monocultural group.

There may also be the possibility of multiculturalism in which all culture is conceptualized without linkage within a collective classification. So, for example, distinct languages may be viewed as media for communication and expression without reference to any other speakers of each language. An individual who speaks multiple languages may then be said to operate in a multicultural mode, without any further implications about ethnic identification, religion, food-tastes, etc. An actual example might be a classroom in which all students identify with the same ethnic label, yet they communicate with one another in an acquisition language for practice but resort to another language for clarification when unable to say something in the acquisition language.

Pluralism should then be distinguished from singular-monoculturalism, on the one hand, by the fact that pluralism recognizes more than one group but it should also be distinguished from non-pluralist multiculturalism, on the other, by the orientation toward cultural multitude as plural monocultures.

Maybe I should go post this on the monoculturalism editing talk page, but the monocultural orientation should be distinguished as an attitude of cultural practitioners toward culture as imperative with reference to an overarching cultural territory. Individuals are not seen as free to acquire, innovate, invent, and practice culture according to their individual sensibilities and prerogatives. Instead, culture is seen as the providence of the territorializing entity (ethnic group, organization, school, nation-state, etc.) and individuals are disciplined with reference to cultural imperatives, by which their cultural practices are measured and judged. E.g. "things are done 'here' a certain way, and you are not doing them 'our' way"

Monoculturalism = "this is the way 'we' do things 'here'" Pluralism = "there are different ways of doing things 'here' depending on what group you belong to - but you must pick a group and conform to it" Non-pluralist multiculturalism = "there are different ways of doing things and how they are done is decided by individuals at their discretion"

There is also an implication with non-pluralist multiculturalism that individuals do not avoid certain cultural possibilities as a result of group (dis)identification. In other words, culture may be acquired from various sources and practiced without regard to culture as collective property. Culture may also be practiced without regard (necessarily) for any kind of orthodoxy or avoidance of mixing cultural practices identified as distinct according to classification logics.

Pluralism, in contrast, makes strong use of classification in order to identify distinct subsocieties within an overarching society.

Anti-pluralist monoculturalism, then, identifies all culture as unified as a singularity and, as such, classifies cultural practices as either belonging to the society/group or not.

The question is whether anti-pluralist monoculturalism which recognizes other monocultures outside of itself constitutes a form of pluralism where plurality is recognized as occurring outside, rather than inside, the boundaries of society.

Likewise the question arises whether knowledge of cultural alternatives constitutes a form of multiculturalism, even when the monoculturalist or pluralist imperative is to avoid cultural practices that are identified/classified as belonging to a group other than the one the individual is identified with and is supposed to "belong" to. 24.250.239.250 (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious pluralism

What about the subject of pluralism in religion? The Islam/Christiantity/Judaism trinity may be seen as three separate religions, as a plurality thus OR these may be seen as denominations of the same basic religion since each contains common elements with the other and recognize each other's saints and mystics. When it is the case that religions, or denominations of the same religion share common elements - can we call this pluralism - or could this better be described in another way?

The problem of plural verses non-plural multiculturalism may surface again as ontological issue, because what may constitute denominational distinctions for one observer may simply be a question of individual interpretations and practices for another. In Christianity, for example, an individual may cite the biblical references to the holy spirit as making interpretation of God's will available to any person, in theory at least - whereas denominational rules may be created by church authorities which prohibit anyone except for ordained interpreters from interpreting biblical verses. The question becomes whether an interpretive debate between an individual reading and interpreting the bible without any denominational/church authority, and one who claims interpretive legitimacy with reference to it. When both debaters make reference to distinct denominations or churches, pluralism would seem to accurately describe the multiplicity of interpretations that follow. However, if two unaffiliated people debate the same text, pluralism would be less accurate than calling it, say, interpretive conflict among individuals.

I think this once again comes down to the framing issue of whether to look at ideological multiplicity at the micro or macro level. At the macro level, one might say that global society is pluralist in its multitude of religions. At the micro level, individuals may be seen as having multiple religious influences, or at least know of ideas from various religions, regardless of the credence they give to those ideas. Is there then a distinction between a person of plural faith, a person of mixed faith, and is it even possible to speak of a person of singular faith, since neither Christianity nor Islam seems to exist independently of Judaism - although I do not mean to necessarily except Judaism as lacking influences (I just can't think of any off hand). Therefore any Christian who recognizes the commandments written by Moses may also be seen as multiculturally religious, unless one wishes to argue that Christianity constitutes a wholly separate expression of Judaic ideologies and therefore any influences from Jewish traditions should no longer be associated with Judaism as such. This seems far fetched to me but I can see how someone might make the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.239.250 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Its a very well written article, very concise yet informative and knowledgeable. However there are a few improvements that should be made to provide the reader with a better understanding of pluralism in the political science system.

Firstly, Neo-pluralism is a very important concept, almost to the point that an entire article could and should be written about this piece. Because of that I believe that it would be in your benefit to extend that section to include the effects that this theory can have.

Secondly, I would like to see more important pluralist included except Dahl. Although Dahl is important there are various political scientist that have an interesting perspective on the ideas and concepts of pluralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danzy2317 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pluralism (political theory)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Expansion of Dahl's early conception of pluralism which makes its way into Neustadt's work Presidential Power as institutional pluralism which then Samuel Kernell in his famous work Going Public tries to argue for individualized pluralism.

Last edited at 07:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Neo-pluralism redirect

Neo-pluralism redirects to this page. Can that be adjusted so that it redirects straight to the Neo-pluralism section in this article? This could be useful for pages where Pluralism and Neo-pluralism are referenced. Gomientes (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)