Pluralism

Pluralism, a term first used by Christian Wolff and Immanuel Kant, gained currency as a philosophical view of the universe in the early 20th century. American pragmatism, developed by William James, conceived the world in pluralistic rather than in monistic terms: interconnected but irreducible to unity, its parts self-governed, not a “block universe” but rather a “federal republic.” Philosophical pluralism, as John Dewey had observed earlier, acknowledged the possibilities of variety, of freedom, and of change. The concept's applicability to political and cultural contexts was rapidly noticed by English and American thinkers: James's pluralistic universe could be construed as a polity where groups, possessing inherent rights not conceded by the state, elicited individual loyalties and pursued social ends. The approach came to assume central significance both for Harold Laski's pluralistic theory of the state and for Horace Kallen's vision of a commonwealth of different ethnic groups and their cultures. Pluralism offered an analytical and a normative notion that responded to [Page 1868]the increasingly associative character of society, the rise of governmental interventionism, the lobbying activities of organized groups, the nascence of immigrant subcultures, and the mal distribution of political resources. This entry explains the concept of pluralism as it is used in political and cultural contexts. It then considers alternative conceptions that lead further into the theory of interest representation. The entry concludes with a look at the relevance of pluralism in the 21st century, particularly with respect to ethno-cultural groups and to all forms of inequality.

Positively, the concept establishes, first, the existence of a plurality of interests and corresponding social groups that, as latent centers of power, may organize into associations and, second, the transformation of this diversity into public policies through pressure exerted on each other and on governments. Normatively, the concept endorses the process of individuals turning to organization, the resulting formation of interest groups as subjects of democratic politics, and the sequence of group conflict, bargaining, and compromise that characterizes the shaping of public policies, on condition that basic rights and the principles of justice remain respected and protected.

Pluralism may thus be defined as both a descriptive and a prescriptive theory of individual participation by social association in the political process. Groups, in other words, are envisaged to operate as instruments, representing individuals rather than replacing them in the political process, thereby enhancing their chances for individual-centered democracy in a world of increasingly complex sociopolitical interaction. Political man acting through and in control of his freely established associations: That has been pluralism's normative vision.

As with every representative arrangement, however, inbuilt tensions remain between the original individual interests and eventual group (i.e., leadership) action. To the extent that such group action today has come to be treated as a substitute for individual action in reaching political outcomes, the chances for individual-centered democracy are diminished. This inference is especially relevant because political resources enter the picture as a second pivotal element. Their grossly unequal distribution skews the political process in favor of powerful minorities. More often than not, from the viewpoint of the theory and practice of democracy, noncommitted or indoctrinated citizens who are caught in a web of hierarchical organizations are indicative of a less than satisfactory reality.

...