Talk:Pluralism (political philosophy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Pluralism (political philosophy), or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 General 2 First paragraph issues 3 Need for expansion/disambiguation page 4 Historical basis for pluralism/secularism in North America 5 hmmmm 6 Topic merge 7 Dahl 8 Is Pluralism a political theory of the state?

[edit] General

I have cleaned this article up partially, but it still needs expansion. Removed the NPOV and replaced it with cleanup. It seems that what this article needs is expansion, not necessarily any heavy alterations. --Thorsen 18:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Remarks that seem to be no longer relevant to the article as it is now have been moved to Talk:Pluralism/Archive--Robin 22:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph issues

I modified the first paragraph and rephrased some of the more obscure passages throughout the article. --Thorsen 18:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Especially, I replaced the nonsensical use of "social science" and replaced it with the more general term "politics" --Thorsen 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Pluralism, the affirmation of diversity, is arguably one of the most important features of modern societies and social groups, and may be a key factor of progress in science, society and economic development. - It appears to me that pluralism is a necessary consequence of the shrinking world, which itself is brought on by rapidly falling transport and communications costs due to technological development; we are increasingly having to face cultures beyond the traditional sphere of our control - and pluralism is the only game that facilitates any advantages in such a situation. So much for POV.

The current paragraph appears to be pretty much waffle. How about: Pluralism is the affirmation of diversity, which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. - and leave it be: short and snappy. (20040302 23:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

I just took that bit over from the old article, and I feel that everything that followes after "and may be a key factor..." can indeed be cancelled, or inserted further down, at the discussion of the merits and disadvantages of ralism.

However, I would leave the "is arguably... groups" bit, because it shows that this term applies to society. After this, we should add that it has other fields of application: philosophy / religion as well as science.

I would leave the second paragraph as it is, even if it is a bit wordy, but I prefer definitions to be rather on the clear than on the short and snappy side (if there is a contradiction between these).

What I have done so far is just to translate the most important bits of the German article, de:Pluralismus, which I consider quite sound, arrange it which what has already been there, and add the bit about the common good. So it may be that some rewriting has still to be done. --Robin.rueth 09:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Each opinion stated on the talk page and on the article itself takes a stance that pluralism is necessary for the "shrinking world" to function. Pluralism only functions in a ultimately positive way to pluralists, and such positive impact is possible under any societical system. The entire opinion of what pluralism accomplishes in this article is humanistically oriented. Therefore, I have placed NPOV on this article. Cormallen 20:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Cormallen, but what we've got here is just a standard definition of Pluralism that you can find most everywhere (that's also the way I heard things in my social studies class). As to POV, we are supposed to be sympathetic with what we talk about, so we first have to say how proponents of pluralism explain this concept; criticism can follow once the concept has been explained. As to the "shrinking world", it is no longer even on the page! I cannot see what should be humanistic (is that non-religious / non-Christian) about this definition.--Robin 22:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need for expansion/disambiguation page

Quite obviously, the two sections that need expansion are (nearly) empty so far

I would suggest instead that a disambiguation page is needed, as several of these topics are covered already on separate pages. --Error28 12:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of turning this into a disambiguation page and either linking to existing articles of creating new ones on each seperate topic from the existing information. Madmedea 10:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical basis for pluralism/secularism in North America

In some work on the pueblo articles, I saw two events which are related to the growth of pluralism in North America. My source is Ben Horgan, Rio Grande, and the articles on the Mexican Revolution. Graham Greene's novel The Power and the Glory also covers this theme:

• North America is so huge that political power can be evaded by simple migration of its peoples. This has been true for millennia.
• New Mexico was colonized for King and Christianity by order (La Toma) of the King of Spain in the 1500s, with subsequent revolts and reconquests. Relative stability was attained by 1700.
• After the colonization of New Mexico, the Spanish kingdom could no longer afford to fund the priests or their orders. For this reason, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, the priests were encouraged to secularize their holdings - they were to consider themselves more self-sufficient, economically.
• The priests responded with Hidalgo's grito which sounded the call for independence from Spain.
• By the Mexican Revolution, the Mexican government federalized all church property and forbade church activities outside the walls of the churches. This eventually settled down and the church was allowed to resume its activities but had no more economic power (by federal law). This had the effect of chasing the Mexican Jesuits to New Mexico and Texas during the revolution, for example.
• The successor factions/economic forces in Mexico are currently based in oligopoly (the economic equivalent of pluralism).
• Some people of Mexico are voting with their feet and leaving Mexico for the US. Whole areas of rural Mexico are depopulating, with movement to cities.
• I forbear mention of corresponding oligopoly arising elsewhere on the globe.

My point is there is an economic basis for pluralism, even if religion is cited solely in the actions of a state (the bearer of political power). Furthermore, if there had been one society (an aggregate of people) only, then its dissidents would have been hunted down by the agents of the current state. However, in each case, the dissidents responded by leaving one state for another in search of peace. It is too simple to call these power struggles. In the case of New Mexico, there was one state with multiple societies, for example, with one society (the Christians) even fleeing to a safer area (now called El Paso) in the Pueblo revolt of 1680. There is an interplay of social, cultural, religious and economic factors, each attempting to reach equilibrium. But hegemony of one state does not guarantee victory. Vigilance by the state is required, or else some other factor will arise which will then threaten the stability of that state. That change will then require a social, cultural, religious, and economic response, or else that state will not survive. But if the state cannot survive economically it eventually will not survive politically, and a society ensconced in that state may have to move or change, in order to retain its culture, or else it will disappear. It may be usefull to correlate this with the concepts in Jared Diamond's Collapse (book): some of the reasons for a collapse are

1. failure to anticipate
2. failure to perceive

--Ancheta Wis 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hmmmm

Does anyone else see any irony in the state of this article? Because it had me laughing.--Elizabeth of North Carolina 03:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean; I consider this a pretty serious article.--Robin.rueth 08:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean pluralism is supposed to be the whole driving force for wikipedia, and the article on pluralism itself suffers from a lack of it--Elizabeth of North Carolina 11:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Pluralism, as the article states, implies negotiating disagreements, which is to say arriving at accommodations. Wikipedia, however, aims for truth, not for accommodation. That is why wikipedians converse rather than negotiate, which I take to be Charles Blattberg's point in his book criticising pluralism--Theo1

I'm new here, but I thought that while finding the truth was important, "Editors are encouraged to uphold a policy of "neutral point of view" under which notable perspectives are summarized without an attempt to determine an objective truth" (wikipedia on wikipedia). So the balance of viewpoints, including the time spent and wording, would require negotiations, as people would disagree about what sounded NPOV. --Elizabeth of North Carolina 15:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the irony, Elizabeth; it's quite funny. I propose that some reference to Wikipedia's NPOV be made in the article itself as an example of the application of pluralism. -- Robert Turner 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What seems just as ironic, to me, is that the entry on pluralism, which is the driving force for most *wikipedians* and the premise we accept for being here and accepting each other's work, is so inadequate and barely constructed, compared to Star Trek or what not. Huangdi 14:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topic merge

pluralistic perspective Simply repeats what's being said here in different words. Abaharaki 00:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC) I think so also.

[edit] Dahl

It seems a bit inappropriate for an article about pluralism not to talk about Who Governs, especially if it is going to reference Schattschneider's refutation of Dahl's pluralism. I fixed the Schattschneider quote btw, it was a misquote. Still needs to be cited but I don't know how to do footnotes so if someone could fix it please. It's from Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America 1975, pg. 34-5

[edit] Is Pluralism a political theory of the state?

Hello. Section 1.1 'Neo-Pluralism & Corporatism' states, "While Pluralism as a political theory of the state..."and etc. I am not knowledgable about this subject, but I am reading Alan Cawson's 'Corporatism and Political Theory' and find here the following assertion:

"Pluralists manage to do without a theory of the state as such because their political theory of party government and group pressure has no room for one. If 'the state' means anything at all to pluralists, it is as a synonym for 'government' or 'civil service', or it represents the public side of the distinction between public and private... it is the manifest inabililty of pluralist theory to account for the the growth and role of public authority which justifies the development of state theory."

This seems a pretty devestating rebuttal to the notion that Pluralism is a theory of the state. But as I said I am incompetent to judge. I don't have any idea what Cawson thinks 'the state' is or anything about his qualifications to make such an assertion.

Jamie --206.105.184.123 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)--206.105.184.123 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As well as an idea to promote - i.e. people who are in favour of pluralism - pluralism is also a theory of power and the state and stands in opposition to elite theory and the like. See [1]. This page desparately needs a section on the "theory of pluralism" - on my to do list. Madmedea 10:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)