Dating back to the 1950s there have been debates within the social sciences regarding the nature and distribution of power within American society. Political scientist Robert Dahl, for instance, published influential research arguing that American politics did not have a cohesive ruling class but was instead guided by a changing, amorphous plurality of interest groups that formed around various issues before disbanding. In other words, there was no ruling class but rather a relatively equal set of distinct groups competing for temporary success on various issues. Sociologist C. Wright Mills, on the other hand, famously argued that there was an enduring, cohesive ruling elite dominated by the interconnections between the corporate sector, the military-industrial complex, and the executive branch. In a similar vein G. William Domhoff argued that the ruling class in America is formed around the interconnections in the upper echelons of the corporate world, particularly through interlocking boards of directors.
The competing sides in this debate were sometimes referred to as pluralists and elite theorists. The pluralists, like Dahl, were describing and defending a reality that they took to be a reasonable approximation of democratic ideals. The elite theorists, like Mills and Domhoff, were describing and criticizing a reality that they saw failing to live up to democratic ideals. In an important sense both sides agreed that America could and should live up to its best democratic ideals; they disagreed on whether it did. These pluralists and elite theorists are thus distinct from the elitists I so often criticize, who oppose efforts to make America more democratic.
These debates were and are important. Recent research by Benjamin Gilens and Martin Page provides some evidence that, at least in contemporary America, the elite theorists’ diagnosis may be correct. Specifically, they found that when the preferences of poor, middle-class, and wealthy Americans differ, whichever policy is preferred by the wealthy gets enacted. More broadly, wealthy individuals and the big business lobby have a hugely disproportionate influence on public policy.
In what follows, however, I will not be using the term pluralism in this sense. Drawing on the work of political theorist William Connolly, I want to draw out some of his insights into pluralism as a way of being in a democratic polity. For Connolly this is less about political structures than it is about the ethos necessary for citizens in a healthy democratic society and how to engage with disagreement.
Living in a democracy means we have to recognize what John Rawls calls the “fact of pluralism.” How to live in a society defined by sometimes irresolvable disagreement is what Connolly is concerned with, particularly how to respectfully engage those with whom one disagrees.
This essay is motivated by my reflection on writers from all political perspectives who best embody these values, including non-professionals on facebook, message boards, and blogs, as well as commentators who very much don’t embody the values I will defend here (again, they are a mixture of professional and ordinary citizens). The following thoughts are adapted from my dissertation.
At its most basic, Connolly’s project focuses on the need for democratic citizens to cultivate a deep respect for difference, which he terms a “multidimensional thick pluralism.” Connolly’s pluralism recognizes the inherent contingency and (therefore) contestability of all perspectives. In a world of pluralism, no single perspective can persuade all rational citizens or prove its ultimate truth. The radical democrat, the atheist existentialist, and the conservative evangelical Christian all hold world-views that are respectively built on various foundational values, gut intuitions, and analytic assessments about how the world works.
The significance of this for Connolly is the need to cultivate a critical responsiveness to the views and needs of others, built around careful listening and generosity towards those seeking to gain recognition---one might say that he is reminding us of the need to listen to what Jacques Rancière calls the part of no part, i.e. the dispossessed and oppressed, when they do speak. It is important to remember as well that political dialogue is more complex and rich than a philosophy seminar, “for thinking and judgment are affected by inspiration, attraction, and example as well as by the logic of argument. Better, the former ingredients mix into the latter recipes.”
Living up to the ideals of radical democracy, for Connolly, entails a deep pluralism constructed through respect for a world peopled with multiple minorities, an appreciation of uncertainty, and recognition of doubt and weakness in one’s own worldview. This requires that “you admit that the philosophy you adopt...is profoundly and legitimately contestable to others...when you acknowledge that your philosophical stance is grounded in a complex mixture of contestable faith and porous argument you take a step toward affirmation of political pluralism,” regardless of the particular politics and philosophy you embrace.
This entails a critical self-awareness of the limitations of one’s own perspective, knowledge, and insights, as well as the inevitable limitations of those with whom one disagrees. It is why conservatives attempting to “own the libs” are not productive interlocuters but neither are liberal articles and blogs documenting all the dumb things Ted Cruz said last week.
It means condescension is not helpful, nor is mockery, and acting as if one has definitively ended a debate is just silly. It is also means that no single argument, fact, study, book, or other piece of evidence will definitively put an end to political disagreement. Nor should we expect it to.
In a democratic society, to meet with and engage with disagreement, we need to treat others not as caricatures but as complex human beings. It does not mean we embrace relativism or give up on politics. We must argue forcefully for our perspective with the goal of changing minds and enacting more just policies. But by holding on to this respectful pluralism we will be less likely to go down a path of misanthropy, elitist condescension, or resentment towards those with whom we disagree. This pluralism is a necessary ingredient for acting politically in a world where victory is never total, defeat never permanent.