Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn this paper, I offer a pluralistic framework for disagreement and I develop a strategy to account for the varieties of disagreement on the basis of the varieties of the truth across different domains of discourse. Truth-pluralism is thus sufficient for delivering pluralism about disagreement—that is, diaphonic pluralism.

"The problem of value pluralism permeates modern political philosophy. Its presence can be felt even when it is not explicitly the central topic under investigation. Political thinkers such as Max Weber, Isaiah Berlin and Stuart Hampshire derive pessimistic, sometimes tragic, conclusions from their reflections upon pluralism."--Page 4 of cover

Arguing that the move from 'diversity' to 'pluralism' in American discourse better matched some of the historical circumstances and social outcomes in American life, this article is designed to provide a framework for more detailed and close-up elaborations on the pluralist theme. As the field of study develops, it becomes ever more clear that no single definition will do justice to 'diversity,' 'multiculturalism,' and so on, so it is time to think of the 'plural in the plural' and speak of 'pluralisms.'. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2007 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

Prominent political theorist defends democratic pluralism as a political stance.

The problem of value pluralism permeates modern political philosophy. Its presence can be felt even when it is not explicitly the central topic under investigation. Political thinkers such as Max Weber, Isaiah Berlin and Stuart Hampshire derive pessimistic, sometimes tragic, conclusions from their reflections upon pluralism. On the other hand, there is a more optimistic view represented by John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas that sees value pluralism as a problem that is easier to live with. This book presents the first accessible overview for both post- and undergraduate students of the way in which this problem has been understood and responded to by modern political thinkers.

Arguing that the move from "diversity" to "pluralism" in American discourse better matched some of the historical circumstances and social outcomes in American life, this article is designed to provide a framework for more detailed and close-up elaborations on the pluralist theme. As the field of study develops, it becomes ever more clear that no single definition will do justice to "diversity," "multiculturalism," and so on, so it is time to think of the "plural in the plural" and speak of "pluralisms."

This article is a critique of contemporary pluralist theory as found largely in the work of Robert A. Dahl and Charles E. Lindblom. Two different forms of pluralism are distinguished and compared critically with Marxist class analysis. Pluralism, it is argued, fails to account for the reality of political and economic inequality in the United States. As a theory, pluralism is also marked by increasing tension between the underlying values and the performance of American polyarchy. The overall result is that pluralism's utility as a description and explanation of the American political economy is called into serious doubt, and a case is made for the explanatory superiority of class analysis.