Suchergebnisse

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.]

It is noted that the concept of modern political pluralism has endured to be juxtaposed with a succession of alternatives -- elitism, totalitarianism, & corporatism. This longevity has something to do with its flexibility; as a concept, it has been underexplicit. Modern pluralism is not a simple development from earlier uses of that label; rather, it reflects the conclusions of empirical studies in the mid-twentieth century. In the work of R. A. Dahl, N. Polsby, D. B. Truman, & C. E. Lindbloom, the concept is not well-defined, but it is clear that they anticipated many of the later criticisms of pluralism. An attempt is made to construct a preliminary pluralist model from these various accounts. While the model is generally presented as being about competition (competitive pluralism), most of those using a pluralist perspective identify sectorization, privileged access to decision making, & bargaining between departments & client groups. This corporate pluralism model (or group subgovernment) is identified as a major departure from laissez-faire pluralism. The division within pluralism anticipated many of the concerns raised by the corporatist literature. There is little significant difference between sectoral or meso corporatism & corporate pluralism. Pluralism is more successful in countering other theories than in standing as an alternative. Modified AA

Aims to provide a definition of Pluralism, going back to Dahl's seminal work Who Governs and examining subsequent works by other theorists. Finds that no well-elaborated pluralist theory can in fact be rediscovered. (SJK)

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.