pluralistic society essay

American Pluralism: An In-Depth Historical Essay

Pluralism in american history, introduction.

Pluralism, as a foundational concept, has woven the intricate tapestry of the American narrative. It refers to a society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, and social groups maintain their independent cultural traditions while coexisting with those of other groups, contributing to the broader values and practices of the larger society. This essay unfolds the story of how pluralism has shaped the United States, highlighting its profound impact on the nation’s political, social, and cultural landscapes. It is a narrative of a nation in a perpetual state of flux, ever-transforming through the contributions and challenges brought forth by its diverse populace.

Historical Context of Pluralism in America

Early immigration and the foundation of pluralism.

America’s pluralistic roots can be traced back to its very inception. From the earliest settlements in the New World, the continent became a mosaic of indigenous cultures and European settlers. The ensuing centuries saw waves of immigration, each adding new dimensions to the American identity. The arrival of various ethnic groups, each with distinct customs, languages, and beliefs, laid the groundwork for a pluralistic society.

The Melting Pot vs. The Salad Bowl Metaphor

The concept of the melting pot emerged in the early 20th century, depicting America as a crucible where immigrants would blend into a single, homogenous culture. However, as society progressed, the melting pot metaphor gave way to that of the salad bowl, an image that better reflected the maintenance of cultural identities within a harmonious collective. This shift recognized the value of diversity in contributing to the nation’s vibrancy and strength.

Key Historical Legislation Impacting Pluralism

Legislation has played a pivotal role in shaping the contours of American pluralism. The Naturalization Act of 1790, for instance, opened citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person.” This exclusionary policy began to erode with the passage of subsequent amendments and acts. Landmark legislations, such as the 14th Amendment (1868), provided a constitutional guarantee of citizenship and equal protection under the law, influencing the legal framework for pluralism. The Immigration Act of 1924, and its antecedents, established quotas that were designed to maintain a certain demographic homogeneity but were eventually overhauled by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which endorsed a more equitable system reflective of a pluralistic society.

Political Manifestations of Pluralism

Pluralism in the american political system.

The political landscape of the United States is fundamentally pluralistic, influenced by its federal structure and the balance of powers. This system allows for the representation and governance of a diverse populace, facilitating multiple perspectives within the legislative process. Political pluralism in America ensures that no single group can monopolize power, with checks and balances in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Furthermore, the American political party system, inherently dynamic and responsive, often reshapes itself to reflect the country’s pluralistic demographics, ideologies, and interests.

Case Studies of Pluralistic Policies

Policies such as Affirmative Action epitomize the political response to pluralism, aiming to redress historical injustices and provide equal opportunities for all citizens. This policy, and others like it, have been subject to much debate, symbolizing the complexities of implementing pluralism in practice. The debates reflect the evolving understanding of what it means to ensure fair representation and equal opportunity in a society with deep-seated and diverse interests.

Social Dimensions of Pluralism

The evolution of the american social fabric.

The social fabric of the United States has been and continues to be shaped by its pluralistic foundation. The influx of immigrants has significantly altered the demographic makeup, prompting shifts in social norms and practices. Pluralism has also engendered social movements, with groups advocating for recognition and rights, contributing to the ever-changing tapestry of American society. Movements such as those for civil rights and LGBTQ+ rights have been critical in advancing the cause of a more inclusive and equitable society.

Social Challenges and Resistance to Pluralism

Despite its foundational role, pluralism has faced resistance in various forms throughout American history. Nativism, segregation, and systemic inequalities reveal the challenges and frictions inherent in a pluralistic society. Instances of social pushback against pluralism underscore the tension between the ideal of a diverse, inclusive society and the reality of its imperfect implementation. Nonetheless, these challenges have also fostered dialogue and progress towards a more mature understanding and practice of pluralism.

Cultural Pluralism

The contribution of diverse ethnic and cultural groups.

Cultural pluralism in America has been vividly expressed through the contributions of various ethnic and cultural groups to the nation’s arts, literature, and music. Each group has brought with it a rich tapestry of traditions, stories, and expressions, adding to the cultural mosaic of the nation. The Harlem Renaissance, the Chicano Movement, and the rise of Asian-American theater are just a few examples of how cultural pluralism has enriched American cultural life, broadening the scope of American identity and expression.

The Arts, Literature, and Music as Expressions of Pluralism

The arts have always been a powerful medium for expressing pluralistic values. American literature, from the writings of Zora Neale Hurston to Amy Tan, showcases the multiplicity of the American experience. Jazz, blues, hip-hop, and other musical forms have roots in the African American experience and have become global symbols of American culture. Through such expressions, cultural pluralism becomes a dialogue—a means of communicating across different experiences and forging shared understandings.

The Debate Over Cultural Appropriation vs. Appreciation

As different cultures interact and influence one another, questions of appropriation versus appreciation arise. This debate is central to understanding the limits and potential of cultural pluralism. It asks how cultural elements can be borrowed respectfully, and when such borrowings become exploitative. Addressing these questions is an ongoing process that requires mindful engagement with the complex dynamics of power, history, and identity inherent in pluralistic societies.

Economic Aspects of Pluralism

The role of diverse populations in the american economy.

Pluralism has profound economic implications. The labor force in America is one of the most diverse in the world, contributing to innovation, productivity, and economic growth. Immigrants and minority groups have historically filled vital roles in the economy, from the building of railroads to the technology boom. This diversity is not just a workforce characteristic; it also shapes consumer markets, influencing the types of products and services offered.

Pluralism in the Labor Force and Entrepreneurship

The American entrepreneurial spirit is bolstered by its pluralistic society. Many minority groups have a strong tradition of entrepreneurship, and their businesses often serve as important economic and social hubs within their communities. These enterprises contribute significantly to the economy, providing jobs, services, and innovations, while also preserving cultural traditions and fostering community cohesion.

The Economic Challenges and Contributions of New Immigrants

While pluralism brings economic benefits, it also presents challenges. New immigrants can face barriers to entry in the labor market, such as language proficiency and credential recognition. Nonetheless, their economic contributions are substantial, including filling labor shortages and establishing new businesses. Understanding and supporting the economic integration of immigrants is crucial for maximizing the benefits of a pluralistic economy.

Case Studies in Pluralism

Impact of pluralism on indigenous populations.

The story of indigenous populations in the United States presents a complex case of pluralism, often marked by conflict and resistance. From the Trail of Tears to the activism at Standing Rock, the experiences of Native Americans illustrate a struggle for sovereignty, cultural preservation, and equal rights. These case studies reflect a confrontation with a pluralistic ideal that has not always been extended to all groups equally, prompting a national reckoning with past injustices and the path toward reconciliation.

African American History and the Struggle for Equality

The African American experience is another profound study in pluralism. The history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the ongoing fight for civil rights showcases the centrality of African Americans in the pluralistic narrative of the nation. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., embodies a pivotal moment when the struggle for a more inclusive pluralism became a national priority, profoundly reshaping American society.

Asian Americans in the Silicon Valley Revolution

Asian Americans have played a significant role in the technological transformation emblematic of Silicon Valley. Their case study highlights how pluralism within the tech industry has fueled innovation and economic growth. It also raises important questions about representation, stereotypes, and the glass ceiling that many Asian Americans confront in the industry. Their contributions and challenges offer insights into the multifaceted nature of pluralism in American professional and cultural landscapes.

Contemporary Issues in American Pluralism

Current debates and policies surrounding immigration and refugees.

Today’s pluralism is shaped by global movements and the policies that respond to them. The debates over immigration reform, border control, and refugee policy are at the forefront of contemporary pluralism. These discussions reflect the nation’s ongoing struggle to reconcile security concerns with its identity as a land of opportunity for people from all over the world.

The Role of Pluralism in Contemporary American Politics

In recent years, American politics have become increasingly polarized, with pluralism itself becoming a point of contention. Questions about the extent to which America should embrace cultural and demographic diversity are central to political discourse. This polarization underscores the importance of pluralism as not only a sociological fact of American life but also a vital democratic ideal that requires continuous dialogue and engagement.

The Future of Pluralism in the Digital Age and Global Society

The digital age presents new frontiers for pluralism. Social media and digital communication have the power to unite and divide, creating spaces for cultural exchange and, conversely, echo chambers. As the world becomes more interconnected, the future of American pluralism will be intertwined with global trends, presenting new challenges and opportunities for fostering an inclusive society that values diversity as a source of strength.

The fabric of American society, woven from the threads of countless narratives, demonstrates the power and challenges of pluralism. This essay has traversed through the historical, political, social, cultural, and economic dimensions, revealing the complexities and dynamics of a pluralistic society. The evolution of pluralism in America is a testament to the nation’s ability to adapt and grow through its diversity. Yet, the journey is far from complete. As America continues to grapple with the questions of identity, equality, and unity in diversity, the ideals of pluralism remain crucial for forging a collective future that honors the multiplicity of its past and present. The ongoing discourse on pluralism and its implementation will undoubtedly continue to shape American society, demanding active participation and understanding from all its members to envision a truly inclusive and pluralistic nation.

• Higham, J. (2011). Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925 . Rutgers University Press.
• Hollinger, D. A. (2006). Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism . Basic Books.
• Lee, E. (2003). At America’s Gates: Chinese Immigration during the Exclusion Era, 1882-1943 . University of North Carolina Press.
• Sollors, W. (1998). Beyond Ethnicity: Consent and Descent in American Culture . Oxford University Press.
• Takaki, R. (1993). A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America . Little, Brown and Company.
• Zhou, M., & Gatewood, J. V. (Eds.). (2000). Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary Reader . New York University Press.

Frequently Asked Questions about Pluralism

Pluralism in the context of government and politics is a theoretical framework that describes a system where power and influence are dispersed among multiple interest groups and individuals. It is the idea that society is composed of diverse and competing groups, each with its own set of interests and values. Pluralism asserts that no single group or entity should dominate the political decision-making process. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of a multitude of voices and perspectives shaping public policy.

In a pluralist system, various interest groups, such as labor unions, business associations, environmental organizations, and civil rights groups, actively participate in the political process. These groups seek to influence government policies through activities like lobbying, advocacy, and grassroots organizing. The government, in turn, acts as a mediator, balancing the competing interests and striving to create policies that reflect a broad range of viewpoints.

Pluralism stands in contrast to other political theories, such as elitism, which argue that a small, privileged elite wields disproportionate influence over government decisions. Pluralism promotes inclusivity, diversity, and the notion that democratic governance should reflect the interests of the many, not just the few.

Pluralism is seen as a crucial element of a healthy democratic society because it promotes several key democratic principles:

Representation : Pluralism ensures that a wide array of voices and interests are represented in the political process. This representation helps guard against the concentration of power in the hands of a few and allows for a more comprehensive consideration of citizens’ needs and preferences.

Checks and Balances : By dispersing power among various interest groups and preventing any single group from dominating, pluralism acts as a built-in system of checks and balances. This makes it more difficult for any one group to unduly influence government decisions.

Accountability : In a pluralist system, elected officials must be responsive to the diverse interests of their constituents and the groups they represent. This accountability helps ensure that government actions are in line with the will of the people.

Policy Stability : Pluralism often results in incremental policy changes rather than radical shifts, promoting stability and continuity in government actions. This can help prevent abrupt policy reversals and provide a sense of predictability for businesses and citizens.

Inclusivity : Pluralism encourages inclusivity and diversity in political participation, allowing marginalized and underrepresented groups to have a say in shaping policies that affect them.

Overall, pluralism contributes to the vibrancy and resilience of democratic systems by fostering a dynamic interplay of ideas and interests.

Pluralism can be observed in various aspects of government and politics, both in the United States and around the world. Here are some examples:

Interest Groups : In the United States, organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Sierra Club represent specific interests and actively engage in lobbying and advocacy to influence policy decisions related to gun control, civil liberties, and environmental protection, respectively.

Labor Unions : Labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO, advocate for the rights and interests of workers. They negotiate with employers, participate in political campaigns, and lobby for labor-friendly policies.

Elections and Political Parties : In multi-party systems, political parties represent diverse ideologies and interests. Citizens choose among these parties in elections, and parties work to build coalitions that can win elections and shape policy agendas.

Media and Journalism : Pluralism is also evident in the media landscape, where a variety of news outlets offer different perspectives and viewpoints on political issues. Media organizations serve as a check on government power by investigating and reporting on government actions.

International Organizations : On a global scale, international organizations like the United Nations provide a platform for nations with different interests to engage in diplomacy and negotiate solutions to international problems.

These examples illustrate how pluralism encourages diverse voices to participate in political processes and contribute to policy decisions.

While pluralism is often praised for its inclusive and democratic ideals, it is not without its criticisms and limitations. Some of the common criticisms of pluralism in politics include:

Power Imbalance : Critics argue that, in reality, some interest groups are more influential than others due to factors like wealth, resources, and organization. This can lead to an unequal distribution of political power, undermining the core principle of equal representation.

Elite Capture : Critics contend that even in pluralistic systems, a small elite can still wield disproportionate influence over decision-making. This can happen when powerful interest groups are able to shape policies to their advantage at the expense of the broader public interest.

Exclusivity : Some argue that certain marginalized or underrepresented groups may struggle to access and participate in the political process effectively. This can result in the neglect of their interests and needs.

Fragmentation : Pluralism can lead to fragmented policymaking, where competing interests prevent the government from taking decisive action on critical issues. This can be frustrating for citizens seeking swift solutions to pressing problems.

Economic Influence : Economic interests often have a significant presence in pluralistic systems, potentially prioritizing economic considerations over social or environmental concerns.

It’s important to note that these criticisms do not necessarily invalidate pluralism as a political theory but instead highlight the challenges and complexities inherent in pluralistic systems. Many proponents of pluralism argue that addressing these issues requires ongoing efforts to enhance transparency, reduce inequalities, and ensure that all voices are heard and considered in the policymaking process.

Pluralism, elitism, and hyperpluralism are all theories that describe how power is distributed and exercised in democratic societies, but they have distinct differences:

Pluralism: Pluralism asserts that power is dispersed among various interest groups, and no single group dominates the political landscape. It values inclusivity, competition among groups, and the idea that government mediates between competing interests to reach balanced policies.

Elitism: Elitism posits that political power is concentrated in the hands of a small, privileged elite—often based on factors like wealth, education, or social status. This elite group is believed to have disproportionate influence over government decisions, which may not necessarily align with the broader public’s interests.

Hyperpluralism: Hyperpluralism suggests that the influence of interest groups has become so fragmented and overabundant that it paralyzes the government’s ability to make coherent policies. In this view, government becomes excessively responsive to the demands of countless interest groups, leading to policy gridlock.

While these theories offer different perspectives on the distribution of power in politics, they all contribute to our understanding of how democracies function and the challenges they face.

Yes, pluralism can coexist with other political theories within a democratic system. In practice, democracies often exhibit elements of multiple theories simultaneously. For example:

Mixed Systems: Many democracies have mixed political systems, incorporating elements of pluralism, elitism, and other theories. In the United States, for instance, pluralism is evident in the diversity of interest groups, while elitism may be observed in the influence of economic elites.

Checks and Balances: Constitutional democracies often incorporate checks and balances that limit the concentration of power, reflecting pluralistic principles, while also recognizing the need for some degree of elite involvement.

Policy Outcomes: Different policy areas may be influenced by various theories. Economic policies might be influenced by business elites, while social policies may be shaped by advocacy groups, illustrating the coexistence of pluralistic and elitist dynamics.

The interplay of these theories can be complex, and the balance between them can shift over time. It is not uncommon for democracies to adapt and evolve in response to changing societal conditions and political developments.

Citizens can play a vital role in a pluralistic political system by actively engaging in the democratic process. Here are some ways individuals can participate:

Voting: The most fundamental form of participation is voting in elections. By choosing representatives who align with their values and interests, citizens influence government decisions.

Joining Interest Groups: Citizens can join or support interest groups that represent their concerns. This allows them to pool their resources and voices with like-minded individuals to advocate for specific policies or causes.

Contacting Elected Officials: Communicating with elected officials through letters, emails, phone calls, or in-person meetings can convey citizens’ opinions and influence policymaking.

Protest and Advocacy: Peaceful protests, demonstrations, and advocacy campaigns can draw attention to specific issues and pressure government officials to take action.

Running for Office: Some citizens choose to become directly involved in politics by running for public office. This allows them to shape policies from within the government.

Participating in Public Forums: Attending town hall meetings, community forums, and public hearings provides opportunities to express concerns and engage in civic dialogue.

Staying Informed: Staying informed about current events and government activities is essential for making informed decisions and participating effectively in the democratic process.

Engaging in any of these activities empowers citizens to contribute to the pluralistic dynamics of democracy and have a say in the policies that affect their lives.

Pluralism addresses the issue of minority rights and protection by emphasizing the importance of inclusivity and the representation of diverse interests. In a pluralistic political system, minority rights are safeguarded in several ways:

Representation: Pluralism ensures that minority groups, whether they are ethnic, religious, or ideological minorities, have the opportunity to organize and participate in the political process. This representation allows them to advocate for their specific needs and rights.

Anti-Discrimination Policies: Pluralistic governments often enact anti-discrimination laws and policies to protect the rights of minority groups. These measures aim to prevent discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics.

Coalitions and Alliances: Minority groups can form coalitions and alliances with other interest groups to amplify their voices and influence policy decisions. This collective action helps protect their rights and advance their interests.

Judicial Review: An independent judiciary plays a critical role in pluralistic systems by upholding the rule of law and ensuring that the rights of minority groups are not infringed upon by government actions or majority interests.

Public Awareness and Education: Pluralism encourages public awareness and education about the rights and needs of minority groups, fostering a more inclusive and tolerant society.

While pluralism provides a framework for protecting minority rights, challenges may still arise, and it is an ongoing process to ensure that the rights of all citizens, especially minorities, are respected and upheld in a pluralistic democracy.

What Is Pluralism? Definition and Examples

LOUISA GOULIAMAKI / Getty Images

• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.S., Texas A&M University

The political philosophy of pluralism suggests that we really can and should “all just get along.” First recognized as an essential element of democracy by the philosophers of Ancient Greece , pluralism permits and even encourages a diversity of political opinion and participation. In this article, we will break down pluralism and examine how it works in the real world.

Key Takeaways: Pluralism

• Pluralism is a political philosophy that holds that people of different beliefs, backgrounds, and lifestyles can coexist in the same society and participate equally in the political process.
• Pluralism assumes that its practice will lead decision-makers to negotiate solutions that contribute to the “common good” of the entire society.
• Pluralism recognizes that in some cases, the acceptance and integration of minority groups should be achieved and protected by legislation, such as civil rights laws.
• The theory and mechanics of pluralism are also applied in the areas of culture and religion.

Pluralism Definition

In government, the political philosophy of pluralism anticipates that people with different interests, beliefs, and lifestyles will coexist peacefully and be allowed to participate in the governing process. Pluralists acknowledge that a number of competing interest groups will be allowed to share power. In this sense, pluralism is considered a key element of democracy. Perhaps the most extreme example of pluralism is found in a pure democracy , where each individual is allowed to vote on all laws and even court decisions. 

In 1787, James Madison , known as the Father of the U.S. Constitution , argued for pluralism. Writing in the Federalist Papers No. 10 , he addressed fears that factionalism and its inherent political in-fighting would fatally fracture the new American republic . Madison argued that only by allowing many competing factions to participate equally in the government could this dire result be avoided. Though he never used the term, James Madison had essentially defined pluralism.

The argument for modern political pluralism can be traced to early 20th-century England, where progressive political and economic writers objected to what they saw as the growing tendency of individuals to become isolated from each other by the effects of unrestrained capitalism. Citing the social qualities of diverse yet cohesive medieval constructs such as trade guilds, villages, monasteries, and universities, they argued that pluralism, through its economic and administrative decentralization, could overcome the negative aspects of modern industrialized society.

How Pluralism Works

In the world of politics and government, it is assumed that pluralism will help achieve a compromise by helping decision-makers become aware of and fairly address several competing interests and principles. 

In the United States, for example, labor laws allow workers and their employers to engage in collective bargaining to address their mutual needs. Similarly, when environmentalists saw the need for laws regulating air pollution, they first sought compromises from the private industry. As awareness of the issue spread, the American public voiced its opinion, as did concerned scientists and members of Congress . The enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1955 and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 were the results of various groups speaking up—and being heard—and were clear examples of pluralism in action.

Perhaps the best examples of the pluralism movement can be found in the end of white apartheid in South Africa , and the culmination of the racial Civil Rights Movement in the United States with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The ultimate promise of pluralism is that its process of conflict, dialog, and negotiation leading to compromise will result in the abstract value known as “the common good.” Since first conceived by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle , “the common good” has evolved to refer to anything that is of benefit to and shared by all or most members of a given community. In this context, the common good is closely related to the theory of the “ social contract ,” the idea expressed by political theorists Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke that governments exist only to serve the general will of the people. 

Pluralism in Other Areas of Society

Along with politics and government, pluralism’s acceptance of diversity is also embraced in other areas of society, most noticeably in culture and religion. To some extent, both cultural and religious pluralism are based on ethical or moral pluralism, the theory that while several diverse values may forever conflict with each other, they all remain equally correct.

Cultural Pluralism

Cultural pluralism describes a condition in which minority groups participate fully in all areas of the dominant society while maintaining their unique cultural identities. In a culturally pluralist society, different groups are tolerant of each other and coexist without major conflict, while minority groups are encouraged to retain their ancestral customs.

In the real world, cultural pluralism can succeed only if the traditions and practices of the minority groups are accepted by the majority society. In some cases, this acceptance must be protected by legislation, such as civil rights laws. In addition, the minority cultures may be required to alter or even drop some of their customs which are incompatible with such laws or values of the majority culture. 

Today, the United States is considered a cultural “melting pot” in which indigenous and immigrant cultures live together while keeping their individual traditions alive. Many U.S. cities have areas like Chicago’s Little Italy or San Francisco’s Chinatown. In addition, many Native American tribes maintain separate governments and communities in which they practice and hand down their traditions, religions, and histories to future generations.

Not isolated to the United States, cultural pluralism thrives worldwide. In India, while Hindus and Hindi-speaking people are the majority, millions of people of other ethnicities and religions live there as well. And in the Middle Eastern city of Bethlehem, Christians, Muslims, and Jews have in the past managed to live peacefully together despite the fighting around them.

Religious Pluralism

Sometimes defined as “respect for the otherness of others,” religious pluralism exists when adherents of all religious belief systems or denominations co-exist harmoniously in the same society. 

Religious pluralism should not be confused with “freedom of religion,” which refers to all religions being allowed to exist under the protection of civil laws or doctrine. Instead, religious pluralism assumes that the different religious groups will voluntarily interact with each other to their mutual benefit. 

In this manner, “pluralism” and “diversity” are not synonymous. Pluralism exists only when engagement between religions or cultures molds diversity into a common society. For example, while the existence of a Ukrainian Orthodox church, a Muslim mosque, a Hispanic Church of God, and a Hindu temple on the same street is certainly diversity, it becomes pluralism only if the different congregations engage and interact with each other.  

Religious pluralism can be defined as "respecting the otherness of others". Freedom of religion encompasses all religions acting within the law in a particular region.

• “ Pluralism .” The Social Studies Help Center.
• “ From Diversity to Pluralism .” Harvard University. The Pluralism Project.
• “ On Common Ground: World Religions in America .” Harvard University. The Pluralism Project.
• Chris Beneke (2006). “ Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism .” Oxford Scholarship Online. Print ISBN-13: 9780195305555
• Barnette, Jake (2016). “ Respect the otherness of the other .” The Times of Israel. 
• Rules for Visitors Bringing Alcohol Into Canada
• Understanding the Difference Between Race and Ethnicity
• Timeline of Gun Control in the United States
• What Is Hyperpluralism? Definition and Examples
• What Is Colonialism? Definition and Examples
• What Is Bureaucracy, and Is It Good or Bad?
• Feminist Literary Criticism
• What Is Democracy? Definition and Examples
• The Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice Debate
• The Differences Between Socialism and Communism
• Fascism vs Totalitarianism & Authoritarianism
• The Difference Between Iranian and Persian
• Whistleblower: Definition and Examples
• Definition and Examples of Fraud
• 7 Different Types of Crimes
• What Is an Embargo? Definition and Examples

Pluralism (Sociology): Definition and Examples

Sourabh Yadav (MA)

Sourabh Yadav is a freelance writer & filmmaker. He studied English literature at the University of Delhi and Jawaharlal Nehru University. You can find his work on The Print, Live Wire, and YouTube.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

In sociology, pluralism refers to the acceptance of multiple points of view within a society.

In cultural terms, pluralism means that various linguistic, ethnic, and subjective differences can exist among people, and yet everybody can live together peacefully.

Politically, it implies that there is not simply a “majority rule” but a system where the voices of all groups are recognized.

You may have seen various interest groups (such as the NRA in the US) in your country making organized efforts to influence policy decisions. Similarly, people are free to pursue different perspectives and pursue those beliefs in their ways. 

Pluralism is an essential aspect of democracy, and it characterizes most modern political orders across the world. Let us learn about the concept in more detail and look at some examples. 

Definition of Pluralism in Sociology

Joseph Gerteis defines pluralism in the following way: 

“Pluralism refers to the condition of living amid diversity and also to a positive appreciation for that condition.” (2007).

It is a political philosophy that believes that people from various backgrounds, beliefs, and lifestyles can coexist peacefully. It also suggests that all of them can participate in the political process equally. 

Pluralism not only permits but also encourages diversity of political opinion. The idea is that, through discussions and negotiations, these differing points of view will ultimately contribute to the “common good” of the entire society.

As such, there would not be a majority rule, but a group of minorities working together (Witten, 2015). Alexis de Tocqueville believed that this would create a “nation of joiners”, where people would be part of various groups, and they would work together to create a thriving democracy.

One of the earliest discussions of pluralism came from James Madison, a founding father of the United States. In his The Federalist Paper (No. 10), he feared that factionalism would lead to internal conflict in the country and set out to find how best to avoid it.

Madison argued that we must allow many competing factions with different points of view. This would prevent any single group from dominating the political system and instead promote competition. Here, like Edmund Burke, Madison is concerned with the idea of balance—a pluralistic harmony of interests is valued over any single abstract principle.

In more recent times, pluralist views have been exemplified in Robert Dahl’s Who Governs (1961). Dahl argued that the US is a democratic society because power is widely distributed among competing interest groups: none of them are all-powerful but still can pursue their legitimate interests. (Scott, 2014).

Characteristics of Pluralism

Pluralist societies have the following characteristics (University of Delaware, 2023) .

Those characteristics are multiplicity, autonomy, countervailing influence, the openness of the system, and quest for public support. Each is explained below.

• Multiplicity: The government is not dominated by a single elite but by a multiplicity of small groups. Some of these may be organized and funded, although not necessarily. A few groups may be larger and more powerful, but even their scope is not universal; instead, it is limited to specific areas like banking, defense, etc.
• Autonomy : The small competing groups are politically autonomous. They are independent to compete in the political landscape, and how well they perform depends on their ability to rally political resources (and not on some higher authority). Since there are numerous independent groups, there is widespread and constant competition.
• Countervailing Influence: The power of various groups tends to cancel out each other, resulting in a rough equilibrium. Moreover, group memberships also overlap, that is, people often join multiple groups. This overlap helps to reduce the conflict intensity as people associate with numerous viewpoints instead of being rigid.
• The Openness of the System: Groups are never closed off from the larger world. Instead, they constantly recruit new members. Moreover, new groups are also formed frequently. People usually unite together when there are threats to their interests, fight against injustices, or for other reasons.
• Quest for Public Support: In a pluralist society, the different groups and officers are endlessly seeking public support. Public opinion is a huge resource that an organization can use, even if the people do not directly make decisions. Moreover, the public chooses various leaders, who are associated with organized groups. 

Pluralism Examples

• Direct Democracy: The most obvious example of pluralism is direct democracy . In such a political order, each individual has the right to vote on all laws and sometimes even on court decisions. Direct democracy existed in ancient Greek city-states but is quite impossible in today’s populous states. Moreover, it is not even desirable. Scholars argue that political issues require expertise and continuous attention, which the average citizen does not have.
• Modern Indirect Democracies: Most modern democracies are indirect democracies (people rule through their representatives), and pluralism is an essential element of them. Robert Dahl aptly said that “politics is a sideshow in the great circus of life”, meaning that most common people focus their attention on work, family, and friends. Therefore, they must elect representatives who can make political decisions. In a good democracy, pluralism ensures equality of opportunity. Everybody can participate equally in the political process by mobilizing resources , forming groups, and influencing policies.
• Interest Groups: Various interest groups around the world make collective efforts to shape society. For example, in the United States, with increasing environmental degradation, people united to fight against the ill practices of private industries. Scientists and members of Congress also joined in, which led to the enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1955 and the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970.
• End of White Apartheid & Civil Rights Movement: The Apartheid regime in South Africa and the unequal treatment of African Americans in the US were both ended through collective efforts, exemplifying pluralism. South Africa’s apartheid ended through resistance efforts led by Nelson Mandela and global support, making the country democratic by 1994. Similarly, in the US, the civil rights movement fought against racial segregation and discrimination, ultimately leading to laws like The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both these movements exemplify how groups can bring about incredible change in societies.

Assimilation vs Pluralism

While pluralism refers to the coexistence of cultures and cultural blending , assimilation tries to merge these into a single unit.

The metaphor of the “melting pot” is often used to describe assimilation. Different elements go into it, but they are then turned into a single, homogenized whole. Assimilation is defined against pluralism, even though the two phenomena have often coexisted in reality.

Assimilation tries to deal with differences by suggesting that newcomers/outsiders should blend into the dominant society (Gerteis). It does not involve rejecting people who are different but their cultural differences. Essentially, it argues that all members of a society should share a common cultural “core”. (Alexander, 2001).

In contrast, pluralism believes that cultural differences should be recognized and appreciated (instead of being removed or melted into another). In recent times, the term “multiculturalism” has been used to describe this belief; it aims to recognize and respect the multilayered social differences of modern life.

So far, we have discussed how democracies like the United States of America have been pluralist. However, historically, the distribution of power has often been unfair. Chinese immigrants once faced sharp cultural and legal forms of exclusion.

African Americans suffered unequal treatment as late as the second half of the 20th century, which contradicts the American motto of freedom and equality. So, assimilation and pluralism have historically been two opposing beliefs that have shaped most societies.

Pluralism refers to the recognition and acceptance of different viewpoints.

Culturally, it means that people from various backgrounds and different lifestyles can live together peacefully. It also suggests that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

Pluralism is an essential component of most modern democracies, where “majority rule” is replaced by healthy competition between many minority groups . These groups mobilize resources to pursue their collective interests and try to influence policy decisions. Examples of such groups include environmentalists, labor unions, associations like the NRA, etc.

Alexander, J. C. (2001) Theorizing the ‘‘Modes of Incorporation.’’ Sociological Theory.

Gerteis, J. (2007). “American Pluralism” in (ed.) George Ritzer’s The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology . Blackwell.

Scott, J. (2014). A Dictionary of Sociology . Oxford. 

The University of Delaware (2023). “Pluralism”. Retrieved from: https://www1.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/pluralism.html

Witten, D. (2015) “Three Theories of American Democracy”. Mathwizurd . https://www.mathwizurd.com/government/2015/10/12/three-theories-of-american-democracy

• Sourabh Yadav (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Indirect Democracy: Definition and Examples
• Sourabh Yadav (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Equality Examples
• Sourabh Yadav (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Instrumental Learning: Definition and Examples
• Sourabh Yadav (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Impression Management in Sociology (Erving Goffman)

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Ableism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

3 3 The Advantages of Plural Societies

• Published: January 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The second set of moral considerations that bear upon the right of secession relate to the kind of a society that can provide the best context for human beings to live out their lives. Arguably, such a context is provided by plural societies. However, just because a society contains a number of groups, each of which subscribes to a distinct conception of the good, it does not follow that the society values plurality. The conceptual distance between descriptive pluralism and normative pluralism has to be bridged through arguments that concentrate on why plurality is a good. It is suggested that plural societies should be valued because they ( a ) enable the making of worthwhile projects, ( b ) inculcate the spirit of toleration, and ( c ) enable dialogue. The argument draws upon Gandhi’s ideas on how human beings should relate to others, who are not like them, to establish the case for pluralism.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Pluralism is the Lifeblood of a Genuine Democracy

Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies in the University of Oxford, the Isaiah Berlin Professorial Fellow at St. Antony’s College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, explains why democracies thrive when they have a sense of community, identity, and belonging that are open to all, provided that all live by the society's rules, laws, and values.

  Timothy Garton Ash is Professor of European Studies in the University of Oxford, the Isaiah Berlin Professorial Fellow at St. Antony’s College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He writes commentaries for The Guardian and contributes to such publications as The New York Review of Books and Foreign Affairs. Ash is the author of 10 books, including Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World, and The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of ’89 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague.

He begins his conversation with Chris Walsh, Senior Program Manager in the Human Freedom Initiative at the Bush Institute, and William McKenzie, Senior Editorial Advisor at the Bush Institute, offering his definition of “we the people.” He also explains how some populists hate pluralism, but that pluralism is the “lifeblood of a genuine democracy.” And he reports on how Western democracies can manage their flows of immigrants through offering strong education systems, civics education, language programs, and creating a track to citizenship.

We would be interested in your perspective as someone who is not a U.S. citizen on a question that we have put to several American scholars. The question is: How would you interpret or define the American Constitution’s opening statement of “We the people”?

What an interesting question to start with. My spontaneous answer is that it identifies the difference between the U.S. but also Canadian or Australian senses of the people and a traditional European sense of what the people is. 

In German, that would be volk . The folk, the people, would be defined by blood and soil. It would be an ethnic definition of the people. 

The U.S. definition of the people, like also the French and British definition, is a civic democratic definition. That seems to be an important difference. Traditionally, not everyone could become a German or a Pole, but everyone and anyone can become an American.

Traditionally, not everyone could become a German or a Pole, but everyone and anyone can become an American.

You wrote recently about a populism that is defined as “us versus them,” and you have defined “them” as often meaning immigrants and people of a different ethnicity. How, then, do democracies with diverse populations create a common narrative?

This is one of the great challenges of our time for all our democracies. I wrote about this a bit in my book on free speech. My Stanford colleague David Kennedy told me about a cabaret where a deliberately sort of multicolored chorus sang, “In 2042 there’ll be more of us than of you.” In other words, it would be the tipping point, where those categorized as white or Caucasian would become less than the majority, simply a plurality. 

In Germany today, one-in-four people has what’s called a migration background, not just immigrants, but also second or third generation. So, it’s a huge challenge for all of us.

The answers are rather clear. You need senses of community and identity and belonging that are open to all, provided they live by the rules, the laws, and the values of the society in which they live. 

You need senses of community and identity and belonging that are open to all, provided they live by the rules, the laws, and the values of the society in which they live.

Empirically, many of the most successful such identities are local ones. You very often find, for example, in Britain that people will identify very strongly with the city in which they live. There’ll be people of Manchester or of Liverpool or particularly Londoners, who have an almost national sense of identity. But it’s essential that at the level of the nation, you also have an inclusive, civic, liberal patriotism.

You’ve also talked about how, in modern populist movements, populism hates pluralism. So, how do liberal democracies like the United Kingdom, the United States, or others welcome diversity and pluralism into their societies?

Those are two separate things. One is, we have in all our advanced democracies a lot of very unhappy and quite angry people at the moment. What populists do is to cynically channel that all and blame it on “the immigrants” generally without much rational justification. That’s point number one, we simply have to do a better job of explaining the origins of the problems. 

Number two, what distinguishes a tyranny of the majority from a genuine democracy is precisely pluralism. It’s not majority-takes-all. It’s the fact that there are anti-majoritarian institutions. Classically, that means an independent judiciary, the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive, but also the media, churches, universities, and civil society institutions.

Pluralism is the lifeblood of a genuine democracy. Without pluralism, there is no democracy. It’s as simple as that. 

Pluralism is the lifeblood of a genuine democracy. Without pluralism, there is no democracy. It’s as simple as that.

What populists are trying to practice is the theory of the British Constitution. You may laugh because you may think the British don’t have a constitution. We don’t have a written constitution, but we have an unwritten one. And the theory of parliamentary sovereignty is that the majority in Parliament is completely sovereign. 

In classic British constitutional theory, if the Parliament decided that all red-bearded people should be shot tomorrow, then all red-bearded people would be shot tomorrow. But the reality in the British system is one of incredibly rich pluralism. You have an enormously well-established independent judiciary, a powerful independent media, the House of Lords, universities, churches, and so on. It’s all about not having a winner-takes-all tyranny of majority politics.

I’d like to drill down into what you were talking about with Londoners having a strong identity while being part of UK. In your writings, you have defended the right of people to be rooted in more than one place or in more than one way. So, how can people in diverse nations maintain a strong national identity while still having their own particular ethnic, social, or cultural identity?

In principle, it’s not that difficult, because all human beings have multiple identities. I don’t know of any single human being who has only one identity. The question is, how to structure that within a liberal and pluralist democracy.  

I don’t know of any single human being who has only one identity. The question is, how to structure that within a liberal and pluralist democracy. 

The mistake that liberals made over the last 30 years was to go too far down the road of identity politics and a relativist multiculturalism, in which every little community, particularly those of immigrant origin but not only that, was allowed to have its own identity. 

That had two very damaging consequences. One was a moral and cultural relativism: “Your traditional Muslim community restricts the rights of women. That’s fine because that’s your culture.” No, we have to have a set of common standards. 

Secondly, it left the former majority – typically white working class in many of our countries – feeling that everybody else was entitled to their identity politics except them. Then, you get Donald Trump with white-identity politics or Brexit with white-identity politics.

The third thing wrong with it was there wasn’t a strong enough common identity. The flag, the national anthem, the constitution, if you’re lucky enough to have one, are all important in creating a strong common identity. But it’s also very important identifying with personalities.

For the Brits, it’s the Queen, the federal president in Germany, the French president, the symbols of the Republic in France. There’s not just a rational identification, but an emotional identification. An emotional identification with the nation is a key part.

We see some autocracies rising in places like Hungary in part by defining their ethnic identity against others. How might democratic leaders in Europe best uphold what you described as liberalism’s best quest, which is a way for diverse people or peoples to live together well in conditions of freedom? 

Hungary is a classic example of the difference between tyranny of the majority and a proper democracy. Viktor Orbán wins elections, which are not particularly free and fair, partly by scapegoating Roma, Muslims, and, I’m afraid to say, Jews, as he did with the attack on George Soros. This is a classic nationalist ethnic scapegoating, as we’ve known it many, many times in European history. 

What is so shocking about this example, and Poland to a lesser extent, is that these are supposedly democratic countries inside the European Union (EU). Only democracies are to be members of the EU. That’s written into the basic treaties of the EU. Part of the question for Europe is its inability to make a reality of the values it has in its treaties.

Let me pursue this some more. When you have large flows of refugees and immigrants into a country, or as we saw more broadly in Europe a few years ago, what strategies work well in reassuring the citizens of that country that this flow of immigrants or refugees will not replace their national culture?

That’s an excellent question. In absolute terms, even those seemingly large flows at the height of the so-called refugee crisis in 2015 and 2016 were a tiny percentage of the total population of what was then 500 million people in the European Union. The problem was that people in Germany and elsewhere felt that the state was no longer in control. This situation wasn’t being managed. It’s no accident that the great slogan of Brexit was “take back control.”

If the numbers are vast, if they’re 10% of the population in a single year, that’s a challenge. Although please bear in mind that at the end of the Second World War, we had these vast movements of people across the European continent, and post-war West Germany integrated 12 million refugees from the East. So, it can be done. 

It’s the sense that the movement is under control and being managed that is so important. The great example of this is Canada. We did a study at Oxford of how the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Britain manage diversity. The only one of those countries that actually controls its immigration is Canada. All the rest of us have flows that are not fully under control or not under control at all. 

We did a study at Oxford of how the U.S., Canada, France, Germany, and Britain manage diversity. The only one of those countries that actually controls its immigration is Canada. All the rest of us have flows that are not fully under control or not under control at all.

Canada has it completely under control partly because of the blessings of geography, but they also carefully ensure that there’s no single dominant minority. If you look at the Canadian immigration statistics, it’s a rainbow but no single group is dominant. As a result, Canadians are very accepting of immigration and the prime minister can turn around and say, “We’ll take 30,000 or 40,000 refugees from Syria,” and nobody minds. 

The starting point is to be able to manage your immigration. If you let people in, then treat them properly. School them, give them the language skills, give them the vocational skills, It’s very important that people get into the workplace, and put them on a track to citizenship. 

The starting point is to be able to manage your immigration. If you let people in, then treat them properly. School them, give them the language skills, give them the vocational skills. It’s very important that people get into the workplace, and put them on a track to citizenship. 

It’s a two-part thing: Controlling the inflows, but then really integrating people once they’re there.

When I hear you talking, it seems to me that this is how leaders might persuade or show their citizens that diversity may be an advantage to the society, not a hindrance. Are there other ways that leaders can persuade their countries that diversity can be an advantage?

Yes, and I’ll give you a concrete example. In Germany, the biggest single group of migrant origin is Turkish. There’ve been a lot of difficulties about integrating the guest workers and their children, partly because Germany didn’t grant them citizenship. So, people who had been born in Germany were still being treated as foreigners. 

Last year, two scientists, German but of Turkish origin, discovered the BioNTech vaccine. That is the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, which many of us, if we’re lucky, are getting jabs with in our arms. That single fact does more to persuade people of the value of diversity than 100 school classes.  

Individual examples, such as the brilliant footballer or film star who is of immigrant origin, also brings it home to people in the way that statistics never do.

Are there examples at the local level where strategies for integrating immigrants or refugees worked particularly well? If so, what can we learn from them?

Another important thing is television. Nothing does more for the recognition and acceptance of people of different origin than their being on a soap opera. There was a great soap opera in Canada called the Small Mosque on the Prairie. It had a terrific impact. 

That goes to representation by the media and in the media. It really matters that people from a minority see people who look like them on the television screen. Example: The BBC now has a terrific correspondent called Faisal Islam. But Faisal Islam is not their correspondent on Islam, he’s their economics correspondent — and a very good one.

That’s what you need. You need people who are doing, so to speak, ordinary jobs, not just talking about their own communities, but, in some sense, representing those communities. 

As for the local thing, cities and towns are fantastically important. Barcelona, which has a large immigrant population, has an initiative called “We are Barcelona.” Paris has something similar. They use symbols, flags, events and so on to show we’re all in this together. That has a terrific impact. 

Sometimes, it’s easier for people initially to identify at the lower level with the city than it is to identify with the whole country, particularly if the country you’re in is a former colonial country, where your memories of, say, the Brits or the French are not necessarily altogether sweet.

I was fascinated by the story you told about the German Turks who helped put together the vaccine. Are there other ways leaders can reassure their constituents that bringing in immigrants or refugees will be a good thing and not replace their national culture? 

It’s a tricky one, isn’t it? To a significant degree, we are entitled to our own culture. If we think our religious faith is part of our culture, if we think our maternal language is part of our culture, that’s, in a sense, a human and civil right.  

What one can’t do is classic 19th century-style assimilation, where, at the extreme, little children in the Belgian Congo were told that they were Belgians. That is an imperial enterprise. But what one can do is to make sure that everyone speaks the main language of the country or languages of the country really well from an early age, which is often not the case. That everyone knows the history of the country, as well as the history of their own country of origin. That everyone has civics classes, so that there’s a common core of communication there, and that we all meet in the same media spaces.

As we all know, one of the great problems in the United States at the moment is hyperpolarization, where people are simply living in completely different realities. That’s not just a problem between Republicans and Democrats, or between Fox News and MSNBC. It’s also a problem if every local community or every ethnic community has its own particular media world. 

We have to bring those worlds together and having a great public service broadcaster like the BBC or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a very important part of the mix. I devoutly wish we could see the United States getting back to the place where you had a shared public sphere.

• Jul 24, 2024 Media pluralism glossary of terms By: William McKenzie, Chris Walsh
• Jun 27, 2024 SMU student writes children's book encouraging all generations to work across differences Featuring: Chris Walsh
• Apr 30, 2024 Lawmakers must act now to decrease generative AI influence in our institutions By: Michael Bailey

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Science Struck

What is a Pluralistic Society and What are Its Pros and Cons?

People with different backgrounds, belief systems, opinions, likes, and dislikes co-exist in the same society. Such a society represents the very definition of a pluralistic society.

Like it? Share it!

Did You Know?

South Africa is known as a ‘Rainbow Nation’ which can be attributed to the fact that it houses one of the largest pluralistic societies in the world.

A verse in Sanskrit language ends with the words ‘वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम’ (vasudhāiva kutumbakam), which roughly means that this world is one big family. Globalization has gone on to prove it right by bringing the whole world closer on account of the time-space compression. As a result, the boundaries between people have almost vanished. Well, not completely, they pretty much exist mildly so to say.

People of various ethnicity, religious beliefs, races, economic or political background stay together in a single society, and I dare say, rather harmoniously. The acknowledgment of the existence of this diversity by the inhabitants of the society is true ‘pluralism’. It is not the mere display of tolerance that forms such a society, but it also includes the understanding as well as respect towards the differences. There can always be an exchange of healthy criticism or the inhabitants have the choice of keeping their opinions limited to themselves. However, it is of more importance that they are not a nuisance to others.

When people with different origins, backgrounds, belief systems, and other differences come together to form society and live in it, then such society is known as pluralistic society. In this case, there is no force or coercion by anyone or on to discard their existing belief system and adapt to new one. Such a society is more or less based on the principal of ‘Live and Let Live’. Even the minorities are allowed to maintain their own, different identities in the matters that differentiate them.

Advantages of Pluralistic Society

One of the major strengths of a pluralistic society is that its inhabitants have a lot more acceptance and are more tolerant. They try to be much more understanding towards the differences that others may find difficult to accept. They tend to be less prejudiced towards the minorities.

The members of such a society are more inclined towards keeping their beliefs intact and preserving them. The ones who belong to a pluralistic society are able to understand that a different point of view or a different take over a same issue may exist. Trying to lead people with different skills is bound to do good to the leadership skills too. This can eventually aid in the decision-making process.

Weaknesses of Pluralistic Society

There is a risk of alienation among two factions owing to overexposure to each others belief systems. This can lead to hostilities which can easily escalate even by a slightest trigger. This also can be due to favoritism from the authorities towards any particular group over the other. It may be difficult for those who have lived in such a society for all of their lives, to live and adjust in a homogeneous society in a short span of time.

Nations like India and the United States are examples of pluralistic society. The citizens of India follow various religions like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, etc., and yet they stay together. On the other hand in the United States, there are people from varied ethnicity and belonging to various cultures living together. Another example of a pluralistic society would be of Turkey which serves as a melting pot for cultures from two continents. When the formation of a pluralistic society is encouraged, then it is known as active pluralism. The essence of pluralism lies in forging and building social bonds.

Get Updates Right to Your Inbox

Privacy overview.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Conflict Studies
• Development
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Human Rights
• International Law
• Organization
• International Relations Theory
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Geography
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Sexuality and Gender
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Security Studies
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

The pluralist–solidarist debate in the english school.

• William Bain William Bain Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.342
• Published in print: 01 March 2010
• Published online: 11 January 2018

In his 1966 essay, “The Grotian Conception of International Society,” Hedley Bull distinguishes between two conceptions of international society: pluralism and solidarism. The central assumption of solidarism is “the solidarity, or potential solidarity, of the states comprising international society, with respect to the enforcement of the law.” In contrast, pluralism claims that “states do not exhibit solidarity of this kind, but are capable of agreeing only for certain minimum purposes which fall short of that of the enforcement of the law.” Bull’s formulation of pluralism and solidarism, and the way he set the two concepts against one another, exerted a profound influence on subsequent English School scholarship and sparked the pluralist–solidarist debate. This debate revolves around theorizing different kinds of order, in particular international and world order. The English School used the language of “pluralism” and “solidarism” to address the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. After the issue of humanitarian intervention was pushed down the list of scholarly priorities, pluralism and solidarism sparked renewed interest from scholars such as Barry Buzan, Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami, William Bain, and Andrew Hurrell. Despite the debates triggered by the pluralist–solidarist debate, the vocabulary of pluralism and solidarism is a promising means of tackling questions and issues that are undertheorized or largely neglected in English School theory, including those relating to the place of sub- and supranational entities in international society, the meaning and scope of world order, and the significance of international political economy in theorizing different kinds of order.

• Hedley Bull
• international society
• English School
• international order
• world order
• humanitarian intervention
• Barry Buzan
• Andrew Linklater

Introduction

Pluralism and solidarism are possibly the most distinctive of English School categories, excepting perhaps only the master concept of order. The debate to which they give their names is concerned with theorizing different kinds of order, international and world order in particular. It is in this context that pluralism and solidarism have been deployed to serve three principal purposes: an empirical description of a specific kind of order; a normative framework within which to critique a conception of order; and a theory of change that explains transformation within a particular order, as well as the transition from one kind of order to another.

Origins of Debate

The classical account of pluralism and solidarism is given in an essay, “The Grotian Conception of International Society,” which Hedley Bull ( 1966 ) published as part of the influential collection of papers, Diplomatic Investigations . He begins with solidarism, the central assumption of which is “the solidarity, or potential solidarity, of the states comprising international society, with respect to the enforcement of the law.” Opposed to this “Grotian doctrine” is the underlying assumption of pluralism, namely “states do not exhibit solidarity of this kind, but are capable of agreeing only for certain minimum purposes which fall short of that of the enforcement of the law” (Bull 1966 :52). Both positions accept the existence of a genuine international society, the law of which imposes binding obligations on its members; and they are united in rejecting both the “tradition” of realpolitik – that is, an international state of nature in which such obligations are absent – and “doctrines” of universal empire and cosmopolitan society that are given to the subversion of international society. But divergence rears its head when Bull ( 1966 :52–3) considers the extent of agreement disclosed by pluralist and solidarist international societies, specifically as it pertains to the institution of war, sources of international law, and the status of individuals as against the claims of states.

Bull’s ( 1966 ) discussion of war is set within a just war frame, according to which solidarists agree that both the just cause ( jus ad bellum ) and the just conduct of war ( jus in bello ) fall within the purview of international law. Thus, war is conceived as a kind of police action; in other words, it is an act of law enforcement, the legitimacy of which is determined by benefits enjoyed by the society of states as a whole and, more importantly, the individuals residing in these states. In contrast, pluralists accept limitations on the just conduct of war while pulling up short of agreeing on the issue of just cause, at least so far as international law is concerned. In the pluralist view of things, the resort to war is a political rather than legal consideration, which is to say it is a prerogative right of states on which the law is silent (Bull 1966 :54–7).

This contrast is drawn out in consideration of the source of law and the reasons law is regarded as being binding. Pluralists locate the source of law in custom and treaty, and it is binding to the extent that states have given their consent, explicit or tacit, which is to confine legal inquiry to an empirical investigation that tracks the ebb and flow of what states actually do. Solidarists take a rather more expansive approach, one which adds to the voluntary law of custom and treaty – the positive law of nations – a natural law against which the justice and therefore the validity of positive law is measured. The difference, then, is found in a pluralist international society united in the respect of certain minimum purposes secured in positive agreements and a solidarist international society in which right reason illuminates a unity that transcends whatever may be the subject of voluntary agreements underwritten by state consent (Bull 1966 :66–8). Disagreement on the sources of laws also colors how Bull understands the status of individuals in international society. A pluralist world in which true law is that to which states have given their consent is also a world in which states are the only subjects of international law; hence individuals enjoy rights insofar as they are concessions granted by the will of the state. In contrast, the solidarist commitment to natural law, the rule and measure of positive law derived from the nature of man, designates individuals rather than states as the ultimate members of international society (Bull 1966 :68).

Bull’s formulation of pluralism and solidarism, and the way he set the two concepts against one another, would prove to be enormously influential in subsequent English School scholarship. Of course, his conclusions are well known. He betrayed a pronounced worry that the solidarist conception of international society was premature; that it set aspiration before fact in burdening international law with a weight greater than it could reasonably bear ( 1966 :72). That he evinced such a worry did not amount to a denial of movement toward the solidarist position during the latter part of the twentieth century ; rather, it stemmed from his belief that the solidarist fixation with law sought to respond to international delinquency in ways that (perversely) weakened limitations on the use of force. Indeed, attempts to legalize what are in essence political questions – for example, the maintenance of the balance of power – threatened to fray the fabric of a minimal but nonetheless valuable international order. Better, then, Bull argued, to proceed on the basis of the “area of actual agreement between states,” an approach he described as being “superior to one which sets up the law over and against the facts” (Bull 1966 :71–3).

At this point, it might seem as if Bull is an unalloyed spokesman on behalf of the pluralist cause; however, his initial exposition of pluralism and solidarism addresses several complex themes that admit a picture shaded by subtle gradations of color. Most important in this regard is his sensitivity to the status of individuals in international law and how much to make of the divisions that are said to narrow the scope of agreement to certain minimum purposes. Bull followed Lassa Oppenheim most of the way in defending international order in terms of the empirically ascertainable “area of actual agreement between states”; still he conceded that international society disclosed a solidarity so great and so fundamental that “it did not occur” to an archetypical pluralist like Oppenheim “to call it in question” (Bull 1966 :73). Indeed, he never resolved what would come to be seen as a deep-seated tension between what states actually do and the rather more searching claims of this fundamental solidarity. For example, in The Anarchical Society Bull ( 1977 :83) acknowledges the solidarity represented by human rights only to see them as being subversive of international society; for, once human rights are emancipated from the “conspiracy of silence entered into by governments,” they pose a threat to the (pluralist) compact of coexistence between states which is grounded in respect for state sovereignty. Elsewhere, he alludes to a fundamental solidarity, in what John Vincent ( 1990 :43) once described as a “tantalizingly brief passage,” when he writes: “[o]rder among mankind as a whole is something wider than order among states; something more fundamental and primordial than it; and also I should argue, something morally prior to it” (Bull 1977 :22).

Bull ( 1984a ) amplified this tension when, in the Hagey Lectures , he notes that the rights and duties of individuals have taken a place alongside those of states, which is tangible evidence of a profound and relatively recent change in international society. Here again, he warns of “danger,” the subversion of coexistence among states, in promoting human rights globally when there is disagreement as to their meaning and content; and yet he maintains in the face of this danger that there is a “responsibility” to extend the idea of human rights (1984a:12–13). The problem, then, lay in a determination of priorities that would reconcile the claims of order and justice, albeit a determination that did not end up setting either a pluralist preference for order or a solidarist preference for justice above the other. In the end, Bull voiced a preference for a middle way, as is characteristic of English School scholarship, which charted a course between the “conservative” prioritization of order and the “revolutionary” prioritization of justice; for it was a course that rejected a necessary antagonism between order and justice, and, in doing so, sought refuge in the liberal belief that “order in international relations is best preserved by meeting demands for justice, and that justice is best realised in a context of order” (1984a:18). But, even then, he (1984a:18) found it difficult to loosen himself from a deeply entrenched skepticism, as he went on to concede, in what might have been a moment of resignation, that sometimes a reconciliation of order and justice may be impossible, at which point “terrible choices have sometimes to be made.”

Purpose, Procedure, and Humanitarian Intervention

Some English School scholars, Nicholas Wheeler and Timothy Dunne (Wheeler 1992 ; Wheeler and Dunne 1996 ; 1998 ) foremost among them, have seized on this tension in an attempt to shift Bull from the pluralist to the solidarist camp. They argue that through Bull’s pronounced skepticism – his dismissal of natural rights, his distrust of cosmopolitan universalism, and his contempt for those who would set themselves up as the spokesmen of all humankind – the point of greatest consequence is his justification of international society in terms of individual welfare as implied, enigmatically, in The Anarchical Society ( 1977 ) and stated plainly in the Hagey Lectures ( 1984a ). Thus, the conclusion of immediate interest, at least to the student of English School theory, is that Bull was an “ethical universalist” who is rightly regarded as a solidarist (Wheeler 1992 ; Wheeler and Dunne 1996 ; 1998 ).

Of more enduring significance is the extent to which Bull’s odyssey toward solidarism foreshadowed a second major period of thinking about pluralism and solidarism. The superpower rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union instilled in Bull a sense of disillusionment as he came to doubt their ability to moderate parochial interests for the sake of the common good. Indeed, both had shown themselves as having little claim to the title “great responsibles,” much less that of “nuclear trustees for mankind” (Bull 1979 :447). No less important was the so-called “revolt against the west,” whereby Third World demands for political, economic, racial, and cultural liberation heralded the end of a Western dominated international order. Of course, Bull noted the “bitter ironies” of decolonization, among them the fact that many newly independent states had become islands of tyranny; still he insisted that Western countries have an “overriding interest […] to seek to accommodate the demands of the Third World countries for change” (1984a:32–4; 1984b).

This sense of disillusionment was also met with a particular kind of change, John Vincent’s book ( 1986 ) on human rights being an important marker as to its direction, both in English School scholarship and in the real world of the late 1980s. The language of “pluralism” and “solidarism” figures sparingly in Vincent’s book, but they lurk in the background, providing an unarticulated backdrop to the argument that human rights augur, not the subversion of international society, but its consolidation and enhanced legitimacy. Here again, disagreement over the status of individuals in international society shows its face; however, in this instance, Vincent looks away from a pluralist arrangement of coexistence to embrace a theory that starts with a solidarist commitment to human rights. Such a shift radically qualifies the conditions of membership in international society, so that “[t]he failure of a government of a state to provide for its citizens’ basic rights might now be taken as a reason for considering it illegitimate” (Vincent 1986 :123–8). Indeed, it is precisely this manner of thinking that gained traction in the twilight years of the Cold War as superpower rivalry gave way to a “new world order,” an order in which sunny optimism soon collided with the reality that an arrangement of coexistence sustained unviable or collapsed states as well as paralyzed collective responses to end mass starvation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide (Jackson 1990 ). In other words, the killing fields of Rwanda, for example, posed a most searching question, a question fed by waxing doubt that the pluralist conception of international society could sustain an order worth having at all.

In addressing this doubt, the language of “pluralism” and “solidarism” would be deployed to evaluate the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. The standard-bearer of the solidarist argument is Nicholas Wheeler , who picked up on the “profound tension” in Bull’s Hagey Lectures ( 1984a ) and the implications of Vincent’s ( 1986 ) position on state legitimacy to argue: “ states that massively violate human rights should forfeit their right to be treated as legitimate sovereigns, thereby morally entitling other states to use force to stop the oppression ” (Wheeler 2000 :12–13; 1992 :447; emphasis in original). This argument is grounded in what he describes as a moral transformation; namely, the growth of a human rights culture that is evidence of ever-expanding ties of a common humanity, which gives positive effect to the Grotian dictum that it is right to defend the innocent because the society of men is not severed by the institution of political society. The rights of individuals come before those of states. Thus, for Wheeler, humanitarian intervention is justified when it is undertaken to uphold minimum standards of humanity, in instances of “supreme humanitarian emergency,” and when it satisfies certain Just War principles: just cause, last resort, proportionality, and reasonable chance at success ( 2000 :33–1). Fundamental to this argument is the distinctively solidarist claim that respect for sovereign jurisdiction is conditional, which is to say, as Grotius contemplated, that “ [a] Prince who attacks the Life of an innocent Person, is ipso facto no more a Prince ” ( 2005 :II, ix.2; emphasis in original).

That Grotius ended up dismissing this proposition (which he attributed to Vasquez) as “absurd” and “dangerous” seems to undermine his status as the “father of solidarist international society theory,” as Wheeler describes him, and perhaps a great deal of what is justified in respect of his authority (Grotius 2005 :II, ix.2; Wheeler 2000 :45). Like many pluralists, who see in the preservation of particular states the preservation of international society as a whole, Grotius approves of the view expressed by Lucan: the life and safety of many nations might depend on the preservation of a particular king. Thus, Grotius ( 2005 :II, viii–ix.1–2) denies that a thing is destroyed when the advantage of it ceases; in the same vein, “the Right of Sovereignty is not lost by an evil Action , unless it be decreed by some particular Law” (emphasis in original), a law which, in the context of humanitarian intervention, is fleeting, if it exists at all. No less problematic is the way in which Wheeler ( 2000 :11–13, 27–8, 295) relates the categories of pluralism and solidarism to the “question of order versus justice,” as Bull ( 1977 ) described it, whereby the former responds with an answer of “irreconcilable conflict” and the latter with an answer of “mutual interdependence.” It is in this sense that Wheeler describes pluralism as standing for an order that is home to several different conceptions of justice, the implication being that the meaning and content of justice is solely a domestic rather than an international concern. In contrast, the nascent solidarism he wants to champion involves “deepening” international society’s commitment to justice; that is, a justice that transcends particular states and regions, and which mediates whatever value rules of sovereignty and nonintervention impart.

But what Wheeler ( 2000 ) mistakes as a contrast between “irreconcilable conflict” and “mutual interdependence” is better described as the difference between two different conceptions of order and justice, a difference that is drawn out in consideration of pluralist analyses of humanitarian intervention. The tenor of the pluralist approach is captured in the subtitle of James Mayall’s book ( 2000 ) World Politics: Progress and its Limits . Mayall accepts the common distinction between a minimalist pluralist order and a progressive solidarist order; that is, on the one hand, an order limited to the achievement of coexistence among states that subscribe to different interests and values, and, on the other hand, an order premised on common interests and values, immanent in humanity, which are to be self-consciously pursued and realized. So the one, pluralism, stands for a procedural arrangement in which states pursue their self-chosen and often disparate destinations; and the other, solidarism, presupposes a common destination at which states, or, better said, all men and women, might and should one day converge. But, when pushed to choose, Mayall ( 2000 :14, 112) is clear: “the pluralists still hold the ascendancy.” In making this choice, he does not deny the authenticity of solidarist claims, either in terms of sincerity or in actual fact of existence; nor does he rule out the possibility of change so that international society might at some point in the future disclose a degree and kind of unity that it lacks at present. Instead, it is underwritten by an outlook that stresses the importance of continuity over change; that progressive aspirations are inevitably tempered by a sense of tragedy inherent in the human condition; and that a thoroughgoing modesty should curb impetuous moves to radical transformation. Indeed, Mayall steers away from the shoals of cynical pessimism, while avoiding the uncharted waters of unfounded optimism, to argue: “we have no realistic alternative than to approach the future with caution, but also with hope” ( 2000 :149–57).

This same air of caution runs through Robert Jackson’s ( 2000 :379–80) treatment of humanitarian intervention, which takes as its point of departure the question: “what shall take precedence when pluralist norms of state sovereignty come into conflict with solidarist norms of human rights?” His answer is framed in terms of the value imparted by a procedural association, adapted from Michael Oakeshott’s ( 1996 ) notion of practical association, which issues a response to those who would see international society as a “second best” arrangement that falls somewhat short of being genuinely desirable (Brown 1995 :186–90). For Jackson, international society is intelligible in terms of a “global covenant” that is conducted in terms of two distinct but interrelated vocabularies, one concerning a procedural ethics of principle and the other a prudential ethics of virtue. Whereas the former establishes the constitutive rules of a game that Charles Manning ( 1975 :132) once described as “[l]et’s play sovereign states,” the latter establishes purposive maxims according to which the game is played. Thus, Jackson ( 2000 ) conceives states as being associated in respect of procedural norms – equal sovereignty, noninterference, and territorial integrity – the justice of which is determined solely in terms of their authenticity; and these norms, being noninstrumental or moral in character, are to be distinguished from prudential norms; that is, rules of skill, according to which states pursue the satisfaction of substantive wants, desires, and ends.

The point of especial interest is not that Jackson comes out against humanitarian intervention, which he does; it is rather that his rejection of humanitarian intervention escapes the formulation put forward by Wheeler, according to which order and justice are torn asunder in a pluralist “irreconcilable conflict” or, alternatively, reconciled in solidarist “mutual interdependence.” The intelligibility of Jackson’s position comes into view once we consider the way in which the justice of law is determined in international life. In a procedural association, it matters little if law is either harmful or beneficial to the “common good,” if only because the value of the whole is not determined in respect of substantive ends to be achieved; and the merits of different interests, the distribution of goods, or claims of exclusive privilege are, equally, of little consequence. Moreover, the justice of law is not determined by consulting a higher law, a lex naturalis ; nor is it informed by its correspondence with a supreme norm of justice embodied, for example, in a set of inviolable human rights or a list of fundamental human capabilities. Law is indifferent to each of the considerations, all one and the same (Oakeshott 1999 :152–6). For considerations of justice in a procedural association are cast as a formal affair that asks no more, and demands no less, than persons (natural and legal) observe the authority of rules of law in pursuit of their self-chosen interests and wants. Thus, “the only ‘justice’ the rule of law can accommodate,” Oakeshott explains, “is faithfulness to the formal principles inherent in the character of lex : non-instrumentality, indifference to persons and interests, the exclusion of prive-lege and outlawry, and so on” ( 1999 :173).

It is in this context that Jackson ( 2000 ) adopts an antipaternal ethics, the heart of which is the peremptory norm of noninterference, in characterizing intervention as a prima facie wrong, barring some justification granting special dispensation that does not yet exist. Indeed, his subordination of solidarist norms to pluralist norms is unequivocally clear: “the stability of international society, especially the unity of the great powers, is more important, indeed far more important, than minority rights and humanitarian protections in Yugoslavia or any other country – if we have to choose between those two sets of values” ( 2000 :251–2, 291). This conclusion does not announce an indifference to human suffering; it does not deny the authenticity of human rights; and it does not forsake justice, as such, to the duress of necessitous choices, no matter how “terrible” they might seem. What it does rest upon is the claim that human rights and other solidarist values can and must be pursued within a pluralist framework, but only to a point. There is, then, no opposition of order and justice, that is, an “irreconcilable conflict” between an international order and many (domestic) conceptions of justice. Intervention is morally wrong in Jackson’s view because it violates (international) principles of justice that demand respect for procedural rules of mutual accommodation; and it is prudentially ill advised because it threatens to undermine international order, imperfect though it might be, because war is often “the greatest threat to human rights” ( 2000 :291–3). For this conception of order and justice demands respect for diversity and difference as people go about pursuing their self-chosen ends, while counseling a policy of moderation and restraint in the event that injury is received.

Theorizing World Order

The English School focus on humanitarian intervention has to some extent been overtaken by events: interest in terrorism, preventive war, and empire are among the issues that have pushed humanitarian intervention down the list of scholarly priorities. But this transition has created space for renewed interest in pluralism and solidarism, albeit in a wider context that considers notions of world society and global order, as well as ways that pluralism and solidarism might be related to one another in an ordered and coherent manner. One of the most ambitious contributions in this regard is Barry Buzan’s ( 2004 ) social structural reworking of English School theory in which a critique of pluralism and solidarism is a prelude to articulating a theory of world society. He sees in contending accounts of solidarism ample room for confusion, for it is unclear if solidarism refers to normative agreement among the (state) members of international society or if it refers to a community of rights bearing individuals that is independent of the society of states. In the case of the former, we might look to Vincent ( 1986 ), who argues that agreement on human rights provides evidence of a progressive solidarism that transcends the minimalist egg-box of international society but which falls short of the destructive omelet of cosmopolitan morality. Regarding the latter, we might look to Bull, who early in his career defended the society of states against an “immanent community of mankind” ( 1966 :73) that was destined to destroy arrangements of coexistence and cooperation, and substitute in their place the “true faith” of a cosmopolitan morality ( 1977 :25–6). Buzan is scarcely more satisfied with the way in which pluralism is conceptualized, although he concedes that its greater coherence is attributable to an unambiguously statist orientation. Still, he worries ( 2004 :50) that sharply contrasting pluralism and solidarism simply reproduces within an English School frame the all too familiar contest between realist statism and liberal individualism.

Buzan attempts to move beyond this conceptual confusion by conceiving pluralism and solidarism as two ends of a spectrum that describe different types of international societies with reference to the “thinness” and “thickness” of shared norms, rules, and institutions. The chief advantage of this approach is found in the space it creates for consideration of shared values that do not fit well into the liberal frame which he sees as dominating most international society thinking. Once we move beyond this frame, Buzan argues, it is possible to imagine international societies or regional groupings of states as solidarist communities constituted, for example, by “communist ‘peoples republics’, or Islamic states, or monarchies, or any other form of ideological standardisation” – that is, solidarist international societies that might be illiberal ( 2004 :139–47). Crucially, Buzan severs what is often taken to be a necessary link between solidarism and cosmopolitan values; and, in doing so, solidarism is no longer reduced to human rights as Vincent and advocates of humanitarian intervention, such as Wheeler, seem to do. Thus, a spectrum defined by pluralism and solidarism provides a way of describing different types of international society; it describes the types of values they share as well as the depth with which they are shared; and, consequently, it highlights the way in which coercion, calculation, and belief sustain these values. A key aspect of this argument is that solidarism builds on pluralism, so that a move from pluralism toward solidarism involves adding to characteristically pluralist values of survival and self-interest (Buzan 2004 :152–60). Buzan is then in a position to describe differences that separate international societies as well as to make sense of the change that takes place within them.

Buzan’s approach to theorizing pluralism and solidarism is motivated by his dissatisfaction with the “normative stand” of English School theory (the distinction is his) which, he argues, “often flounders in conceptual confusion” ( 2004 :229). There have been few self-conscious responses to this charge of confusion, but scholars identified with a putative normative wing have continued to theorize various kind of order in terms of pluralism and solidarism. For example, Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami ( 2006 ) pick up on Bull’s writings on the relation between international order and world order to explore what they describe as the growth of civility in international society, an idea, or rather a kind of social learning, that points the way to “progressive possibilities” in world politics. Unlike some English School theorists, who identify solidarism with a progressive outlook, they do not subsume pluralism to an anti-progressive narrative of coexistence. A pluralist international society admits a “qualified progressive interpretation,” they argue, in that it places mutually recognized limits on the use of force, which is an advance over what would be expected in a system of states ( 2006 :120–31). But this progressive interpretation is limited by three problems, or what Linklater and Suganami call “moral deficits”: lack of respect for the rights of small powers and indigenous peoples, and inadequate measures designed to protect human rights. And it is in light of the contradictions posed by these deficits that they explore new forms of political organization and action, namely those which “reduce or overcome tensions between civility and uncivility” ( 2006 :131–5). So, whereas a pluralist international society stands for a limited degree of civility between independent political communities, a solidarist international society is the result of a growth in civility between these communities as well as between ordinary men and woman.

It is against this backdrop that Linklater and Suganami ( 2006 ) attempt to bridge the ideas of international order and world order with so-called “cosmopolitan harm conventions” that shift the emphasis from protecting states to non-sovereign communities and individuals. These harm conventions are tangible evidence of social learning, an idea, they hasten to point out, that has been largely neglected by English School theorists. And this concern with harm stems not from a desire to align the present world with some abstract conception with which it ought to conform, but from the reality that limiting injurious action is an enduring feature of international life (Linklater and Suganami 2006 :176–88). Thus, the road leading away from pluralism and its attendant moral deficits is that traveled by the “good international citizen” and it is signposted by four (main) principles: (1) restraint in the pursuit of national objectives; (2) respect for the principle of reciprocity; (3) recognition of the unintended consequences that often accompany the security dilemma; and (4) a fair balance between national security and the insecurity experienced by others. In other words, the notion of good international citizenship, informed by cosmopolitan harm conventions, asks that care be exercised in an attempt to avoid mental and bodily harm; and it announces an injunction against indifference to the suffering of others (Linklater and Suganami 2006 :237–8). The important point, indeed, the point of originality, is that Linklater and Suganami escape the destructive antinomies of a premature cosmopolitan order and an already existing, albeit imperfect, international order. Indeed, theirs is not an argument stipulated from outside international society; it is one about immanent potential whereby the “emphasis […] is on duties to avoid harm which are already recognizable features of international society and of the overwhelming majority of its constituent parts” ( 2006 :256).

An alternative to the conventionalist argument given by Linklater and Suganami ( 2006 ) is one that discloses both naturalist and conventionalist elements, which is implicit in the historical narrative English School theorists want to tell about the expansion of international society. For William Bain ( 2007 ), pluralism and solidarism are best understood in terms of an ordered relationship whereby the one cannot be separated from the other. It is then possible to make sense of international society, that is, the society of states, as well as a community of all humankind without having to confront that familiar confrontation of a human community threatening the minimalist and imperfect order achieved in an association of states. An argument of this sort also relieves the pressure of having to choose between solidarist and pluralist values as do the likes of Wheeler ( 2000 ) and Jackson ( 2000 ) in the context of humanitarian intervention. Both end up making a choice in favor of one set of values, thereby subordinating the one to the other, while distorting the full moral claim of both. Indeed, international society has never been tolerant in the way that pluralists suggest, and it cannot be unified in the way that solidarists want; and yet the voices of pluralism and solidarism have always been fully audible throughout the history of international society, in spite of the popular (though incorrect) view that solidarist discourses of individual rights and human sympathy were fleeting prior to the emergence of a human rights culture in the twentieth century (Bain 2003 ; 2007 :573).

The task, then, is not to describe international society as being on balance more or less pluralist (or solidarist); it is to theorize the relationship that obtains between pluralism and solidarism. Bain ( 2007 ) understands this relationship in terms of two distinct modes of association – one expressed by a (solidarist) law of reason and the other by a (pluralist) law of will – that reconciles the coexistence of pluralism and the unity of solidarism in a single, intellectually coherent argument. In other words, it joins the purposive “oneness of humanity” implied by human community and the practical “social cooperation” implied by the society of states as distinct yet inseparable parts of a whole. Thus, there is no tension between competing conceptions of pluralist and solidarist order; rather, there is a single order conducted with reference to two kinds of law. Indeed, it is on this footing that Bain is able to push Vincent’s attempt to found international society on human rights further, for the progressive alignment of “man” and “citizen” in terms of these two kinds of law also entails a world of a particular sort: “a world in which the law of reason that expresses human community is held out as the rule and measure of a law of will that expresses the society of states” (Bain 2007 :559, 570). This approach also holds out an answer, which is different in kind from that offered by either Linklater and Suganami ( 2006 ) or Wheeler and Dunne (Wheeler 1992 ; Wheeler and Dunne 1996 ; 1998 ), to the unresolved tension in Bull’s ( 1977 ) justification of international order in terms of its contribution to world order; namely, human community and international society are the names of distinct but inseparable parts of a whole that is world order (Bain 2007 :575).

The most recent entry into the field is Andrew Hurrell’s ( 2007 ) On Global Order , which takes the assertion that there can be no retreat to pluralism as its starting point. In short, increasing economic and human interconnectedness, as well as the ties of transnational or global civil society, have undermined the case for pluralism, just as ecological crisis and changing security threats have highlighted the inability of pluralist arrangements of coexistence to cope with truly global problems. Add to this the moral failings of pluralist international society, specifically the absence of adequate protections against even the most egregious human rights abuses, not to mention the glaring disparities of global inequality, and Hurrell is convinced that “there is no acceptable or viable way of reasserting a pluralist view of international society” ( 2007 :57, 292–6). There is simply no path on which to beat a retreat. Instead, Hurrell argues that global conditions are such that there is little alternative to striving for ever more extensive forms of collaboration and cooperation. For he sees, like Linklater and Suganami ( 2006 ), the gradual emergence and consolidation of a truly global order that is reflected in the convergence of shared practices, shared understandings, and a growing (global) moral consciousness. This development is intelligible in the entrenchment of liberal solidarist norms, the “density, scope, and complexity” of which “provide some basis for positing a community of interest or an agreed set of purposes and values against which new substantive norms may be judged – the idea of an objective community interest or of the common interest of global society” (Hurrell 2007 :299–304). And this global society is conducted in respect of processes which, again in the same vein as Linklater and Suganami ( 2006 ), seek to secure greater legitimacy through acceptance of equality of status, respect, and consideration, as well as acceptance of reciprocity and autonomous decision making (Hurrell 2007 :315–16).

The Vocabulary of Debate

An intellectual history of the “pluralist–solidarist debate” suggests less a tightly focused, self-conscious debate than a vocabulary in terms of which English School theorists have engaged a range of disputations that coalesce loosely around different ways of theorizing different kinds of order in international life. The purposes of engagement are many. Bull initially used pluralism and solidarism as a way of conveying an empirical description of international society; or, as Suganami ( 2002 :13) puts it, “pluralism and solidarism, as defined by Bull , are in essence differing judgments about the extent of solidarity or potential solidarity present in the existing international society” (emphasis in original). In later writings, Bull deployed the vocabulary of pluralism and solidarism to explain the transformation of international society brought about by the “revolt against the west,” a change that also provoked reflection on the normative justification of international society as such. This same mix of empirical description, transformative explanation, and normative evaluation is evident in most attempts to theorize international society in terms of pluralism and solidarism. For example, Jackson ( 2000 ) describes the world as being mainly pluralist in character before providing a sustained normative defense of a pluralist global covenant. Hurrell ( 2007 ) argues precisely the opposite: palpable change in the direction of solidarist interconnectedness makes a return to pluralism impossible, thereby opening the door to a solidarist (normative) justification of international order ( 2007 :65).

It is this plasticity of meaning and usage that situates pluralism and solidarism at the heart of the English School theoretical enterprise. As a vocabulary, rather than a precisely defined debate, they are given to the analysis of questions that Bull did not address and perhaps did not anticipate. Traditional questions pertaining to the institution of war, the sources of international law, and the status of individuals in international society now share the intellectual stage with questions that explore the character of regional international societies, to give but one example. Of course, there should be little doubt that ever-changing circumstances in a fluid and dynamic world will invest newfound importance in perennial English School questions, such as the conditions of membership in the society of states or the patterns of interaction that are distinctive of interstate relations. However, there is every reason to believe that the vocabulary of pluralism and solidarism can be adapted to address questions and issues that are undertheorized or largely neglected in English School theory, including those relating to the place of sub- and supranational entities in international society, the meaning and scope of world order, and the significance of international political economy in theorizing different kinds of order. Indeed, a vocabulary of pluralism and solidarism, plastic in meaning and adaptable to circumstance, is most likely to enjoy a prominent place in future English School scholarship.

• Bain, W. (2003) Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bain, W. (2007) One Order, Two Laws: Recovering the “Normative” in English School Theory. Review of International Studies 33, 557–75.
• Brown, C. (1995) International Theory and International Society: The Viability of the Middle Way. Review of International Studies 21, 183–96.
• Bull, H. (1966) The Grotian Conception of International Society. In H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds.) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 51–73.
• Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Bull, H. (1979) The Great Irresponsibles? The United States, the Soviet Union, and World Order. International Journal 35 (3), 437–47.
• Bull, H. (1984a) Justice in International Relations: 1983–4 Hagey Lectures . Ontario: University of Waterloo.
• Bull, H. (1984b) The Revolt against the West. In H. Bull and A. Watson (eds.) The Expansion of International Society . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 217–28.
• Buzan, B. (2004) From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Grotius, H. (2005) [1625] The Rights of War and Peace , ed. R. Tuck , 3 vols. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
• Hurrell, A. (2007) On Global Order: Power, Values, and the Constitution of International Society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, R. (1990) Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Jackson, R. (2000) The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Linklater, A. , and Suganami, H. (2006) The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Assessment . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Manning, C.A.W. (1975) The Nature of International Society . London: Macmillan.
• Mayall, J. (2000) World Politics: Progress and its Limits . Cambridge: Polity.
• Oakeshott, M. (1996) On Human Conduct . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Oakeshott, M. (1999) The Rule of Law: On History and Other Essays . Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
• Suganami, H. (2002) The International Society Perspective on World Politics Reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 2, 1–28.
• Vincent, R.J. (1986) Human Rights and International Relations . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Vincent, R.J. (1990) Hedley Bull and Order in International Politics. In J.D.B. Miller and R.J. Vincent (eds.) Order and Violence: Hedley Bull and International Relations . Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 39–62.
• Wheeler, N. (1992) Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society. Millennium 21 (3), 463–87.
• Wheeler, N. (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wheeler, N. , and Dunne, T. (1996) Hedley Bull’s Pluralism of the Intellect and Solidarism of the Will. International Affairs 72 (1), 91–107.
• Wheeler, N. , and Dunne, T. (1998) Hedley Bull and the Idea of a Universal Moral Community: Fictional, Primordial, or Imagined? In B.A. Roberson (ed.) International Society and the Development of International Relations . London: Pinter, pp. 43–58.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 19 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.151.9]
• 185.80.151.9

Character limit 500 /500

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Pluralism and society summary notes

OCR Christianity

This page contains summary revision notes for the Christian moral action topic. There are two versions of these notes. Click on the A*-A grade tab, or the B-C grade tab, depending on the grade you are trying to get.

Find the full revision page here.

Topic summary:

Traditional Christians: (Paul Eddy, Ratzinger & JP2) say dialogue and conversion can be combined.

Post-liberal christians (David Ford’s ‘Scriptural reasoning’) who say dialogue and conversion must be separated.

Secular liberals (Hitchens) who argue dialogue and conversion must be separated.

So – when asked about the validity of conversion or dialogue – the question is which form of it is valid – the traditional, scriptural reasoning, or are the secular liberal’s views on it right.

The scriptural reasoning movement

• Modern form of inter-faith dialogue
• People of different religions get together and read each other’s holy books, discussing meanings and interpretations.
• The goal is just to promote understanding and friendship across faith divides.
• Trying to convert others or criticise other religions is not allowed.
• It was founded by David Ford (Anglican) and Peter Ochs (Jewish), among others.
• The liberal approach forces the acceptance of differences, by not allowing criticism or conversion or even expressing your love for your own faith.
• Ironically, this ends up actually not accepting difference – because criticism, conversion and love for one’s faith are key elements of religious faith.
• Liberal approaches to inter-faith dialogue attempt to bring people together on a neutral ground where no one even professes much about the value they find in their own religion.
• The problem is, this leads to relativism – suggesting all religions are equal.
• That is not genuine inter- faith dialogue – liberalism sacrifices the faith part to enable the dialogue part.
• Liberalism wants to carve out a middle-ground where all religions respect each other – that’s the right context for society to be peaceful and for dialogue to be respectful.
• Scriptural reasoning is meant to avoid this problem by being ‘post-liberal’. 
• Unlike liberal approaches, it allows people to freely express the value and love they have for their own faith/tradition.
• By accepting difference, postliberal form of interfaith dialogue attempts to avoid liberalism’s issue of leading to relativism.
• Scriptural reasoning is trying to keep things productive and polite – but also enabling people to genuinely express their own exclusivist attitude towards their faith.
• Gavin D’Costa argued that scriptural reasoning was relativistic:
• “there is a vaguely pluralistic agenda present.” – D’Costa.
• D’Costa points out that criticising other religions and trying to convert them is part of
• religion, whether you’re an exclusivist or an inclusivist.
• If scriptural reasoning doesn’t allow that – then it’s not really fully allowing religious people to express themselves – so it’s not genuine inter-faith dialogue.
• E.g. A Muslim will think that the New Testament is somewhat valid but mixed with error, for example. They would try and convert Christians as a result.
• If they are not allowed to do that, by the rules of scriptural reasoning meetings, then people can’t express their whole true genuine faith in those meetings.
• In that case, scriptural reasoning is actually just like the liberal approach to inter-faith dialogue.
• It prevents the expression of faith to enable dialogue – but ends up not being genuine inter- faith dialogue.
• Scriptural reasoning excludes exclusivism. 

Evaluation:

• Conversion does undermine dialogue, so it’s understandable why liberalism and scriptural reasoning wanted to separate them.
• However, conversion is part of faith. Genuine interfaith dialogue has to allow for conversion.
• This does limit the benefits of interfaith dialogue for social cohesion, but there is no other way for dialogue to be genuinely interfaith.
• Scriptural reasoning is a specific activity with a specific goal. It’s trying to bring people together to promote understanding.
• It’s fair to ban criticism and conversion when the goal of the meetings is just to promote understanding.
• This is not promoting relativism – it’s not suggesting there is no one true religion, it’s just trying to get people to understand other religions. Promoting understanding is good, because humans have always feared what they don’t understand. 

Paul Eddy (COE) & Ratzinger (became Pope benedict XVI) paragraph – the issue of secular liberal pressure on exclusivism.

• One approach of liberal secular culture to solve this paradox of interfaith dialogue has been to try and push religious people towards pluralism.
• If religious people were pluralists, they wouldn’t seek to convert others. Then, interfaith dialogue could be separated from conversion to enable social cohesion, without sacrificing the ‘faith’ element.
• So, liberal secular culture views exclusivist attitudes and conversion as intolerant and causing social tensions.
• Ratzinger noted this emerging dynamic, that secular culture has started to be intolerant of views such as Jesus being the only (exclusivist) or full (inclusivist) truth.
• Paul Eddy made a similar complaint, that Christians are made to feel guilty for believing that Jesus is the way, truth and life and for converting others.
• Christians are being socially pressured into relativistic pluralism.
• Eddy said that there is a ‘strategic, highly-politicised marginalisation of Christianity in the public arena’
• Eddy and Ratzinger have a point that secular society would prefer religious people to adopt pluralism, because that would result in less social tensions. 
• The issue is, religious people aren’t going to be happy with being guilt tripped and shamed away from their traditional beliefs, which itself causes social tensions. 
• Traditionally religious people like Eddy and Ratzinger feel like their religious freedom is under attack and this can cause a backlash, pushing religious people to become more traditional in the hope of protecting their interests.
• This backlash can be seen in the increasing levels of religious political activism, such as the overturning of abortion laws in America. Christians feel like their way of life isn’t going to be tolerated in liberal society, so feel the need to wage a culture war to protect their interests.
• Secular liberals like C. Hitchens respond that social pressure on traditional exclusivism is justified because exclusivism causes social tensions & problems.
• Liberalism has a tension with religion. Liberalism has to accept conversion – but the attitude behind conversion is not very liberal.
• Liberalism wants everyone to get along and accept each other’s differences, but traditional religion can’t do that. So it’s inevitable that liberalism will impose this pressure on traditional religion’s illiberal authoritarianism.
• Religious intolerance and even violence has occured throughout history and still occurs around the world.
• Religious people should therefore be made to feel guilty about being exclusivist, since that attitude causes social problems.
• Religious freedom includes the freedom to criticise religion. 
• Eddy and Ratzinger are revealing the authoritarian impulse of religion to be unable to accept being a private matter. They are complaining about being equal. They seem to think religion should have the power to be above criticism.
• This attitude does have no place in a free secular society.

JP2 Redemptoris Missio – JP2 defends an inclusivist approach to interfaith dialogue and conversion

• Inclusivism is the view that Christianity is the one true religion, but God reveals himself through other religions. God tries to reach people in other religions through their religion.
• JP2 says that this means there is Christian truth in other religions (though mixed with error).
• So, Christians should engage in tolerant open-minded dialogue with those of other faiths.
• They can thereby learn about the truth that the Christian God has revealed in other religions.
• JP2 says that the ultimate aim of dialogue is conversion, however. He claims dialogue leads to conversion.
• However, dialogue is mutually enriching and can be done with deep respect and eliminate prejudice and intolerance, thus enabling social cohesion.
• So JP2 would reject the scriptural reasoning separation of dialogue from conversion.

Evaluation: 

• Hans Kung criticises catholic inclusivism – saying it is ‘presumptuous’ – and Hick agrees, saying it is ‘offensive’ – to say that non-Christians are deep down really responding to the Christian God through their own religion.
• When a Hindu prays – they think they are praying to their Gods, but actually it is the Christian God trying to reach them through their own religion.
• This is worse than being told they have the wrong religion – inclusivism says non-christians have been worshipping and following the Christian God without knowing it.
• John Paull II talks about ‘deep respect’ and ‘dignity’ and enriching both sides, but these words ring hollow when one realises the reason he is saying them. Which is merely that the reason he respects other religions is that they are unknowingly worshipping his God. 
• At least under exclusivism, it’s possible for different religions to reach the mutual understanding of agreeing to disagree.
• The Catholic inclusivist approach cannot achieve mutual understanding because it regards other religions as a confused version of christianity.
• So the inclusivist approach to dialogue and conversion is unable to enable social cohesion.

Redemptoris Missio AND the COE’s ‘sharing the gospel of salvation’ arguing that conversion is valid and good.

• JP2 Redemptoris Missio – argument for the validity of conversion
• JP2 says that conversion has come to be regarded as negative in much of mainstream secular liberal culture.
• He argues that actually conversion is positive because it is part of a free society that people should be free to try and convert others.
• Furthermore, JP2 points to St Paul who said ‘woe to me if I do not preach the gospel’ (1 Corinthians 9)
• However, he emphasises that conversion must be done in a respectful way.
• Missionaries must be respectful of people’s freedom of conscience.
• Sharing the gospel of salvation paragraph 
• Church of England document.
• It is about the question of how Christians should relate to and get on with those of different faiths in today’s multi-faith society.
• The document affirms the traditional belief that Jesus has a unique role to play in salvation.
• The ‘highest calling’ of the Church is to proclaim Jesus.
• Jesus is indeed the way, the truth and the life – so Christians should share their religion with others in the hope of converting them.
• The document resulted from Paul Eddy’s address to the Synod where he called for the Church to affirm the importance of conversion.
• The document notes how Eddy received widespread support from all different factions within the Church (of England).
• The document accepted this, though it warns that conversion should be done in a respectful way.
• It says we shouldn’t view non-Christians as ‘targets’ of an advertising campaign, for example.
• They should just be earnestly and genuinely told the good news.
• Secular liberal progressives would criticise the idea of conversion as insensitive and encouraging of social tensions.
• They would point out that Christianity throughout history has spread itself by the sword – through violence.
• Christianity is still currently benefiting from that history of forced conversion because it now has many colonised countries who are now predominantly Christian – e.g. in Africa and south america.
• The main reason these countries are currently mostly Christian is because they were forced to become Christian in the past.
• So Christianity currently still benefits from its history of forced conversion, even though it no longer engages in that.
• So, if Christians really want to make up for and apologize for that history, they should stop trying to convert people completely. (Giles Fraser – priest – accepts most of this argument)
• So, Christians should not engage in conversion at every opportunity – they should instead take more opportunity to try to make amends for the brutal past which they still are benefitting from in the form of inheriting many of their current believers from that unjust history of forced conversion.
• Different religions get together and reach each other’s holy books.
• They discuss meanings and interpretations of passages.
• The goal is just to promote understanding and friendship.
• Initially it was just abrahamic religions (Chrisitianity, Judaism & Islam) but recently has branched out to include other religions too.
• It was founded by David Ford (anglican) and Peter Ochs (Jewish) among others.
• Gavin D’Costa (catholic theologian) criticises scriptural reasoning as relativistic – the view that all religions are true.. 
• Criticising other religions and trying to convert them is part of religion.
• If scriptural reasoning doesn’t allow that – then it’s not really fully allowing religious people to express themselves – so it’s not genuine dialogue.
• For example, A Muslim will think that the New Testament is somewhat valid but mixed with error, for example. They would try and convert Christians as a result.
• It prevents the expression of faith to enable dialogue – but ends up not being genuine inter-faith dialogue and instead promoting relativism.

Paul Eddy & Ratzinger on secular liberal pressure against exclusivism

• Ratzinger said that liberal secular culture has started to promote relativism and create an intolerance of exclusivism.
• Proclaiming Jesus as the full truth, and that other religions are wrong, is called intolerant.
• Paul Eddy made arguments to the general synod of the Church of England, which prompted the creation of the ‘Sharing the Gospel of Salvation’ document.
• Eddie complained that Christians were made to feel guilty for believing that Jesus is the way, truth and life. Secular liberals try and make exclusivist Christians feel guilty by calling them intolerant.
• Conversion and proper interfaith dialogue is not possible because of this pressure.
• Eddy insisted that Christians should not be made to feel guilty for being exclusivist – and they should try and convert others. 
• Eddy and Ratzinger would not approve of the scriptural reasoning approach for this reason.
• Secular liberals respond that social pressure on traditional exclusivism is justified because exclusivism causes social tensions & problems.

Redemptoris Missio AND the COE’s ‘sharing the gospel of salvation’ arguing for dialogue AND the conservative approach to conversion.

JP2’s “Redemptoris Missio” document – argument for the validity of conversion

• He argues that actually it is positive – it is part of a free society that people should be free to try and convert others.
• JP2 is an inclusivist, claiming there is Christian truth in other religions (though mixed with error).
• So, Christians should engage in tolerant open-minded dialogue with those of other faiths which can eliminate prejudice and intolerance, thus enabling social cohesion.
• JP2 still has a conservative approach to interfaith dialogue however, since he says that the ultimate aim of dialogue is conversion.
• JP2 would disagree with the scriptural reasoning approach to dialogue because it does not allow conversion.

The Church of England’s “Sharing the gospel of salvation” document.

• The document affirms that Jesus has a unique role to play in salvation.
• The document accept this, though it warns that conversion should be done in a respectful way.
• We shouldn’t view non-Christians as ‘targets’ of an advertising campaign, for example.
• This would disagree with the scriptural reasoning approach to dialogue because it does not allow conversion.
• Christianity is still currently benefiting from that history of forced conversion because it now has many colonised countries who are predominantly Christian – e.g. in Africa and south america.
• That’s how Christianity currently still benefits from its history of forced conversion, even though it no longer engages in that.
• So, if Christians really want to make up for an apologize for that history and encourage proper dialogue with others as true equals, they should stop trying to convert people completely.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation

2. diversity and pluralism, table of contents.

• The dimensions of Hindu nationalism in India
• India’s Muslims express pride in being Indian while identifying communal tensions, desiring segregation
• Muslims, Hindus diverge over legacy of Partition
• Religious conversion in India
• Religion very important across India’s religious groups
• Near-universal belief in God, but wide variation in how God is perceived
• Across India’s religious groups, widespread sharing of beliefs, practices, values
• Religious identity in India: Hindus divided on whether belief in God is required to be a Hindu, but most say eating beef is disqualifying
• Sikhs are proud to be Punjabi and Indian
• Most Indians say they and others are very free to practice their religion
• Most people do not see evidence of widespread religious discrimination in India
• Most Indians report no recent discrimination based on their religion
• In Northeast India, people perceive more religious discrimination
• Most Indians see communal violence as a very big problem in the country
• Indians divided on the legacy of Partition for Hindu-Muslim relations
• More Indians say religious diversity benefits their country than say it is harmful
• Indians are highly knowledgeable about their own religion, less so about other religions
• Substantial shares of Buddhists, Sikhs say they have worshipped at religious venues other than their own
• One-in-five Muslims in India participate in celebrations of Diwali
• Members of both large and small religious groups mostly keep friendships within religious lines
• Most Indians are willing to accept members of other religious communities as neighbors, but many express reservations
• Indians generally marry within same religion
• Most Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Jains strongly support stopping interreligious marriage
• India’s religious groups vary in their caste composition
• Indians in lower castes largely do not perceive widespread discrimination against their groups
• Most Indians do not have recent experience with caste discrimination
• Most Indians OK with Scheduled Caste neighbors
• Indians generally do not have many close friends in different castes
• Large shares of Indians say men, women should be stopped from marrying outside of their caste
• Most Indians say being a member of their religious group is not only about religion
• Common ground across major religious groups on what is essential to religious identity
• India’s religious groups vary on what disqualifies someone from their religion
• Hindus say eating beef, disrespecting India, celebrating Eid incompatible with being Hindu
• Muslims place stronger emphasis than Hindus on religious practices for identity
• Many Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists do not identify with a sect
• Sufism has at least some followers in every major Indian religious group
• Large majorities say Indian culture is superior to others
• What constitutes ‘true’ Indian identity?
• Large gaps between religious groups in 2019 election voting patterns
• No consensus on whether democracy or strong leader best suited to lead India
• Majorities support politicians being involved in religious matters
• Indian Muslims favor their own religious courts; other religious groups less supportive
• Most Indians do not support allowing triple talaq for Muslims
• Southern Indians least likely to say religion is very important in their life
• Most Indians give to charitable causes
• Majorities of Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jains in India pray daily
• More Indians practice puja at home than at temple
• Most Hindus do not read or listen to religious books frequently
• Most Indians have an altar or shrine in their home for worship
• Religious pilgrimages common across most religious groups in India
• Most Hindus say they have received purification from a holy body of water
• Roughly half of Indian adults meditate at least weekly
• Only about a third of Indians ever practice yoga
• Nearly three-quarters of Christians sing devotionally
• Most Muslims and few Jains say they have participated in or witnessed animal sacrifice for religious purposes
• Most Indians schedule key life events based on auspicious dates
• About half of Indians watch religious programs weekly
• For Hindus, nationalism associated with greater religious observance
• Indians value marking lifecycle events with religious rituals
• Most Indian parents say they are raising their children in a religion
• Fewer than half of Indian parents say their children receive religious instruction outside the home
• Vast majority of Sikhs say it is very important that their children keep their hair long
• Half or more of Hindus, Muslims and Christians wear religious pendants
• Most Hindu, Muslim and Sikh women cover their heads outside the home
• Slim majority of Hindu men say they wear a tilak, fewer wear a janeu
• Eight-in-ten Muslim men in India wear a skullcap
• Majority of Sikh men wear a turban
• Muslim and Sikh men generally keep beards
• Most Indians are not vegetarians, but majorities do follow at least some restrictions on meat in their diet
• One-in-five Hindus abstain from eating root vegetables
• Fewer than half of vegetarian Hindus willing to eat in non-vegetarian settings
• Indians evenly split about willingness to eat meals with hosts who have different religious rules about food
• Majority of Indians say they fast
• More Hindus say there are multiple ways to interpret Hinduism than say there is only one true way
• Most Indians across different religious groups believe in karma
• Most Hindus, Jains believe in Ganges’ power to purify
• Belief in reincarnation is not widespread in India
• More Hindus and Jains than Sikhs believe in moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth)
• Most Hindus, Muslims, Christians believe in heaven
• Nearly half of Indian Christians believe in miracles
• Most Muslims in India believe in Judgment Day
• Most Indians believe in fate, fewer believe in astrology
• Many Hindus and Muslims say magic, witchcraft or sorcery can influence people’s lives
• Roughly half of Indians trust religious ritual to treat health problems
• Lower-caste Christians much more likely than General Category Christians to hold both Christian and non-Christian beliefs
• Nearly all Indians believe in God
• Few Indians believe ‘there are many gods’
• Many Hindus feel close to Shiva
• Many Indians believe God can be manifested in other people
• Indians almost universally ask God for good health, prosperity, forgiveness
• Acknowledgments
• Questionnaire design
• Sample design and weighting
• Precision of estimates
• Response rates
• Significant events during fieldwork
• Appendix B: Index of religious segregation

Indians are much more likely to view their country’s religious diversity as an asset than as a liability. About half of Indians (53%) say religious diversity benefits the country, while 24% say it is harmful. The remainder (24%) don’t take a position either way.

At the same time, Indians of different religious backgrounds don’t see much in common with each other. For example, most Muslims say members of their religious community are very different from Hindus or Sikhs, and vice versa – most Hindus and Sikhs see themselves as very different from Muslims. With few exceptions, India’s major religious groups perceive more differences than similarities between their communities.

By their own admission, Indians also don’t know much about religions other than their own. While many Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists say they know at least something about the Hindu religion, fewer Hindus claim any knowledge about India’s minority religions – even those, like Jainism or Sikhism, with some theological similarities to Hinduism.

India’s religiously diverse population is, therefore, composed of religious communities who are not too familiar with each other’s beliefs and practices, and who don’t see much common ground among them. Yet, many Indians take a pluralistic, rather than exclusivist, attitude toward religious beliefs. The predominant opinion among Indian adults overall, as well as within most of the country’s major religious groups, is that “many religions can be true,” rather than that theirs is “the one true religion.”

Many Indians also practice religion in a pluralistic way. For example, a substantial minority of Muslims, especially in some regions of the country, say they celebrate the festivals of Diwali and Holi, which are more commonly celebrated by Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains. Many Christians also say they celebrate Diwali and Holi, while some Hindus celebrate Christmas. In addition, some members of India’s religious minority groups say they have prayed, meditated or performed a ritual at a Hindu temple. And, for their part, one-in-five Hindus in the North say they have worshipped at a gurdwara (a Sikh house of worship), and some in the South say they have prayed at a church. (See Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 for additional analyses of shared beliefs and practices across religious groups.)

Home to more than nine-in-ten of the world’s Hindus, India also has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world, as well as millions of Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians.

Indians tend to see this religious diversity as benefiting their country. Roughly half say diversity benefits India (53%), while about one-quarter say diversity harms the country (24%). Generally, Indians of different ages, educational backgrounds and regions of residence tend to agree that diversity benefits the country.

However, a sizable minority (24%) does not take a clear position on the question, saying that diversity “neither benefits nor harms the country,” that they don’t know, or declining to answer the question.

Majorities of Sikhs (60%), Muslims (56%) and Jains (55%) say religious diversity benefits India. Meanwhile, fewer than half of Buddhists (46%) and Christians (44%) take this position; about three-in-ten in both groups do not provide a clear answer either way.

The most religious Indians – that is, those who say religion is very important to their lives – are more likely than those who are less religious to say religious diversity is beneficial to the country (55% vs. 39%).

This difference between more and less religious people is largest among Hindus. Among Hindus who say religion is very important in their lives, most feel that diversity benefits the country (55%). But Hindus who say religion is less important in their lives are more evenly divided in their opinions: 37% say diversity benefits the country, 30% say diversity harms the country, and 33% don’t take a position either way.

Among Hindus, a majority of those who have a favorable opinion of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) say religious diversity benefits the country (57%), compared with 45% among those who have an unfavorable opinion of the BJP.

Within the Indian population as a whole, attitudes about religious diversity also vary by region: Majorities in the North (68%) and Northeast (64%) think diversity benefits the country. The South is somewhat less positive: Southerners generally are less likely than those in other regions to say diversity benefits the country.

Hindus in the South are relatively unenthusiastic about the benefits of religious diversity: 42% say diversity benefits the country. And while roughly half of Southern Muslims (48%) say India’s diversity helps the country, in the North (68%) and Northeast (75%), higher shares of Muslims see India’s religious diversity as an asset.

Most Buddhists, Muslims and Christians see members of their own religion as very different from Hindus

Even though Indians tend to value their country’s religious diversity, India’s religious communities generally don’t see much in common with one another. Across religious groups, large shares say that, based on what they know, members of their religious group are “very different” from followers of other religions. In fact, only 36% of all Indian adults say their group has “a lot in common” with even one of the five other major groups mentioned in the survey; the remainder (64%) either say they are very different from, or do not give a definite answer about, all five other groups.

For example, majorities among Indian Buddhists (67%), Muslims (64%) and Christians (58%) say they are very different from Hindus. Jains and Sikhs, on the other hand, tend to take the view that they have a lot in common with Hindus – 66% of Jains and 52% of Sikhs say this, the only two cases in which majorities or pluralities of one group say they have “a lot” in common with another group.

Most people in India’s non-Muslim religious groups don’t see much in common between the Muslim community and their own. Most Hindus (66%) say their group is very different from Muslims, as do nearly nine-in-ten Buddhists (88%). Sikhs are the most likely to say they have a lot in common with Muslims – 36% of Sikhs say this. Still, the majority view among Sikhs is that they are very different from Muslims (55%).

Generally, Sikhs are more inclined than others to say they have a lot in common with all groups asked about in the survey. Nearly a quarter of Sikhs (23%) say they have a lot in common with all other religious groups, compared with just 11% of Hindus who see common ground with all five groups.

While many Sikhs see common ground with other groups, members of those groups generally are less likely to say they have a lot in common with Sikhs. For instance, 52% of Sikhs say they have a lot in common with Hindus, while just 20% of Hindus say the same about Sikhs. Members of some of these groups may be less familiar with the relatively small Sikh population that is also concentrated in the state of Punjab; about three-in-ten Hindus and Muslims and four-in-ten Christians say they “don’t know” or otherwise decline to answer the question about how much they have in common with Sikhs.

People in the North of India are more likely than those in other regions to say their religious group has a lot in common with other groups. This pattern holds true across multiple religious groups. People in the Western, Central and Northeastern regions, meanwhile, generally are less likely to see commonalities among religious groups.

Most Indians say they know a lot about their own religion. And very high shares in each religious group say they know at least some about their own faith. For example, 92% of Hindus say they know “a great deal” or “some” about the Hindu religion and its practices, and nearly all Sikhs (95%) say the same about Sikhism.

Considerably fewer people say they know a great deal – or even some – about other religions. For example, roughly a third of India’s Hindus (36%) say they know at least something about Islam, and even fewer say they know something about Christianity (28%). About one-in-five Hindus say they have at least some knowledge about Buddhism (21%), Sikhism (19%) or Jainism (18%), despite theological similarities between Hinduism and these three religions. Most Hindus say they know “not very much” or “nothing at all” about each of the other faiths.

Of course, the vast majority of Indians are Hindu, and it stands to reason that non-Hindus living in India would have at least some knowledge about Hinduism. Half of Muslims and most Jains (92%), Christians (66%), Sikhs (62%) and Buddhists (59%) say they know at least something about the Hindu religion and its practices.

Yet Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Muslims generally know less about one another’s religions. For example, just 26% of Sikhs say they know at least “some” about Islam, and only 13% of Muslims say they know something about the Sikh religion and its practices.

One exception is how much Christians know about Islam. Nearly half of Christians (47%) say they know either a lot or some about Islam. Far fewer Muslims (18%) say the same about Christianity.

More Muslims in the South of the country than elsewhere say they know about other religions. For example, about half of Muslims in the South (53%) say they have at least some knowledge of Christianity, compared with 18% of Muslims nationally. And a large majority of Southern Muslims (76%) say they know at least something about Hinduism, including (27%) who say they know a lot about the country’s majority religion. By comparison, half of Muslims nationally indicate they know at least something about Hinduism, and just 9% say they know a lot about the religion.

Among Hindus, those who are college educated are more likely to claim at least some knowledge about other religions. Hindus who live in the North of India are more likely than Hindus overall to say they know at least something about Sikhism (44% vs. 19% nationally), perhaps because many Sikhs are concentrated in the Northern state of Punjab. And Hindus from the South are much more likely than those elsewhere to say they have some knowledge of Islam (54% vs. 36% nationally) and Christianity (56% vs. 28% nationally).

Indians lean toward seeing truth in many religions

When asked which statement comes closest to their opinion – “My religion is the one true religion” or “Many religions can be true” – a sizable minority (42%) say theirs is the one true religion, while somewhat more (51%) take the view that many religions can be true. 10

The predominant view among Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists is that there are many true religions. Muslims have the largest share who take the position that theirs is the one true religion (51%). Jains are about evenly divided on this question.

Gender and age make little difference in whether people believe their religion is the only true one. There is, however, a link between education and views on this question: College-educated Indians are more likely than others to say many religions can be true (59% vs. 50%). Also, people living in urban areas of the country are slightly more inclined to take this position than rural Indians (55% vs. 49%).

Generally, Indians who are more religiously observant are much more likely to take the view that theirs is the one true religion. Among Indians who say religion is very important in their lives, 45% say only their religion is true, compared with a quarter (24%) of Indians who say religion is less important in their lives. This pattern holds among both Hindus and Muslims; for example, 53% of Muslims who say religion is very important in their lives see Islam as the one true religion, compared with 35% among those who consider religion less important.

There are some partisan differences among Hindus on this question: Those who have a favorable view of the BJP are more likely than other Hindus to say Hinduism is the one true religion (45% vs. 32%).

Regionally, majorities of Indian adults in the North, East and South say many religions can be true. By contrast, those in the Central region are generally more likely to say their religion is the one true faith (55%).

Among Hindus in the North, a majority (57%) say many religions can be true. But among Northern Muslims, about the same share take the opposite view: 58% say Islam is the one true religion.

In an effort to understand whether Indians of various religious backgrounds mix religious practices, the survey asked people if they have ever prayed, meditated or performed a ritual in a house of worship other than the one associated with their own religion. For example, Sikhs were asked if they have ever prayed, meditated or performed a ritual at a mosque, church, Hindu temple, Buddhist stupa or Sufi shrine. (For more discussion of religious beliefs and practices that many Indians have in common, see Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 .)

The vast majority of Indians say they have not worshipped in religious sites belonging to other religions. But some have done so, especially in Hindu temples. For example, 38% of Buddhists say they have worshipped at a Hindu temple, as have about one-in-five Sikhs (22%) and Christians (20%). By comparison, fewer Muslims (8%) report having done so.

The distinction between Hindu and Jain temples is often ambiguous, so it stands to reason that a majority of Jains (67%) say they have worshipped at a Hindu temple. Some Jains (14%) also have prayed at a Sikh gurdwara.

About one-in-ten Sikhs (11%) and Muslims (10%) say they have prayed, meditated or performed a ritual at a Sufi shrine; Sufism tends to be most closely associated with a particular interpretation of Islam, although people of many faiths in India identify with Sufism (see Chapter 5 for details).

Relatively small shares of Hindus say they have worshipped at sites associated with other faiths. But there is some regional variation in the shares of Hindus who have worshipped at non-Hindu venues. Most strikingly, in the North, fully one-in-five Hindus say they have worshipped at a gurdwara. Indian Sikhs are concentrated in the North, in the state of Punjab, which also is the home of the famous gurdwara known as the Golden Temple .

In the South, where many of India’s Christians are concentrated, about one-in-ten Hindus (12%) say they have prayed at a church, and roughly the same share (11%) say they have performed a ritual at a mosque.

However, substantial minorities say they have worshipped at one or more venues belonging to another religion. For example, nearly one-in-five Hindus (17%) say they have prayed, meditated or performed a ritual at one or more of the five non-Hindu types of houses of worship asked about in the survey. Among Sikhs, 31% say they have worshipped at a church, mosque, Hindu temple, Sufi shrine or Buddhist stupa (or at more than one of these places). And among Buddhists, more than four-in-ten (44%) report having such an experience.

Among Muslims, 18% say they have prayed at a house of worship other than a mosque, including those who have worshipped at a Sufi shrine. (Sufi shrines are most closely associated with Islam, though there is also anti-Sufi sentiment among some Muslims in parts of the world.) Excluding Sufi shrines, one-in-ten Muslims in India have worshipped at a church, Hindu temple, Sikh gurdwara or Buddhist stupa.

Overall, men and college-educated Indians are slightly more likely to say they have prayed, meditated or performed a ritual at one or more venues associated with another religion. For example, 10% of college-educated Hindus have prayed at a church, compared with 6% of those who have less education.

Indians celebrate myriad festivals and national holidays, each with its own rituals and traditions. The survey asked Indians of all religious backgrounds whether they participate in celebrating one national holiday (Independence Day), a few religious festivals associated with various groups (Diwali, Holi, Christmas and Eid), and the Western holiday of Valentine’s Day, which recently has gained some popularity in India.

As expected, most people celebrate festivals associated with their own religious tradition. Near-universal shares of Hindus (95%), Sikhs (90%) and Jains (98%) say they celebrate Diwali, as do about eight-in-ten Buddhists (79%). Muslims overwhelmingly say they participate in celebrations of Eid (93%), and virtually all Christians (97%) celebrate Christmas. In addition, the vast majority of Indians (87%), regardless of their religious background, commemorate the day India declared its independence from British rule, celebrated on Aug. 15.

But many Indians also celebrate festivals that are not traditionally associated with their respective religions. For example, substantial shares of Muslims (20%) and Christians (31%) in India say they participate in Diwali celebrations. Also, notable shares of both those religious communities (16% of Muslims and 25% of Christians) say they participate in celebrating Holi, the spring festival of color that is observed by most Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains.

Fewer Hindus (and other non-Muslims) celebrate the Muslim holiday of Eid. Among Hindus, 7% say they participate in celebrations of Eid, as do 11% of Christians. But celebrations of Christmas are relatively popular among non-Christians in India: Nearly one-in-five Hindus, Sikhs and Jains say they participate in Christmas festivities.

Hindus who are less religious are more likely to say they participate in celebrations of Christmas. These celebrations also are more common among Hindus in the South and among Hindus with a college education. For example, 23% of Hindus in the South say they celebrate Christmas, compared with about half as many in the Northeast (11%), even though both regions have a strong Christian presence. Christmas also is more commonly celebrated by urban than rural Hindus (23% vs. 14%).

Muslims vary regionally when it comes to celebrating Diwali and Holi. Among Muslims in the North, nearly a quarter (24%) say they celebrate Diwali, and 15% participate in Holi festivities. In Western India, even larger shares of Muslims say they participate in Diwali (39%) and Holi (31%) celebrations.

Moreover, fully one-in-five Indian adults (21%) say they celebrate Valentine’s Day. Though it is historically associated with Western Christianity, Indian Christians celebrate Valentine’s Day (27%) at about the same rate that they celebrate Diwali (31%) or Holi (25%). Christians also are about as likely as Sikhs (26%) to celebrate Valentine’s Day.

Nationally, marking Valentine’s Day tends to be more popular among young adults (35% among those ages 18 to 25), those who have a college education (40%) and those who live in urban areas (27%). It also is more commonly celebrated by people who do not consider religion very important in their lives (27%, vs. 20% among those who see religion as very important).

Even though some Hindu groups have criticized Valentine’s Day as foreign to Indian culture and inappropriate for a socially conservative society, participation in the holiday is not politically divided. People who have a favorable opinion of the ruling party are no less likely than those who have an unfavorable view of the BJP to say they celebrate Valentine’s Day (21% and 20%, respectively).

• A  national survey fielded by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in 2019 found that 21% of Indians either fully or somewhat agree with the statement “Only my religion is correct, not of anyone else,” while a majority of Indians (57%) somewhat or fully disagree with it. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Beliefs & Practices
• Christianity
• International Political Values
• International Religious Freedom & Restrictions
• Interreligious Relations
• Other Religions
• Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project
• Religious Characteristics of Demographic Groups
• Religious Identity & Affiliation
• Religiously Unaffiliated
• Size & Demographic Characteristics of Religious Groups

Where is the most religious place in the world?

Rituals honoring deceased ancestors vary widely in east and southeast asia, 6 facts about religion and spirituality in east asian societies, religion and spirituality in east asian societies, 8 facts about atheists, most popular, report materials.

• Questionnaire
• இந்தியாவில் மதம்: சகிப்புத்தன்மையும், தனிமைப்படுத்துதலும்
• भारत में धर्म: सहिष्णुता और अलगाव
• ভারতে ধর্ম: সহনশীলতা এবং পৃথকীকরণ
• भारतातील धर्म : सहिष्णुता आणि विलग्नता
• Related: Religious Composition of India
• How Pew Research Center Conducted Its India Survey
• Questionnaire: Show Cards
• India Survey Dataset

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Being Christian in a Pluralistic Society

Get spiritual formation articles like this each Friday

Renovaré weekly is our thoughtful free newsletter with curated articles, books, and upcoming free webinars..

Dallas Willard ( 1935  —  2013 ) was Professor of Philosophy at The University of Southern California and an ordained minister who spoke at churches and Christian organizations worldwide. He was a founding member of Renovaré. He wrote, among others, Renovation of the Heart , Hearing God , and Knowing Christ Today . Dallas is survived by his wife Jane, son John, daughter and son-in-law Becky and Bill Heatley, and granddaughter Larissa, who continue his legacy and work.

Pluralism, Power and the Soviet Political System: A Comparative Perspective

Cite this chapter.

• Archie Brown  

26 Accesses

5 Citations

Debate among Western scholars on how power is distributed within the Soviet Union has been vigorous ever since the idea that totalitarianism was the key to understanding the Soviet system came under serious attack in the 1960s. In the Soviet Union itself the same decade saw the opening shots fired in a campaign to have power relations within the Soviet and other political systems discussed more realistically and less propagandistically than hitherto in the context of the development of a discipline of political science. 1 It is only in recent years, however, that something like a debate on the nature of political power has got underway in specialized Soviet journals and small-circulation books. This paper will juxtapose these writings of Soviet scholars with the writings of Western political scientists on the nature of power relations within the Soviet system, partly because of the intrinsic interest of both bodies of writing and partly to see what relevance, if any, the Soviet discussions have to Western arguments concerning the nature of the Soviet system. Some attention is paid to theoretical accounts of the relationship between state and society, a common theme in the two bodies of work.

I should like to record my gratitude to Robert A. Dahl, Michael Lessnoff, David Nicholls, T.H. Rigby and Gordon Wightman who read a previous draft of this essay and commented helpfully upon it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Vitoria, the Common Good and the Limits of Political Power

The Politics of Compromise: Institutions and Actors of Power-Sharing in Switzerland

Metamorphoses of Political Neoliberalism

Notes and references.

See F. Burlatsky, ‘Politika i nauka’, Pravda (10 January 1965) 4.

Google Scholar  

For discussion of this article and some of the subsequent developments along the road to a Soviet political science, see David E. Powell and Paul Shoup, ‘The Emergence of Political Science in Communist Countries’, American Political Science Review , 64, no. 2 (June 1970) 572–88;

Article   Google Scholar  

Rolf H.W. Theen, ‘Political Science in the USSR: “To be or not to be”’, World Politics , XXIII, no. 4 (July 1971) 684–703;

and Ronald J. Hill, Soviet Politics, Political Science and Reform (Oxford and White Plains, N.Y., 1980).

Ralph Miliband, Marxism and Politics (Oxford, 1977) 8.

Illustrations from the Soviet discussion will be given in section II of this essay. Western Marxist statements along these lines are exceedingly numerous. See, for instances, Louis Althusser, For Marx (Harmondsworth, 1969) 240; and Miliband, Marxism and Politics ,114–16. Althusser, objecting to the concept of the ‘cult of personality’, places Stalinism firmly in the context of the ‘relative autonomy’ of the ‘superstructure’. Miliband, while paying attention to the ‘extreme example’ of Stalin (115), goes further than Althusser and writes of ‘the state’ in Communist systems generally as having ‘a very high degree of autonomy from society’ (116, Miliband’s italics).

The most prominent advocate of an ‘institutional pluralist’ interpretation of Soviet politics (though recently he has adopted the terminology ‘institutionalized pluralism’) has been Jerry F. Hough. See especially his The Soviet Union and Social Science Theory (Cambridge, Mass., 1977);

Book   Google Scholar  

and also Jerry F. Hough and Merle Fainsod, How the Soviet Union is Governed (Cambridge, Mass., 1979).

Interesting ‘bureaucratic pluralist’ interpretations of Soviet politics include those of Darrell P. Hammer, U. S. S. R.: The Politics of Oligarchy (Hinsdale, Ill., 1974);

and William Taubman, Governing Soviet Cities: Bureaucratic Politics and Urban Development in the U.S.S.R. (New York, 1973).

An example of an author who uses pluralist terminology to describe institutional conflicts and rivalries within the Soviet Union but is less inclined to make this the main defining characteristic of Soviet politics is Alec Nove. Cf. his chapter, “‘Centralised Pluralism”: Ministries and Regional Planning’, in Nove, The Soviet Economic System (London, 1977) 60–84

and his article, ‘History, Hierarchy and Nationalities: Some Observations on the Soviet Social Structure,’ Soviet Studies ,21, no. 1 (1969).

Giovanni Sartori, ‘Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics’, American Political Science Review , 64, no. 4 (December 1970) 1034.

Alex Inkeles, ‘Models and Issues in the Analysis of Soviet Society’, Survey , no. 60 (July 1966) 13.

The locus classicus on totalitarianism remains Cull Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Cambridge, Mass., 1956) (2nd edn revised by Friedrich, 1965).

See also Carl J. Friedrich, Michael Curtis and Benjamin R. Barber, Totalitarianism in Perspective: Three Views (London, 1969);

and Leonard Schapiro, Totalitarianism (London, 1972).

For criticism along these lines, see, for example, Andrew C. Janos, ‘Group Politics in Communist Society: A Second Look at the Pluralist Model’, in Samuel P. Huntington and Clement H. Moore (eds), Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society (New York, 1970) 437–50;

Juan J. Linz, ‘Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes,’ in Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science, Volume 3: Macropolitical Theory , (Reading, Mass., 1975) 175–411;

Joseph LaPolombara, ‘Monoliths or Plural Systems: Through Conceptual Lenses Darkly’, Studies in Comparative Communism , 8, no. 3 (Autumn 1975) 304–32;

and Alfred Stepan, The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective (Princeton, N.J., 1978) (Part One, ‘The Role of the State: Concepts and Comparisons’).

See also Andrew C. Janos (ed.), Authoritarian Politics in Communist Europe: Uniformity and Diversity in One-Party States (Berkeley, Calif., 1976).

For an early, perceptive and open-minded consideration of the problem, see Bohdan Harasymiw, ‘Application of the Concept of Pluralism to the Soviet Political System’, Newsletter on Comparative Studies of Communism , 5, no. 1 (November 1971) 40–54.

See also Stephen White, ‘Communist Systems and the “Iron Law of Pluralism”’, British Journal of Political Science ,8, no. 1 (January 1978) 101–17;

and Alexander J. Groth ‘USSR: Pluralist Monolith?’, British Journal of Political Science 9, no. 4 (October 1979) 445–64.

David Nicholls, The Pluralist State (London, 1975).

David Nicholls, Three Varieties of Pluralism (London, 1974).

See, for example, Jerzy J. Wiatr, ‘Elements of Pluralism in the Polish Political System’, The Polish Sociological Bulletin no. 1 (1966);

Jerzy J. Wiatr and Adam Przeworski, ‘Control without Opposition,’ Government and Opposition ,1, no. 2 (January 1966) 227–39;

Jerzy J. Wiatr, Essays in Political Sociology (Warsaw, 1978);

Stanislaw Ehrlich, ‘Le problème du pluralisme’, L’Homme et la Societé ,no. V (juillet—septembre 1967) 113–18;

Stanislaw Ehrlich, ‘Pluralism and Marxism’, in Stanislaw Ehrlich and Graham Wootton (eds), Three Faces of Pluralism: Political, Ethnic and Religious (Farnborough, 1980) 34–45;

and Vladimir Klokocka, Volby v pluralitn£ch democraci£ch (Prague, 1978).

For discussion of the ideas of the advocates of pluralism within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, see H. Gordon Skilling, Czechoslovakia’s Interrupted Revolution (Princeton, N.J., 1976) esp. 335–72;

For two East European critiques of Communists’ advocacy of pluralism — the first a measured and thoughtful analysis by a Hungarian scholar and the second a much more polemical, though also interesting, attack by a Bulgarian philosopher — see Peter Hardi, ‘Why do Communist Parties Advocate Pluralism?’, World Politics , 32, no. 4 (July 1980) 531–52;

and Asen Kozharov, Monizm i plyuralizm v ideologii i politike (Moscow, 1976).

See, for example, G. Shakhnazarov, ‘O demokraticheskom tsentralizme i politicheskom plyuralizme’, Kommunist , no. 10 (July 1979) 107.

See Robert A. Dahl, Dilemmas of Pluralistic Democracy , forthcoming (New Haven, 1982). (I am most grateful to Professor Dahl for giving me the opportunity to read this work in manuscript and for permission to cite it.)

See also Robert A. Dahl, ‘Pluralism Revisited’, Comparative Politics ,10, no. 2 (January 1978) 191–203 (reprinted in Ehrlich and Wootton (eds), Three Faces of Pluralism ,20–33).

Much information, relevant to this theme, is to be found in H. Gordon Skilling and Franklyn Griffiths (eds), Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton, N.J., 1971).

and Peter H. Solomon, Jr, Soviet Criminologists and Criminal Policy: Specialists in Policy-Making (London, 1978).

For more recent contributions, see Richard B. Remneck (ed.), Social Scientists and Policy-Making in the USSR (New York, 1977);

For examples of diffusion of influence under Stalin, see Timothy Dunmore, The Stalinist Command Economy: The Soviet State Apparatus and Economic Policy 1945–53 (London, 1981);

A. Kemp-Welch, ‘Stalinism and Intellectual Order’, in T.H. Rigby, Archie Brown and Peter Reddaway (eds), Authority, Power and Policy in the USSR (London, 1980) 118–34;

Though Gordon Skilling has been opposed to the description of the Soviet Union as a type of pluralist system, ten years ago he wrote: ‘… the system is operating differently than it did under Stalin, in part as a result of increased activity by political groups which have attained a certain degree of autonomy of action. In that sense Soviet society has shown signs of at least an incipient pluralism’ (in Skilling and Griffiths (eds), Interest Groups in Soviet Politics , 44). Possibly misleadingly, in terms of Dahl’s definition which I now accept as the best way of making pluralism a somewhat more rigorous and useful concept, I have myself written of ‘elements of pluralism’ within the Soviet system (Brown, Soviet Politics and Political Science , 74), and of ‘a limited institutional or bureaucratic pluralism — in some areas of policy very limited indeed’ (in Archie Brown and Michael Kaser (eds), The Soviet Union since the Fall of Khrushchev (London, 1975; 2nd edn [1978] 245). Like Skilling, however, I have never found it particularly useful to regard the Soviet Union as a ‘type of pluralist system’.

The work of the critics of American pluralist theorists contains many valuable insights, though evidence, too, of less than careful reading of some of the works they are criticizing. For one example, see the exchange between Nelson W. Polsby and Kenneth Newton, Political Studies , 27, no. 4 (December 1979) esp. 530–1 and 543.

See further William E. Connolly (ed.), The Bias of Pluralism (New York, 1969);

and Nelson W. Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory: A Further Look at Problems of Evidence and Inference , 2nd enlarged edn (New Haven, Conn., 1980).

For a graph showing the pattern of popular trust in Czechoslovak politicians, 1968–9, and discussion of it, see Archie Brown and Gordon Wightman, ‘Czechoslovakia: Revival and Retreat’, in Archie Brown and Jack Gray (eds), Political Culture and Political Change in Communist States (London, 1977; 2nd edn, 1979) esp. 174–6.

For more extensive coverage of opinion polling in Czechoslovakia in that period, see Jaroslaw A. Piekalkiewicz, Public Opinion Polling in Czechoslovakia, 1968–69: Results and Analysis of Surveys Conducted During the Dub eek Era (New York, 1972).

See, for example, on these two organizations Skilling, Czechoslovakia’s Interrupted Revolution ,esp. 546–8; Vladimir V. Kusin, Political Grouping in the Czechoslovak Reform Movement (London, 1972) 176–91;

and Galia Golan, Reform Rule in Czechoslovakia: The Dubcek Era 1968–1969 (Cambridge, 1973) 80–2.

For a good general account of developments within Czechoslovakia during the 1970s, see Vladimir V. Kusin, From Dubcek to Charter 77: Czechoslovakia 1968–78 (Edinburgh, 1978).

For an authoritative Soviet view of these concessions, see, in particular, the letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the Central Committee of the Polish United Workers’ Party, Pravda (12 June 1981) 2.

By January 1981 one-quarter of party members were members also of Solidarity; by April the proportion had grown to one-third. For a useful brief account of party—Solidarity relations up to the end of January 1981, see Z.A. Pelczynski, ‘Stalemate and after in Poland’, New Society (5 February 1981) 232–3.

H. Gordon Skilling, ‘Interest Groups and Communist Politics’, World Politics ,18, no. 3 (April 1966) 449.

As early as 1954, Karl Deutsch drew attention to the need of totalitarian regimes ‘to combat their own automatic drift towards pluralization and disintegration’. So far as the USSR was concerned, he concluded, however, that the ‘imperfect data... seem to suggest that the Soviet dictatorship in Russia still disposes of substantial resources to stave off its own disintegration or pluralization for some time’. See Karl W. Deutsch, ‘Cracks in the Monolith: Possibilities and Patterns of Disintegration in Totalitarian System’, in Carl J. Friedrich (ed.), Totalitarianism (New York, 1964) 331.

Harold Seidman, Politics, Position and Power: The Dynamics of Federal Organization , 3rd edn (Oxford and New York, 1980) 322.

Hugh Heclo, A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington (Washington, D.C., 1977) 12.

See also Heclo on ‘issue networks’ (a concept that might well have some application in the Soviet context) in Anthony King (ed.), The New American Political System (Washington, D.C., 1978) 87–124.

Richard Neustadt, Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership From FDR to Carter (New York, 1980 edn) 242.

Zdenëk Mlynâr, Night Frost in Prague: The End of Humane Socialism (London, 1980) 111.

Ibid., 53; and the slightly fuller version in Zdenék Mlynâr, Mrkz prichdz£ z Kremlu (Cologne, 1978) 69.

Richard Rose, ‘Government against Sub-governments: A European Perspective on Washington’, in Richard Rose and Ezra N. Suleiman (eds), Presidents and Prime Ministers (Washington, D.C., 1980) 294.

See Philippe C. Schmitter, ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’, Review of Politics , 36 (January 1974) 85–139, esp. 93–4;

and ‘Models of Interest Intermediation and Models of Societal Change in Western Europe’, Comparative Political Studies , 10, no. 1 (April 1977) 7–38, esp. 9.

Leo Panitch, ‘The Development of Corporatism in Liberal Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies , 10, no. 1 (April 1977) 64;

and Linn A. Mammergren, ‘Corporatism in Latin American Politics: A Reexamination of the “Unique” Tradition’, Comparative Politics , 9, no. 4 (July 1977) 466.

Valerie Bunce and John M. Echols III, ‘Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era: “Pluralism” or “Corporatism”?’, in Donald R. Kelley (ed.), Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era (New York, 1980) 1–26, esp. 19–20.

On the nomenklatura , see Bohdan Harasymiw, ‘ Nomenklatura :The Soviet Communist Party’s Leadership Recruitment System’, Canadian Journal of Political Science , 2, no. 4, 493–512; Rolf H.W. Theen, ‘Party and Bureaucracy’, in Gordon B. Smith (ed.), Public Policy and Administration in the Soviet Union (New York, 1980) 18–52, esp. 38–44;

and Michael Voslensky, La Nomenklatura (Paris, 1980).

Roy A. Medvedev, On Socialist Democracy (London, 1975) 404.

L.I. Brezhnev, ‘Otchet tsentral’nogo Komiteta’ (report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXVI Congress), Pravda (24 February 1981) 8.

Daniel Tarschys exemplifies such an approach. See his The Soviet Political Agenda: Problems and Priorities 1950–1970 (London, 1979) esp. ch. 2, ‘The Soviet Political System: Three Models’, 10=-39, in which he compares and contrasts totalitarian, pluralist and bureaucratic models.

William Taubman is a prominent representative of this tendency. See his Governing Soviet Cities and his ‘The Change to Change in Communist Systems’, in Henry W. Morton and Rudolf L. Tôkés (eds), Soviet Politics and Society in the 1970’s (New York, 1974) 369–94. Gordon B. Smith’s ‘Bureaucratic Politics and Public Policy in the Soviet Union’ in Smith (ed.), Public Policy and Administration in the Soviet Union , adopts a similar position.

Leonard Schapiro is the most prominent among the scholars who adhere to this position. See especially his ‘Reflections on the Changing Role of the Party in the Totalitarian Polity’ in his The Communist Party of the Soviet Union , 2nd edn (London, 1970) 619–29.

See, for example, F.M. Burlatsky, Lenin, Gosudarstvo, Politika (Moscow, 1970);

G. Shakhnazarov, Sotsialistischeskaya demokratiya: nekotorye voprosy teorii (Moscow, 1972);

and R.A. Safarov, Obshchestvennoe mnenie i gosudarstvennoe upravlenie (Moscow, 1975).

Yu. A. Tikhomirov, ‘Rzzvitie nauchnykh znaniy o sotsialisticheskom gosudarstve’, in D.A. Kerimov, V.E. Chirkin and G. Kh. Shakhnazarov (eds), Politika mira i razvitie politicheskikh sistem (Moscow, 1979) 37.

G. Shakhnazarov, The Destiny of the World: The Socialist Shape of Things to Come (Moscow, 1978) 153.

G. Shakhnazarov, ‘O demokraticheskom tsentralizme i politicheskom plyuralizme’, Kommunist , no. 10 (July 1979) 107.

This passage appears also in Shakhnazarov’s book, Fiasko futurologii (Kriticheskiy ocherk nemarksistskikh teoriy obshchestvennogo razvitiya) (Moscow, 1979) 279.

After writing separately over many years, they joined forces to write an article in which they call, inter alia , for the establishment of a separate institution for the study of political science in the Soviet Union. See G. Kh. Shakhnazarov and F.M. Burlatsky, ‘O razvitii Marksistsko—Leninskoy politicheskoy nauki’, Voprosy filosofii , no. 12 (December 1980) 1023, esp. 23.

V.S. Shevtsov, Gosudarstvennyy suverenitet (Voprosy teoriz) (Moscow, 1979).

Shevtsov’s book was passed for typesetting in June 1979, and though the official publication date is 1979, it was on sale only from early 1980. The tirazh is small: 2400. (Tikhomirov’s views are criticized on pages 16 and 157). Shevtsov, a prominent jurist and party ideologist, is also an official within the Department of Science and Education of the Central Committee of the CPSU and a member of the executive committee of the Soviet Association of Political Sciences. His most recent books, apart from Gosudarstvennyy suverenitet, are Natsional’nyy suverenitet (problemy teorii i metodologii) (Moscow, 1979);

Citizenship of the USSR (A Legal Study) (Moscow, 1978);

and Sotsial’no-politicheskie osnovy edinstva sovetskogo naroda (Moscow, 1975).

As expressed in Yu. A. Tikhomirov, Mekhanizm upravleniya v razvitom sotsialisticheskom obshchestve

(Moscow, 1978);and in ‘Sotsializm i politicheskaya vlast’, Sovektskoe gosudarstvo i pravo , no. 5 (1974) 11–19.

See especially V.G. Kalensky, Gosudarstvo kak ob’ekt sotsiologicheskogo analiza (ocherki istorii i metodologii issledovaniya) (Moscow, 1977);

and ‘Problemy sotsiologii gosudarstva v istorii politiko-pravovoy mysli’, Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo , no. 5 (1979) 117–22.

See, for example, F.M. Burlatsky, ‘Politicheskaya sistema razvitogo sotsializma’, Voprosy filosofii , no. 8 (1977) 18;

Fyodor Burlatsky, The Modern State and Politics (Moscow, 1978) 47–51;

and F.M. Burlatsky and V.E. Chirkin (eds), Politicheskie sistemy sovremennosti (Moscow, 1978) 26–7.

Referring (178) to G.N. Manov, Gosudarstvo i politicheskaya organizatsiya obshchestva (Moscow, 1974) and to Burlatsky’s ‘Politicheskaya sistema razvitogo sotsializma’, Mamut notes that ‘the state’ is regarded by these authors ‘as one of the institutions of the political organisation, of the political system’, and for ‘such a formulation of the problem’, he adds, there are ‘now weighty reasons’. ‘However,’ he goes on, ‘the problem of distinguishing the state and the political organisation of society, the state and the political system, the problem of their links and relations, so controversial today, had hardly been raised so sharply in Marx’s time. Therefore he did not specially single it out and analyse it.’

Ibid., 50–1. L.S. Mamut in his Karl Marks kak teoretik gosudarstva (Moscow, 1979) notes (166) that Marx used the concept of public power in a variety of different senses.

V.S. Shevtsov, ‘Politicheskaya vlast’ v sisteme politicheskoy organizatsii sovetskogo obshchestva’, in D.A. Kerimov (ed.), Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, politika i lichnost’ (Moscow, 1976) 35–44, esp. 40.

V.M. Terletsky, Leninskoe ideynoe nasledie stroitel’stva (Kiev, 1974) 214–15.

The Soviet literature on ‘Political power in Soviet society’ was reviewed in a 1977 Moscow dissertation, in which the author placed Soviet scholars in three different groups in terms of their use of the concept of power ‘as a general sociological category’. In this particular classification, the distinctions are between (1) those who see power as the leadership, direction and co-ordination of people’s actions; (2) those (whom the author sees as composing the largest group and in which he includes Burlatsky) who define power as the ‘right and possibility’ or ‘ability’ to subordinate the wills of individuals to the predominant wishes in a given association; and (3) those who identify power directly with coercion or subordination. See V.L. Usachev, Politicheskaya vlast’ v Sovetskom obshchestve (avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoy stepeni kandidata yuridicheskikh nauk) (Moscow, 1977) esp. 4.

Ibid. For an example of a book which takes a similar view of power within the political system, while using the terminology, ‘Political organisation of Soviet society’ for what should now, in Shakhnazarov’s and Burlatsky’s terms be ‘the Soviet political system’, see M.N. Marchenko, Politicheskaya organizatsiya sovetskogo obshchestva i ee burzhuaznye fal’sifikatory (Moscow, 1973) esp. 40 and 69–70.

His latest book is devoted to the political thought of James Madison. See V.G. Kalensky, Medison (Moscow, 1981).

Jack Hayward has suggested that both the terms ‘state’ and ‘society’ have ‘a misleadingly monolithic ring about them’, that this is especially true of the former, and that this is ‘one reason why many political scientists eschew the term, “state” and prefer “political system”’. See Jack Hayward and R.N. Berki (eds), State and Society in Contemporary Europe (Oxford, 1979) 23.

A view expressed, for example, by Zdenék Mlynaf, ‘The Rules of the Game: The Soviet Bloc Today’, Political Quarterly 50, no. 4 (October-December 1979) 407.

For the best account of this evolution, see Dennison Rusinow, The Yugoslav Experiment 1948–1974 (London, 1977).

See Skilling, ‘Interest Groups and Communist Politics’, 449. Cf. H. Gordon Skilling, ‘Pluralism in Communist Societies: Straw Men and Red Herrings’, Studies in Comparative Communism , 13, no. 1 (Spring 1980) 84.

Discussion in print of Soviet foreign policy is of an even more esoteric nature with differences of view expressed in somewhat veiled terms and policy changes shrouded in a mantle of continuity. See, for example, Jerry F. Hough, ‘The Evolution of the Soviet World View’, World Politics , 32, no. 4 (July 1980) 509–30;

and Morton Schwartz, Soviet Perceptions of the United States (Berkeley, Calif. and London, 1978).

Other writers continue to see only the undifferentiated view of ‘Moscow’s spokesmen’. See, for example, Stephen P. Gibert, Soviet Images of America (London, 1977).

This holds true for many areas of social policy from reform of family law to the problem of alcoholism and to protection of the environment. For useful brief accounts of debates in these areas of policy, see Peter H. Juviler, ‘Family Reforms on the Road to Communism’, in Peter H. Juviler and Henry W. Morton, Soviet Policy-Making: Studies of Communism in Transition (London, 1967 );

Peter H. Juviler, ‘Whom the State has Joined: Conjugal Ties in Soviet Law’, in Donald D. Barry, George Ginsburgs and Peter B. Maggs (eds), Soviet Law after Stalin , Part I (Leyden 1977);

Donald R. Kelley, ‘Environmental Policy-Making in the USSR: The Role of Industrial and Environmental Interest Groups’, Soviet Studies , 28, no. 4 (October 1976) 570–89; and Thane Gustafson, ‘Environmental Policy under Brezhnev: Do the Soviets Really Mean Business?’, in Kelley (ed.), Soviet Politics in the Brezhnev Era , 129–49

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Toronto, Canada

Susan Gross Solomon ( Associate Professor of Political Science ) ( Associate Professor of Political Science )

Copyright information

© 1983 Archie Brown

About this chapter

Brown, A. (1983). Pluralism, Power and the Soviet Political System: A Comparative Perspective. In: Solomon, S.G. (eds) Pluralism in the Soviet Union. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06617-9_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06617-9_4

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-06619-3

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-06617-9

eBook Packages : Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies Collection Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

This Day In History : January 22

Changing the day will navigate the page to that given day in history. You can navigate days by using left and right arrows

Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov arrested in Moscow

In Moscow, Andrei Dmitriyevich Sakharov, the Soviet physicist who helped build the USSR’s first hydrogen bomb, is arrested after criticizing the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan. He was subsequently stripped of his numerous scientific honors and banished to remote Gorky.

Born in Moscow in 1921, Sakharov studied physics at Moscow University and in June 1948 was recruited into the Soviet nuclear weapons program. In 1948, after detonating their first atomic bomb, the Soviets joined the United States in the race to develop the hydrogen bomb, a weapon theorized to be dozens of times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sakharov’s concept of the “Layer Cake” bomb showed some promising results, but in late 1952 the Americans successfully detonated the world’s first “super bomb.” The Soviet team rushed to catch up, and with the aid of Soviet espionage settled on the same winning concept as the Americans–radiation implosion. On November 22, 1955, the Soviet Union successfully detonated its first hydrogen bomb .

Although Sakharov was decorated with numerous Soviet scientific honors for his achievement, the scientist became increasingly concerned with the implications of the terrifying weapon, and he later regretted his responsibility in its creation. In 1957, his concern about the biological hazards of nuclear testing inspired him to write a damning article about the effects of low-level radiation, and he called for the cessation of nuclear tests. The Soviet government kept his criticism quiet until 1969, when an essay Sakharov wrote was smuggled out of the country and published in The New York Times . In the essay, he attacked the arms race and the Soviet political system and called for a “democratic, pluralistic society free of intolerance and dogmatism, a humanitarian society that would care for the Earth and its future.”

Following the publication of his essay, Sakharov was fired from the weapons program and became a vocal advocate of human rights. In 1975, he was the first Soviet to win the Nobel Peace Prize . After he denounced the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet authorities were quick to respond, exiling him to Gorky, where he lived in difficult conditions. In December 1986, Sakharov’s exile ended when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev invited him to return to Moscow. He was subsequently elected to the Congress of People’s Deputies as a democratic reformer and appointed a member of the commission responsible for drafting a new Soviet constitution.

Sakharov died of a heart attack in 1989 at the age of 68.

Why the Soviet Union Invaded Afghanistan

The 1979 invasion triggered a brutal, nine‑year civil war and contributed significantly to the USSR's later collapse.

How the KGB Silenced Dissent During the Soviet Era

From the Bolsheviks' Red Terror and Stalin's Great Purge to forced hospital 'treatments,' the secret police agency—and its earlier incarnations—used consistently brutal tactics.

Also on This Day in History January | 22

Apple’s iconic “1984” commercial airs during Super Bowl XVIII

Hispanics are officially declared the largest minority group in the u.s..

This Day in History Video: What Happened on January 22

Ted kaczynski pleads guilty to bombings, queen victoria dies, british colonists reach new zealand.

Wake Up to This Day in History

Sign up now to learn about This Day in History straight from your inbox. Get all of today's events in just one email featuring a range of topics.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Lyndon Baines Johnson dies in Texas

Chief dull knife makes last fight for freedom, final portrait of john and yoko appears on the cover of “rolling stone”, english poet lord byron is born.

Heath Ledger dies of accidental prescription drug overdose

Roe v. wade is decided, claudius smith, “cowboy of the ramapos,” hangs, ukraine declares its independence, bloody sunday massacre in russia.

• Subscriber Login

Since 1900, the Christian Century has published reporting, commentary, poetry, and essays on the role of faith in a pluralistic society.

© 2023 The Christian Century.

Contact Us     Privacy Policy

Russian & Lutheran: An interview with Dietrich Brauer

Read John Burgess's article on Lutherans and Methodists in Russia .

Dietrich Brauer, archbishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Russia, was born in Vladivostok, the child of Russian-German parents. He grew up in Moscow and attended Novosaratovka Theological Seminary. Besides serving as archbishop, he is pastor of the Peter and Paul Cathedral in Moscow.

Was your family religious?

We would love to hear from you. Let us know what you think about this article by writing a letter to the editors .

Most Recent

August 25, ordinary 21b ( ephesians 6:10–20), episode 9: queering mystical theology with dr. james staples, faith leaders meet at white house for climate goals, wonder bread vs. the bread of life (john 6:51-58).

by Katie Hines-Shah

Most Popular

August 18, ordinary 20b (john 6:51–58).

Five faith facts about Trump's VP pick, JD Vance

The roots of Hebrew Roots

Five faith moments at the Paris Olympics

Sign “A Declaration for Orthodox Christian Unity in America” … Support this website  – every donation helps! Thank you!…

Bilateral commission of Moscow Patriarchate and Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church holds its first session

Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk and Metropolitan Korniliy of Moscow and All Russia, head of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church. Photo: http://ruvera.ru/

Source: Pravmir

On 31 March 2015, the first meeting of the bilateral commission which will consider the possibility of recognizing the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church took place at the Moscow Spiritual Centre of the Old Believers of the Belokrinitsa branch in the Rogozhskaya Settlement.

The commission was established on the initiative of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, and Metropolitan Korniliy of Moscow and All Russia, head of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church.

Representing the Moscow Patriarchate at the meeting were archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy; archpriest Igor Yakimchuk, DECR secretary for inter-Orthodox relations; priest Ioann Mirolyubov, secretary of the Commission for Old-Rite Parishes and Cooperation with the Old- Rite Community; and Mr. Dmitry Petrovsky, DECR staff member. Representing the Orthodox Old-Rite Church were archpriest Yevgeny Chunin, priest Alexander Pankratov and protodeacon Viktor Savelyev. Metropolitan Korniliy also took part in the meeting.

The participants decided to continue the dialogue at next sessions.

Related Posts

Fifteen Amazing Facts in LOST HISTORIES

Romania vs Moscow, 1940

Synod’s action temporarily removing Metropolitan Hilarion & other news

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

‘A Human Position’s’ Anders Emblem Reunites with Amalie Ibsen Jensen for Haugesund-Bound  ‘Also a Life’ (EXCLUSIVE)

By Annika Pham

Annika Pham

• Haugesund’s Next Nordic Generation Slate Packed with Strong Emotions: ‘There is No Shortage of Nordic Talent’ 2 hours ago
• Norway’s Erik Poppe on His Haugesund, Toronto-Bound ‘Quisling – The Final Days,’ Upcoming Jon Fosse Adaptation and Movie Based on ‘The Scream’ (EXCLUSIVE) 4 days ago
• Haugesund’s New Nordic Films Unveils Program with Slew of New Talents, Kids & Youth Fare, Chillers and Dramas 1 week ago

Rising Norwegian writer-director Anders Emblem whose “A Human Position” bowed at the Tromsø, Rotterdam and San Sebastian festivals in 2022 before landing a global deal with Mubi , has teamed up again with up-and-coming actor Amalie Ibsen Jensen for his third pic, “Also a Life.”

Related Stories

Reality check: summer hot streak won’t dig u.s. box office out of deep hole in 2024, will 'alien: romulus' continue disney's summer box office streak, popular on variety.

Pirir said: “I was amazed by such a refreshing new Nordic voice; “A Human Position” was both moving, funny and cleverly constructed. Since then Anders and I have become good friends. We’re both cinephiles and cat lovers!

Equally impressed by Emblem’s earlier works is Norwegian top arthouse distributor Svend Jensen of Arthaus, who has pre-bought “Also a Life,” a stamp of approval from the Cannes winning pics collector who rarely bets on newcomers.

“I have been following Anders and his work since his first feature ‘Hurry Slowly’ which premiered in 2018 at the exclusive film festival Nara, run by Naomi Kawase in Japan,” Jensen said. “Anders is a unique filmmaker with a distinct film language. Yes, his films are moving quite slowly, but with great intensity, and always with a heartfelt care for the persons on the screen. ‘A Human Position’ followed up his feature debut with another story of normal people struggling with every-day problems, but again at a wonderful poetic level. I am very much looking forward to experiencing how he will pull off the powerful story of ‘Also a Life,”’ he said.

Emblem who worked nearly a decade in various care homes before turning to filmmaking, said he’s always been fascinated by that “somehow invisible, parallel society, filled with laughter and joy, but also sadness, illness, and people in very difficult situations.”

“It all creates an otherness that seems perfect for films, both visually, with how this world looks like, how people interact and behave, how humour is different and how it sounds. The starting point for this film was for sure to try to capture this world, how I know and remember it, and opening it up for viewers to peek inside, see for themselves.”

Keen also “to poke at uncomfortable truths in our society in a slightly understated way,” Emblem said he will nevertheless try to keep some major questions open for the viewers to reflect upon, such as “what it means to be a human today and who is allowed to be.”

So far, his research has focused on interviewing care homes staff and government agencies connected to those homes “to understand operational routines when special situations arise,” as well as social workers, parents and siblings “as this film mostly takes on those perspectives,” he said.

Flirting with documentary techniques, Emblem will use mostly real kids and youth with intellectual disabilities as “they are the ones we have to listen to, to understand and to adapt to”, while Ibsen Jensen will play the lead. “She knows how a character carries a burden and how to subtly show how there is something more inside,” Emblem said.

At the Haugesund Nordic Co-production Market, the 2023 Cannes Producer-on-the-Move Pirir will be looking for co-financing and co-producers, with a plan to start filming in 2025.

Other projects on her slate include the Sami musical “Árru” by debut director Elle Sofe Sara (“Sami Boy”), and a string of co-productions including the essay pic “A Sweetness from Nowhere” by Swede Ester Martin Bergsmark (“Something Must Break”), “Wake of Umbra” by Cannes-winning Mexican helmer Carlos Reygadas (“Post Tenebras Lux”), “Where the Journey Begins” by Colombian-Canadian Juan Andrés Arango García (“La Playa DC”), and “The Visitor” by rising Lithuanian talent Vytautas Katkus. 

More from Variety

Cbs, nexstar renew affiliate stations across 42 markets, why the hipgnosis drama yielded an unexpected ending, cbs’ bob newhart tribute special hits 4.1 million viewers on cbs, cbs teams with nutime media to sell ads for new soap opera ‘the gates’, ‘skibidi toilet’: flushing out audience data on an internet phenomenon, cbs orders comedy pilot ‘dmv,’ to develop single-cam ‘eternally yours’ from ‘ghosts’ creators, more from our brands, muna’s katie gavin debuts new song with japanese house at l.a. show, meghan markle just wore princess diana’s butterfly earrings, pizza, pizza: nfl’s cam jordan acquires little caesars franchises, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, 2024 democratic national convention: watch president joe biden, jill biden, hillary clinton speak on day 1.

Advertisement

Supported by

Ukraine’s Incursion Into Russia Flips the Script on Putin

The reality of 130,000 displaced Russians and a chaotic official response may begin to puncture the official line that Russia is steadily heading toward victory.

• Share full article

By Anton Troianovski and Alina Lobzina

Anton Troianovski reported from Berlin, and Alina Lobzina from London.

Families fleeing invading Ukrainian troops sought shelter from strangers. Russian parents feared that their children might be sent into battle for the first time.

And in a televised crisis meeting on Monday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia flipped through a white legal pad, reading aloud from handwritten notes, suggesting that his aides did not have the time to type up a speech for him as they usually do.

Ukraine’s surprise incursion into a sliver of Russia’s Kursk region last week has not shifted the overall course of the war, but it has already struck a blow well beyond the few hundred square miles of Russia that Ukraine now controls: It has thrust a Russian government and society that had largely adapted to war into a new phase of improvisation and uncertainty.

Mr. Putin has said nothing about the incursion since meeting with security and regional officials, a tense gathering in which the president at one point berated the Kursk governor for revealing the depth and breadth of Ukraine’s advance into Russia. Near the border, where, the authorities say, more than 130,000 people have fled or been evacuated, regional officials appeared unprepared for the crisis — prompting grass-roots aid initiatives to jump in.

To opposition-minded politicians, including some of the few remaining inside Russia, Ukraine’s incursion has offered a rare chance to puncture the Kremlin’s narrative that Russia is steadily heading toward victory — even if it was far from certain that Russians would blame Mr. Putin for their ills. One opposition figure, Lev Shlosberg, in the western city of Pskov, compared the state of Russian society to magma gathering beneath a volcano in which it was unclear when or how it would burst to the surface.

“Current events are, of course, intensifying the crisis,” Mr. Shlosberg said in a phone interview. “But we don’t know where and how this energy of dissatisfaction will go.”

Held by Ukraine

as of Aug. 13

Sverdlikovo

Sievierodonetsk

Area controlled

Zaporizhzhia

Sea of Azov

Ukrainian incursion

Source: Institute for the Study of War with American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project

By Veronica Penney

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .