What is Pluralism?
If I had to pick one word to describe an optimistic future for American democracy, it would be “pluralism.” If you just raised an eyebrow and thought to yourself, we are going to need a better word, you are not alone. In a recent poll commissioned by PACE, 37.7% of Americans reported they were not familiar with the term “pluralism.” An additional 36.3% indicated they did not have either a positive or negative opinion about it.
This lack of salience presents a challenge for those of us who believe any promising future for our country will necessarily be a pluralistic one. It is hard to rally fellow Americans to your vision when three out of four of them either do not understand or do not care what you are talking about. What is pluralism? Why and how should we practice it? We need to come up with more compelling answers to these questions.
Part of what makes pluralism an elusive notion is that it can be used to describe both a set of facts and a set of values. The facts are demographic, cultural, and political: the existence of multiple communities, groups, races, ethnicities, creeds, classes, regions, factions, and parties in society. These various elements reflect and reinforce different and often incommensurate values, beliefs, agendas, and interests.
Some argue the resulting cacophony is unseemly and un-American. But the discordance is a feature, not a bug, one built into our country from the start. Against all strands of inherited wisdom, the Founders opted to “extend the sphere” of our republic to encompass more diversity, not less. Until their time, the idea of a large republic, let alone one cast on a continental scale, was an oxymoron. The Founders’ theory was that more competing views would make it harder for any one viewpoint to predominate unless it had the support of a broad and enduring majority.
Toward these same ends, the Founders separated, checked, balanced, and decentralized the powers of the government they created. They imposed additional and specific limits on the power of government–and guaranteed citizens’ freedoms of speech, assembly, petition, religion, the press, etc.–via the Bill of Rights. By constituting and limiting a government in order to realize the bedrock principles of equality, liberty, and government by consent, the Founders created a pluralism-producing machine.
This machine, as it has been owned, operated, attacked, defended, overhauled, and repaired by subsequent generations of Americans, has led to an ever more inclusive and pluralistic country. Our Founders had many blindspots and prejudices. But the workings of the government they set in motion and the principles they embedded in it have brought us to where we are today.
The facts of pluralism in the contemporary U.S. are hard to deny. The jury is still out when we turn to the values associated with pluralism. They include, for example, toleration, forbearance, reciprocity, persuasion, and an appreciation if not celebration of difference. Do we have the civic virtue necessary to uphold these values? Do we want to? I’d propose there are four steps Americans will need to take to realize the values of pluralism in our public life.
The first step is a basic one, but it provides the foundation for all the others: recognizing and accepting the facts of pluralism described above. We live in a big and diverse country that by design contains all sorts of people, groups, causes, and ultimate commitments. Precisely because we are free and equal citizens dispersed and separated by myriad cleavages, we have to figure out ways of accommodating each other and making collective decisions together. Acknowledging this reality is the starting point for pluralism.
This brings us to the second and more demanding step. We are also obliged to extend a modicum of respect, and the toleration and forbearance that accompany it, to our fellow citizens, even–especially–when they see the world very differently. Contempt for those we disagree with, a determination to squelch opposing views, and a visceral fight or flight response vis-a-vis out-groups are part of human nature. But so too is the capacity to listen, to inquire and understand why others see things as they do, and to identify and work toward goals we hold in common.
The vast majority of us will need to take these first two steps if we are going to live more or less peaceably together. And we can do so. They boil down to recognizing and treating other people as we would like to be treated in our shared public life. (If you’d like a primer on how to proceed, Braver Angels has you covered!) The next two steps, however, are more challenging. Not everyone will be able or inclined to take them. But we need a critical mass of citizens and leaders to rise to the occasion.
The third step entails ensuring we are not living, working, and getting information in echo chambers that keep things we care about, and society as a whole, from flourishing. The goal here is biodiversity rather than a monoculture when it comes to our demographic, cultural, and ideological ecosystems. This is not to say the bonding social capital among like-minded and similarly situated people is not important. But in this moment, the forms of social capital that enable us to bridge differences in our increasingly diverse society are in shorter supply.
In our own lives, this means cultivating relationships and seeking out viewpoints that complement, challenge, or even contradict our usual patterns. In our companies, nonprofits, congregations, schools, community groups, and political organizations, it means being attentive and responsive to the broad sweep of stakeholders whose lives we want to change for the better. It means welcoming dissent and alternative viewpoints that add to our discussions and ultimately enable the institutions we are part of to pursue their missions more effectively.
A subset of us will need to take a fourth step: explaining, defending, and enhancing societal institutions vital to sustaining pluralism. In the public realm, these institutions include, in particular, elections and legislative bodies at all levels of government, as well as the laws and norms underpinning freedom of expression. We need these aspects of our democracy to be robust and resilient for the full diversity of the country to be represented and balanced if not reconciled in constructive ways.
We also need leaders and practitioners devoted to what Jonathan Rauch calls “the constitution of knowledge” among journalists, scientists, academics, policy experts, lawyers, etc. It is true that some in these professions have debased themselves in recent years. But we cannot pursue truth and establish the shared facts and reality a pluralistic society needs without people in these institutions living up to time-tested principles and standards.
If you have hung with me this far, I am much obliged. Prompted by polling data showing Americans don’t know or care about pluralism, I’ve sought to flesh out what it is and why and how we need to practice it. My ultimate point is that, at this juncture in our nation’s history, it is the only way forward.
What resonates and what doesn’t in my sketch? What may I be missing? What would it take to make a more compelling case for pluralism? Being a good pluralist means recognizing you could be wrong. That is certainly the case here! I welcome your comments below.
