Introduction
In the field of political philosophy, the question concerning the compatibility between two theoretical frameworks, namely liberalism, and pluralism, has been vividly discussed and taken to the center of the debate. Despite the lack of a clear answer to the question of whether liberals should be pluralists and if the two approaches are compatible, there are more complications as per the straightforwardness of the distinction. It is influenced by the multiple views scholars have presented concerning the problem over the years and the subjective perception of the theories as positive or negative. Indeed, the essence of liberal theory has been investigated and interpreted by numerous scholars, including Gray and Berlin, whose arguments are discussed in-depth in this essay. Overall, given the complexity of the issue and the multifaceted nature of liberalism that has emerged into a distinctively new form since its inception, political thinkers have interpreted the connections between pluralism and liberalism differently. This paper is aimed to prove that liberalism and pluralism are incompatible due to the inherent opposition between the key aspects of these two theories.
Key Concepts of Pluralism
The political theory of pluralism has become a prominent framework of thought in the philosophy of modernity. It implies that the political sphere is inherently diverse and includes versatile and multiple populations, opinions, values, and approaches, none of which can be prioritized. This school of thought denies the dominance of one entity or interest over another. It asserts that peaceful means of equal coexistence and the recognition of diversity is the only possible way to achieve democracy. As Berlin (1969) states, pluralism allows for recognizing that all individuals are different and have values that cannot be measured by applying the same standards or criteria. Therefore, the pluralist theory is based on the belief that no superiority or dominance of the interests of one group over another is appropriate because no agreement between different perspectives can be achieved as to which one is the best. It is only acceptable to achieve a commonly beneficial coexistence, in which, however, there will always be competition and conflict between the different groups.
Although political pluralism is focused on diversity, it is not limited to the recognition of it but entails a solid argumentation of the existence of versatile entities within a single political and social space. As Gray (2000) states, pluralism asserts a variety of ways of life, including personal ethics, culture, and governance that accompany diversity. These various perceptions of the best way of life and the ideals of existence do not seek to dominate but strive to coexist while competing in a given reality. Therefore, this school of thought is particularly applicable to contemporary multicultural societies where absolute agreement and the possibility to meet the interests of all with the help of one type of governance cannot be achieved.
Key Concepts of Liberalism
Overall, liberalism is a widespread and well-researched political theory. In general, it asserts that people should be governed by a unified authoritative body with the priority of liberty and equality. Throughout the history of political sciences and research in political philosophy, many contradictory aspects have emerged and continue to be relevant to contemporary schools of thought that seek to clarify conflicting issues. The liberal theory is one such complex and multifaceted domain that includes several approaches to interpreting the principles of governance (Walker, 2008). As Gray (2000) states, an important feature of liberalism is the search for “the ideal of a rational consensus of the best way of life” (p. 1). However, at the same time, it looks for the ability of people to live in a plurality so that “human beings can flourish in many ways of life” (Gray, 2000, p. 1). Thus, the core of liberal philosophy is in pursuing liberty and equality through the pursuit of a common good for all people.
When taking the discussion to the level of a more detailed analysis of the philosophy of liberals, one should emphasize the political aspects. According to Bacon (2010), John Gray identifies two faces of liberalism, which include contemporary Enlightenment liberalism and older “modus vivendi” liberalism (p. 365). Modern liberal thought “aims to secure a single political regime valid for all rational people by transforming traditional forms of morality through the application of critical reason” (Bacon, 2010, p. 365). However, the second face of liberalism takes a different position by necessitating finding a modus vivendi, which is a mutually beneficial solution of establishing an agreement between values or opinions that are in conflict. Therefore, given the complexity and contradiction within the liberal school of thought concerning the pivotal opinions about governance, human nature, and democratic achievement, there exist ongoing debates around the issue of the compatibility of this theory with pluralism.
Berlin and Gray’s Views on Pluralism-Liberalism Connections
As the separate discussion of the key concepts of liberalism and pluralism demonstrates, these two schools share several pivotal assumptions and philosophical ideas. The analysis of the connections between these two schools and the possibility of their compatibility might be illustrated on the basis of the arguments and validations presented by two prominent thinkers in the field of political philosophy, John Gray (2000) and Isaiah Berlin (1969). Indeed, both Berlin (1969) and Gray (2000) identify an array of similarities between liberalism and pluralism. Both theorists acknowledge that liberalism employs the ideas of pluralism by proclaiming the values of freedom, equality, and justice through the recognition of the differences between people’s versatile views on life. However, the two philosophers provide significant insights into the inherent differences or conceptual inconsistencies between pluralist and liberal thoughts by analyzing their approach to freedom, governance, human nature, and overall values.
Within this scope of discussion, it is relevant to clarify the two concepts of liberalism. This dual nature of the liberal theory in political philosophy is introduced by Berlin (1969), who identifies positive and negative liberty or freedom. According to this theory, negative freedom is one that derives from the lack of constraining elements, and positive freedom emerges as the result of the ability to liberate from the constraints within a person, such as self-control and self-discipline (Berlin, 1969). The thinker ties pluralism to negative freedom by stating that “pluralism, with the measure of negative’ liberty, that it entails, seems to me a truer and more humane ideal than … authoritarian structures” with their positive freedom (Berlin, 1969, p. 131). Unlike liberalism, pluralism succeeds in acknowledging that “human goals are many, not all of them commensurable, and in perpetual rivalry with one another” (Berlin, 1969, p. 131). On the contrary, positive liberty is related to liberalism, which intends to prove that all values might be measured within the same system of measurement with the aim of selecting the one that would satisfy all.
Importantly, Gray (2000) clarifies the misconceptions of pluralism as perceived by liberal thinkers. Indeed, the author states that “when the standard types of contemporary liberal thought refer to pluralism, they mean the diversity of personal ethical beliefs and ideals” and not political pluralism as a doctrine (Gray, 2000, p. 17). Including pluralism in liberal philosophy as a synonym for diversity does not validate the compatibility of the two schools due to the incomplete utilization of the concept of political pluralism in the liberal framework of thinking. On the basis of the presented views of Berlin (1969) and Gray (2000), one might identify several reasons why pluralism and liberalism cannot be congruent from the perspective of their applicability to the political domain.
The Reasons for Pluralism and Liberalism Incompatibility
Although liberalism encompasses pluralism as the idea of the existence of diverse interests and values within the same political body, the two philosophies are incompatible. On a general theoretical scale, liberalism fails to recognize pluralism as something broader than a mere theory of diversity. In addition, the perception of distinctions between the entities of political and social space is perceived differently by the representatives of these schools. Pluralism accepts diversity and differences as the reality in which individuals must find a way to coexist. Liberalism, on the other hand, strives to equalize individuals according to the same standards so that some similarities might be found among the many differences.
Most importantly, the conceptual interpretation of values is different in pluralism and liberalism. As Kekes (1992) states, “pluralism is opposed to the claim that there is some particular value or combination of values with an absolute or dominant moral status” exists because all values emerge simultaneously and cannot be subject to the same measurement approach (p. 141). However, liberalism is based on the search and establishment of absolute value. The ranking of values, as well as the identification of a particular opinion concerning the questions of human nature or the principles of governance, might only be subject to “subjective preference or cultural inheritance” (Crowder, 2002, vii). Therefore, this disruption in the unity of value interpretation contradicts the assumption that pluralism and liberalism are compatible.
Conclusion
Liberalism and pluralism have long been argued to have many similarities that have been claimed to become a foundation for their compatibility. However, the analysis of the theoretical aspects and fundamental concepts of the two schools of thought demonstrates that they assert conceptually different ideas concerning freedom, human nature, and equality. Thus, the inherent difference between pluralism and liberalism is in their approaches to value prioritization. Despite the fact that the two schools share the scope of values, including freedom, equality, justice, and plurality of opinions, they fail to agree on the necessity of choosing one dominant value. For liberals, there should be a single value that dominates over others so that in a time of crisis, governing authorities might appeal to that value to restore order. However, for pluralists, the core of their philosophy is the lack of necessity to choose a dominant value, meaning that the plurality of opinions and values should be equally maintained at all times. These controversies do not allow for claiming that liberals should be pluralists
References
Berlin, I. (1969) ‘Two concepts of liberty’, in Four essays on liberty: Oxford: University Press, pp. 118-172.
Bacon, M. (2010) ‘Breaking up is hard to do: John Gray’s complicated relationship with the liberal project’, Social Theory and Practice, 36(3), pp. 365-384.
Crowder, G. (2002) Liberalism and value pluralism. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gray, J. (2000) Two faces of liberalism. London: Polity.
Kekes, J. (1992) ‘The incompatibility of liberalism and pluralism’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 29(2), pp. 141-151.
Walker, T. C. (2008) ‘Two faces of liberalism: Kant, Paine, and the question of intervention’, International Studies Quarterly, 52, pp. 449-468.