The Problem of Pluralism

Political Pluralism is typically defined as 'the acceptance of the heterogeneity of a population, so that social cohesion is to be achieved by the seeking of common ground, not via unilateral imposition.' Current-day America is said to be 'pluralistic', though the enthusiasm with which the designation is embraced sometimes seems to vary in proportion to movement from Right to Left along the political spectrum. But even at its maximum, 'acceptance' is a stunningly tepid description, a strategy for merely solving a problem, as can be appreciated when compared with doctrines that are affirmations and advocations of principles. In other words, nothing in the standard definition offers an endorsement of political Pluralism in itself, which is not a expression of the general faint-heartedness of the Left, but of the more profound lack of a positive status of Pluralism in any Philosophical system in any tradition. In those, Unity is generally regarded as superior to Multiplicity, whether it is God in comparison with Creation, the One in comparison with the Many, Objective Nothingness in comparison with Subjective Individuality, etc., and in general, the latters are, at best, treated as means to the formers, and, at worst, as cosmic disasters, e. g. 'The Fall'. On the assumption that this prevalent metaphysical disparity between Unity and Multiplicity is indeed a profound error, the only correction is a Philosophical system which establishes parity between them, i. e. that neither is reducible to the other, and that they are of equal value. In the absence of such a system, the political orientations that are more sanguine about Pluralism, Liberalism and Progressivism, will always be at a disadvantage when trying to defend themselves against charges that they are fundamentally breeders of chaos.