Pluralistic Vs. Pluralistic Politics

2653 WordsSep 1, 201411 Pages
But, if we do choose to be pluralistic, how are we to go about it? Unsurprisingly, it seems, adopting a methodological pluralistic view is not as simple as it might first appear. Even methodological pluralism can come in at least two opposing forms, of which I have identified as integrative pluralism (Mitchell 2004; 2006), and isolationist pluralism (Sherman 1988) (see, Kellert, S. et al. 2006, for further branches of pluralism). The pluralistic debate in the philosophy of social sciences is of a similar debate to that about scientific pluralism mutatis mutandis in the philosophy of science. For instance in the field of biology, Mitchell’s integrative pluralism is a result of her assertion that both “a proposal for keeping all, possibly…show more content…
This ‘levels of analysis’ pluralism is clearly detrimental as a scientific approach to the study of social phenomena, because “if there is no competition between levels, there need be no interaction among scientists working at different levels either.” (Mitchell 2004:85). In what follows, I shall present a type of methodological pluralism which postulates that, (i) adequate social explanations can be achieved without the integration requirement of theories (i.e. without Mitchell’s integrative pluralism), and that (ii) interactions should be encouraged (i.e. as opposed to Sherman’s isolationist pluralism). I call this framework interactionist pluralism. First, I will begin by further analysing both the integrative approach and the isolationist approach to pluralism. I would refute Mitchell’s integrative pluralism by arguing that integration is not always a necessary condition of “satisfactory explanations [being] generated” (Mitchell 2006: 78). By integrating the various explanations of social phenomena - like holism, individualism, structuralism, as well as many
Open Document