Pluralistic Vs. Pluralistic Politics

Throughout Alain Locke’s works “Values and Imperatives,” “Pluralism and Intellectual Democracy,” “Cultural Relativism and Ideological Peace,” “The New Negro,” and “Harlem,” I found there to be a number of reoccurring themes, such as absolutes, imperatives, values, and relativism and their place in pluralism. I am going to be focusing on all the aforementioned themes and showing how they are all intertwined into the principles of pluralism.

Today in America you can see that we are a pluralist nation by simply observing the diversity of beliefs and practice. However, within our society there are some religions that come with extreme stereotypes in certain situations, such as Islam. Ever since the tragedy of the Twin Towers on 9/11 stereotypes have gotten more extreme and spread around at an accelerated rate. “Pluralism is not a birthright in America; it’s a responsibility . . . People have fought for pluralism. “ (Patel 28). Patel had the right idea because tolerance is learned and due to the aftermath of 9/11 Americans are still unjustly wary of Muslims.

Pluralism can be distinguished by two different types: cultural and structural. Cultural pluralism exists when groups have not acculturated and each maintains its own identity. The groups might speak different languages, practice different religions, and have different value systems (Healey, 2017, 55). The Amish are a perfect representation of a cultural pluralism. They are separated from the dominant culture

Imagine in 40 years, human beings and aliens live in the same planet, a huge scientific and cultural revolution must occur to interchange the knowledge and ways of pursuing and interpreting knowledge between the two living things. In order to peacefully live on the same planet, there must be some consensus towards methods of interpretation for the community to accept new theories and reject old ones. In the essay by Dr. Minos Talgia in The New Yorker, the author describes a community where the old theories like general relatively and quantum physics are rejected, methods like the Hypothetical-deductive method is also reject. Instead, the community comes to a consensus to accept all theories by the aliens in the empirical science, which is

Pluralism is a worldview in which the society members structure their culture based on acceptance and diversity. These common traits all strive for the common good of all and also realize there is some truth in other beliefs (Pluralism, 2015). This worldview stresses the importance of tolerance of other religions but does not however deviate from their own beliefs.

The pluralist approach recognizes that different groups exist within an organization and that conflict can, and does, exist between employer and employees. (Gennard and Judge, 2002, P208)The pluralist perspective is

Communication within these different stratas of American urban development is “one in which there is a high probability that an active and legitimate group in the population can make itself heard effectively at some crucial stage in the process of decision” (Dahl 92) An excellent example of such a process would be “When environmental groups decide that there is a need for a new law regulating some form of pollution, they seek compromises from chemical companies. People from the public voice their opinions, as does the Environmental Protection Agency and members of Congress. Any law that follows is a result of various groups speaking up and is an exercise in pluralism.” (Examples of Pluralism) Pluralism is as viable today as it was yesterday, as campaigns start to take shape for the 2016 elections many religions, cultures, and belief systems clash together as the individual candidates scramble for the nomination within their own

Wuthnow argues for a more pluralistic society. What does that mean exactly? The two major approaches towards exploring pluralism are by defining what pluralism is not and describing frames of mind taken to achieve pluralism. is Wuthnow, right from the start clears the air “Diversity and pluralism are not the same. Pluralism is the response to diversity.” Basically, what Wuthnow is saying that pluralism is either defined or destroyed about our response to diversity in our life (285). More so “true pluralism is not the same as tolerance” (304). Simply, tolerating people is not the same as acceptance. The primary place to start in regard to pluralism is coming to terms that all religions are attempts to reach what is sacred and that all paths

A plural society defines social structure that consist/comprises of different communities, races, cultures or other social groupings. A plural society is formed when one or more different integrate into one singular society. Although a plural society is a grouping of differences, it seems being a plural society only serves to make them more distinct from each other. From the early uses of the label plural society, there seems not an intention for it serve as a complete integration, but their coexistence in a singular structure. There are many different types of plural society as there’s not only the defined different plural societies but also, the evolution of the plural society concept itself has forged different meanings for a plural society.

Pluralistic superiority is a pervasive concept existing in a significant portion of the Westernized world, enforcing the notion that multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-national ideologies are inextricably related with societal and economic progress, exemplified by the myopic and unsubstantiated quotation ‘Diversity is Strength’ from the current incumbent of Canada’s position of prime minister. The fundamental issue with this perspective is its inability to properly process anterior information related to alternate states, and the orthodox prerequisites involved in the ascension of relevant nation states by creating such an axiomatic statement which purportedly embodies the quixotic goals of a state. As a method of responding to the notion

Pluralism can be defined in its broadest sense as an acceptance of diversity (Wikipedia contributors 2006). This philosophical concept has been used to describe tolerant theological positions, liberal social structures and a political

It is often implied that one should consider applications from “all perspectives” prior to thoroughly evaluating a situation. The intention of this appraisal process is mainly to eliminate potential bias within or even across areas of discipline. In the given prompt, I believe that disciplines can be referred to as the areas of knowledge within Theory of Knowledge. Of course within these areas of knowledge lie the multiple ways of knowing. Yet, for one to complete such a progression, a common groundwork may be of necessity in order to affectively compare conflicting knowledge. Although one cannot always use the same applications in one area of knowledge as they can in another, there are always exceptions. I will explore the extent at which factors such as cultural norms and bias hinder the expansion of a common groundwork in some areas of knowledge more than others. As the final outcome of knowledge should be assessed based on the knower’s goals and personal implications, combining knowledge from many, specifically diverse, applications can produce a holistic and more standardized way of evaluating knowledge. So how can the overlapping of differing disciplines aid in the production of knowledge?

THESIS: While useful, the formal group construct should not be considered the only acceptable approach in which scientists work: our most celebrated scientists have all worked alone while contributing much to their respective fields.

According to Brian Tamanaha, legal pluralism is a situation where different bodies of law … operate or overlap within the same social field. There are ways to better understand the system of legal pluralism for example in the exert from Dupret’s article it was mentioned that legal pluralism is based “…on a principle of indifference, by which one seeks to avoid normative and evaluative engagements: the focus is put on the description of practices, not on their evaluation. Moreover, this position is based on the refusal of any ironic standpoint, i.e. the denial that social scientists occupy any kind of overhanging position vis-à-vis the social, by which they would be entitled to “reveal” to “self-deceived people” the truth which is concealed from them because of their “lack of critical distance”, “ignorance” and/or “bad faith”.”

One of the fundamental areas of study concerning professionals, including lawyers and scientists, is that of professional boundaries (Lamont & Molnar). Where are the bounds of the profession? Who is included and who is excluded from the profession? One of the driving questions for scholars of science has been the demarcation problem, that is determining what is and is not included in science (Gieryn 1983). Historically, the social studies of science has divided between internal and external approaches, which studied the construction of science from inside and outside the professional boundaries of science respectively (Kuhn 1977). Thus externalism-internalism debates in the history and sociology of science formed the central dividing line of the field until late last century (Shapin 1992).