MODULE 14: STATE: LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE (PART-II)
The doctrine of pluralism emerged in Europe and the United States as a reaction against the monistic view of the state. It emerged as a normative justification of its critique of statism, the central idea of its philosophy being that only by recognizing the importance of diversity human life can be truly enriched and that such diversity is embodied in numerous social groups. This being the consideration, English pluralists like J.N. Figgis, H.J. Laski and their followers emerged as key figures in defence of the pluralist critique of the state. Although the philosophy of pluralism has been generally popularized by the British and American scholars, it is in the United States that pluralism flourished in a big way, Arthur Bentley and David Truman being the pioneers. The uniqueness of American pluralisnm was that, while it originated as a normative theory, justifying the idea that the individual has no identity apart from group life, eventually it was transformed into an empirical theory. Thus the normative understanding that it is desirable for the groups to act as contestants of state power was transformed into an empirical explanation of American politics, namely, that the US political system is characterized by multiple power centres and thereby dispersion of power, that it lacks any centrality and is, therefore, truly democratic in practice. Robert Dahl, for instance, was one important exponent of this understanding, who argued that there was no one centre of power that could be located in the United States, as decisions were arrived at through a pluralistic process of negotiation and bargaining. Very soon, however, this pluralist justification of a consensus underlying the American state, projected as an empirical reality, began to be questioned with the commencement of the 1960s. The Civil Rights movement against racial discrimination, notably the Blacks, the assassination of Martin Luther King, widespread campus unrest and anti-war protest movements against the US policy of aggression in Vietnam were all pointers to the fact that instead of a consensus the American society was marked by a sharp divide. Consequently, the pluralist understanding that the American state was grounded in a notion of consensus proved to be a myth. This necessitated a revision of pluralism in the United States. Scholars like Charles Lindblom, while adhering to the pluralist position, now admitted that although it is groups which are decisive, ultimately it is the business groups which dominate, since they control the resources. As a result, while the government is dependent on them, vis-à-vis other groups which are not that powerful, they control the lives of the common man too. This results in loss of democratic power of the people, as other groups, which are not so influential, have little power in society. In other words, this new understanding of pluralism ushered in a position which argued that what is important is not simply the bargaining power of the groups but the power and ability of the economically dominant groups. Pluralism, however, has lived on in the form of new orientations, namely, governance, civil society and social capital and multiculturalism.
The doctrine of pluralism emerged in Europe and the United States as a reaction against the monistic view of the state. It emerged as a normative justification of its critique of statism, the central idea of its philosophy being that only by recognizing the importance of diversity human life can be truly enriched and that such diversity is embodied in numerous social groups. This being the consideration, English pluralists like J.N. Figgis, H.J. Laski and their followers emerged as key figures in defence of the pluralist critique of the state. Although the philosophy of pluralism has been generally popularized by the British and American scholars, it is in the United States that pluralism flourished in a big way, Arthur Bentley and David Truman being the pioneers. The uniqueness of American pluralisnm was that, while it originated as a normative theory, justifying the idea that the individual has no identity apart from group life, eventually it was transformed into an empirical theory. Thus the normative understanding that it is desirable for the groups to act as contestants of state power was transformed into an empirical explanation of American politics, namely, that the US political system is characterized by multiple power centres and thereby dispersion of power, that it lacks any centrality and is, therefore, truly democratic in practice. Robert Dahl, for instance, was one important exponent of this understanding, who argued that there was no one centre of power that could be located in the United States, as decisions were arrived at through a pluralistic process of negotiation and bargaining. Very soon, however, this pluralist justification of a consensus underlying the American state, projected as an empirical reality, began to be questioned with the commencement of the 1960s. The Civil Rights movement against racial discrimination, notably the Blacks, the assassination of Martin Luther King, widespread campus unrest and anti-war protest movements against the US policy of aggression in Vietnam were all pointers to the fact that instead of a consensus the American society was marked by a sharp divide. Consequently, the pluralist understanding that the American state was grounded in a notion of consensus proved to be a myth. This necessitated a revision of pluralism in the United States. Scholars like Charles Lindblom, while adhering to the pluralist position, now admitted that although it is groups which are decisive, ultimately it is the business groups which dominate, since they control the resources. As a result, while the government is dependent on them, vis-à-vis other groups which are not that powerful, they control the lives of the common man too. This results in loss of democratic power of the people, as other groups, which are not so influential, have little power in society. In other words, this new understanding of pluralism ushered in a position which argued that what is important is not simply the bargaining power of the groups but the power and ability of the economically dominant groups. Pluralism, however, has lived on in the form of new orientations, namely, governance, civil society and social capital and multiculturalism.