Authors: Bogdanor
Summary: This 1200 word entry defines pluralism, discusses pluralism's development both historically and conceptually, introduces some significant writings about pluralism, and concludes by briefly addressing some significant critiques of pluralist theory.
The entry defines pluralism as a system where "political power is dispersed amongst a wide variety of social groups," but mentions that it is ill-defined as a political concept. The entry further describes pluralism as one of the twentieth century's most significant and influential political concepts.
Pluralism is historically identified with anti-sovereign state theories. Laski and other classical pluralists reacted against a legalistic approach to the study of politics as both empirically inaccurate and normatively undesirable. Contemporary pluralists like Dahl and Lindblom react not to state sovereignty, but to theories about elites. Pluralism cannot be fully understood unless considered alongside Dahl and Lindblom's concept of polyarchy, which is, generally speaking, a label indicating a particular level of democracy. In Who Governs, Dahl used pluralism as the desirable contrast to oligarchy.
Critiques of pluralist theories have focused on pluralist methodology. Bachrach and Baratz, for example, find pluralist case studies inadequate because they do not uncover the "second face of power," which is very significant for the scope of the political process. Similarly, Lukes sees a "third face of power" where elected politicians are so manipulative as to suppress real individual interests. Charles Lindblom, in Politics and Markets, finds business has a privileged position in the market-dominated western polyarchies. A final critique points pluralism's failure to adequately address the existing inequalities of resources and access in western democracies.