The Pluralism of Pluralism: An Anti-Theory?
The Pluralism of Pluralism: An Anti-Theory?
复制标题
多元主义的多元主义：反理论？
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9248.1990.tb01494.x
复制
发表时间：
1990
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Grant Jordan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grant Jordan
本文的最初目的是简单地定义，如果可能的话，术语“多元化”。它的出发点是这样一个假设，即多元主义是一种不太明确的理论;一种不断发展的理论，或者说（不那么恭维地说）是一种突变的理论;一种不一致的理论。这些不稳定的品质也许可以解释为什么多元主义与精英主义、社团主义和极权主义等不同的选择“在擂台上”。因此，第一个问题是是否可能承认多元主义。对嫌疑人有一致的描述吗？由于多元主义是如此模糊的一套理念，很难理解反对者如何能如此自信地拒绝它。也有人认为，在某种程度上，多元主义是一种幸运的理论，因为过去几十年的经验发展使多元主义成为一种比20世纪50年代更站得住脚的选择。多元化在20世纪80年代比50年代看起来更受人尊敬，因为“市场”的概念重新流行起来。然而，尽管本文试图恢复多元主义来源的学科的中心，它不是说，因为他们站在他们提供了一个令人满意的和最终的帐户如何决定是在西方民主社会。这部作品令人惊讶地参差不齐，即使是在同情的情况下。它需要整合和发展。此外，除了多元账户的质量之外，还有一个单独的问题，即任何单一模式是否可能是足够的。这并不是说有一个明显的上级解释可以取代多元主义，而是对这样一种观念表示怀疑，即我们应该期望找到任何不以明确多样性为核心的适当模式。
The initial purpose of this paper is simply to define, if possible, the term ‘pluralism’. It starts from the assumption that pluralism has been an underexplicit theory; an evolving or (less flatteringly) a mutating theory; an inconsistent theory. These inconstant qualities perhaps explain why pluralism has been ‘in the ring’ with such different alternatives as elitism, corporatism and totalitarianism. Thus the first issue is whether or not it is possible to recognize pluralism. Is there an agreed description of the suspect? Since pluralism is so vague a set ofideas it is difficult to understand how opponents can have rejected it with such confidence. It is also suggested that pluralism has been a lucky theory to the extent that the empirical developments of the past decades make pluralism a more tenable option than it was in the 1950s. Pluralism also looks more respectable in the 1980s than the 1950s as the idea of the ‘market’ has regained popularity. However, although this paper seeks to restore pluralist sources to the centre of the discipline it is not argued that as they stand they offer a satisfactory and final account of how decisions are made in western democratic societies. The work is surprisingly patchy, even when approached sympathetically. It needs integration and development. Moreover, apart from the quality of the pluralist accounts, there is a separate issue of whether any single model is likely to be adequate. This is not to say that there is an obviously superior account with which to replace pluralism, but to express suspicion of the notion that we should expect to find any adequate model that does not feature explicit variety as its core.