Abstract
In his recent essay, Mark Wenman highlighted parallels between Connolly’s theory of pluralism and earlier iterations of pluralism in the postwar period and the early twentieth century. Focusing on his account of postwar pluralism and especially his interpretation of Dahl, I argue that Dahl’s vision of democracy as polyarchy is fundamentally at odds with Connolly’s. A close reading of Dahl’s text and a consideration of the historical context suggest that Dahl’s theory effectively creates a depoliticized world where citizens are unresponsive to claims about alternative possibilities of democratic life.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
