Pluralism and the Roots of Social Conflict: Rethinking Rawls

Mary Friedline

doi:10.3390/rel10010020

Abstract

Attempts to refine or update definitions of pluralism in political theology and philosophy often, implicitly or explicitly, entail an account of the roots of social conflict, which pluralism is meant to address. Using the influential work of John Rawls as a starting point I further investigate the idea that the root of social conflict stems from competing beliefs systems. I conclude that Rawls’s account of social conflict is insufficiently complex, intersectional, or historicist, and his theory of pluralism and his treatment of religion suffer because of this.

Highlights

Though the exact definition is open to debate, pluralism, in the context of a liberal democracy, can be broadly understood as a system in which people of diverse religions and belief systems can coexist peacefully with, more or less, equal opportunity to share in political power
What are the roots of social conflict in diverse societies and how should we address them? Pluralism as a political arrangement is in many ways an attempt to diffuse the potential violence that can arise from conflict between diverse groups by ordering society in such a way that disagreements can be addressed through political and judicial processes or through civic cooperation
In order to determine what a well-ordered pluralistic society looks like, it is necessary to give some account of why pluralistic contexts are prone to conflict. To investigate this question further, I will consider the work of John Rawls, a political philosopher whose account of liberal pluralism has been highly influential

Summary

Introduction

Though the exact definition is open to debate, pluralism, in the context of a liberal democracy, can be broadly understood as a system in which people of diverse religions and belief systems can coexist peacefully with, more or less, equal opportunity to share in political power. In order to determine what a well-ordered pluralistic society looks like, it is necessary to give some account of why pluralistic contexts are prone to conflict To investigate this question further, I will consider the work of John Rawls, a political philosopher whose account of liberal pluralism has been highly influential. Rawls is frequently credited with reviving social contract theory in political philosophy He does not use the contract metaphor, as the classical theorists did, to explain the legitimacy of government. I argue Rawls’s attempt to separate religion and politics to the greatest extent possible results from an inaccurate diagnosis of the roots of conflict in society He identifies difference of religious and philosophical beliefs as the main source of social conflict, but ignores the material and historical sources of conflict that arise from inequality of Religions 2019, 10, 20; doi:10.3390/rel10010020 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions. Because Rawls ignores this second aspect of social conflict, his account of pluralism is insufficiently complex, historicist, or intersectional and this limits the usefulness of his still influential theory for helping to navigate the challenges of pluralism

Religion and Pluralism in Rawlsian Ideal Theory

Religion and the Roots of Social Conflict