Radical Pluralism Research Articles

Radical pluralism, high inflation, and trust in historical context: the continued relevance of Fox in understanding UK public sector strikes

PurposeThe paper uses key themes from Fox’s writing to reflect on the wave of public sector industrial action that developed in the UK since the early 2020s: specifically the relevance of (1) radical pluralism, (2) historical context, (3) understanding the effects of high inflation and (4) (a breakdown of) trust relations.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws primarily on evidence from broad public debate but is informed by discussions held with senior union leaders both for a research project and in delivering development training.FindingsRadical pluralism is used as a lens through which to understand declining trust in institutions of pluralist collective industrial relations in the UK public sector, arguing that current developments need to be understood in historical context. An analysis of the industrial action in the early 2020s highlights the ways that a period of high inflation can stress institutions of collective employment regulation, rendering visible the limits of conventional, pluralist industrial relations.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper could be extended by more detailed empirical data collection, both in the UK and other national institutional contexts.Practical implicationsUnions need to more consistently focus on issues of power. A stronger focus on power might identify the limitations of pluralist institutions of collective regulation and embed a commitment to building union influence to challenge those existing structures in favour of mechanisms to build workers' power more broadly.Social implicationsUnderstanding these disputes as, at least in part, being about the limits to and undermining of trust in collective institutions that regulate work and employment allows us to better understand the forces at play and potential outcomes of these disputes.Originality/valueThe paper makes three key contributions: first, applying Fox’s work in a practical way to contemporary UK industrial relations; second, extending his analyses to public sector industrial relations and third, arguing that power needs to be more centrally located within union objectives in order to reshape industrial relations to radical pluralist ends.

Before the “fall”: Alan Fox's “intellectual crisis” and early pluralist history and sociology

PurposeThis paper presents an historical reconstruction of the radicalisation of Alan Fox, the industrial sociologist and a detailed analysis of his early historical and sociological writing in the classical pluralist phase.Design/methodology/approachAn intellectual history, including detailed discussion of key Fox texts, supported by interviews with Fox and other Biographical sources.FindingsFox’s radicalisation was incomplete, as he carried over from his industrial relations (IR) pluralist mentors, Allan Flanders and Hugh Clegg, a suspicion of political Marxism, a sense of historical contingency and an awareness of the fragmented nature of industrial conflict.Originality/valueRecent academic attention has centred on Fox’s later radical pluralism with its “structural” approach to the employment relationship. This paper revisits his early, neglected classical pluralist writing. It also illuminates his transition from institutional IR to a broader sociology of work, influenced by AH Halsey, John Goldthorpe and others and the complex nature of his radicalisation.

On Striving as Readers: A Response to Greer

The capacity of northern European gentlemen scholars educated in the love of wisdom, human dignity, friendship and rationality to treat their fellow human beings with irreconcilable prejudice and hold to ghastly beliefs of racial superiority, which legitimated violence, exploitation and extermination elsewhere, is one of the great tragedies of humanism. That the images of the human cultivated in texts were at variance with the lived experience of those who were treated as other than human was rarely noted in the books they read. I appreciate Matthew Greer's efforts to bring these concerns to the fore. I am grateful for the opportunity to read Sylvia Wynter, among others, and to think about their work in counter-humanism. I stand with Greer who reminds us that, as archaeologists, we must do more than critique ideologies, fight for inclusion, and engage in dialogue as demanded by a radical pluralism (Shanks & Tilley 1992, 246). Equity, social justice, openness, and decolonization demand the sustained effort of us all, both in our capacity as archaeologists and as readers of texts.

Pluralism and corporate governance reform

PurposeThe article considers the utility of a pluralist perspective in the context of current debates around UK corporate governance reform. Oxford School pluralism advanced both a description of how industrial relations (IR) operated in practice plus a prescription for how it should operate. Whilst economic conditions are different today, a pluralist framing provides not only a useful way of understanding interests in firm governance (description) but also a solid grounding for a pragmatic reform agenda (prescription).Design/methodology/approachDrawing from key texts in the field, the article considers core concepts within pluralist discourse and discusses their relevance to contemporary policy debates.FindingsThe article provides a short outline of recent economic and political developments and considers how a pluralist framing helps explain firm-level interests, challenging the dominant narrative of shareholder primacy. It then asks what policy interventions might flow from this analysis of capital and labour investments, and how feasible they are in the current UK context. This allows a discussion of levels of analysis (evident in materialist theories such as “radical pluralism” and the “disconnected capitalism thesis”). Finally, it reflects briefly on the links between corporate governance and wider patterns of inequality, suggesting the pluralist position is consistent with a Durkheimian sociology focusing on the potential in state-led regulatory interventions to tackle anomie and strengthen social solidarity.Originality/valueThe article brings together literature from what are often treated as relatively discrete areas of enquiry (employment relations and corporate governance) and also considers the public policy implications of these connections.

Правова поведінка як самоідентифікація людини в епоху постмодерну

The article clarifies the philosophical and legal features of legal behavior as a factor of human self-affirmation in the postmodern era. Within the limits of philosophical and legal understanding, postmodernism should be considered in two aspects: conceptual-idealistic (as a theoretical concept) and nihilistic (as a modern social reality). According to the natural law theory, any behavior will be lawful if a person, exercising his natural rights, does not violate similar rights of other persons. The philosophical basis of this approach is the doctrine of freedom as the natural state of man and his (man's) free will. Freedom consists in the ability to do everything that does not harm another. Human freedom, accordingly, cannot be absolute, because it is limited by the same condition of other people. This actually reflects the postmodern philosophical and legal understanding of human behavior in a conceptual and idealistic aspect. Regarding the understanding of lawful human behavior in the nihilistic plane of postmodernity, this is a conformist philosophical and legal concept. According to which a person's behavior is subject to new social standards and requirements, and can also be subjected to psychological pressure and manipulation by others who have stronger worldview and value beliefs. It is concluded that legal behavior is a factor of self-affirmation of a person in the postmodern era, self-identifies him as a person in social reality. Law has value, as it contributes to self-determination and self-realization of a person, provides new opportunities for individual and social development. The importance of the value of law for "postmodern man" and "postmodern society" is undeniable. In the conditions of a hyper-dynamic pace of life, conceptual chaos and radical pluralism, law remains a fundamental value for self-identification, self-creation, self-presentation and preservation of human self-worth.

A Radical Pluralist Philosophy of Religion: Cross-Cultural, Multireligious, Interdisciplinary. Mikel Burley. Bloomsbury, 2020. 245pp., $26.95 (pb.)

A Radical Pluralist Philosophy of Religion: Cross-Cultural, Multireligious, Interdisciplinary. Mikel Burley. Bloomsbury, 2020. 245pp., $26.95 (pb.)

The Category of the Otherness in Richard Rorty’s Philosophy: The Principles and Mechanisms of the Differentiation

This paper is an attempt to analyze Richard Rorty’s interpretation of the category of the Otherness in the context of the global project of liberal utopia – the society of the future, based on non-violence. The evolution of the understanding of the notion of the Otherness is reviewed in the context of the concepts of American pragmatist and French post-structuralist social anthropological practices, where the reasons for the alienation of particular individuals are explained on the mythological and linguistic background, and the people are solidarized shaping up the generalized other. The Other to a particular culture connects in him/herself the functions of the scapegoat and the messiah at the same time. In Rortian approach, a variety of reasons for an individual’s marginalization on class, religion, gender, and behavioral basis is analyzed. Moreover, the method of sentimental education is promoted in developing the children’s emotional intelligence and raising the generations on the values of total inclusivity and empathy apart from general erudition, with the help of fiction reading. The Kantian moral imperative is criticized for the mechanical and legalist character. So, the moral principles based on a fellowship are offered instead. This fellowship should be based rather on the personal identity with a particular nation, class, or gender than on the birthright. The advantages and drawbacks of radical pluralism, the understanding of relative values of all ways of life, and its difference from postmodern cultural relativism are also reviewed. The result of the study reveals the secondary role of the people’s differences in their consolidation in Richard Rorty’s liberal utopia if they have in common the basic principle of intolerance to violence, whether it is direct physical violence or the passive-aggressive abuse in humiliation.

The Perils of Polysemy: Racial Realism in the Real World

This paper critiques the biological race realism of Quayshawn Spencer. Spencer's recent embrace of “radical race pluralism” (RRP) is welcome but incomplete, because it needs methods that distinguish different communicative contexts for how American English speakers use “race” and related terms. I offer a pragmatic approach to identifying such contexts that combines pragmatic argumentation theory, rhetorical polysemy, and a pragmatic approach to definition. One consequence of embracing RRP is that Spencer's theory of “OMB race talk” is unsupportable because it collapses three distinct communicative contexts: genomic research, legal and regulatory governance, and ordinary talk. By so doing, OMB race talk blocks attempts to fight racism and violates ethical standards that should allow people the agency to define their own identities.

Fragmented Pragmatism: On Sungmoon Kim’s Pragmatic Confucian Democracy

Fragmented Pragmatism: On Sungmoon Kim’s Pragmatic Confucian Democracy

Pluralisms? Social philosophy, social science and public policy in employment relations and human resource management

Alan Fox's frames of reference has sparked over half a century of debate between employment relations/human resource management pluralists, radicals and unitarists. But the notion of industrial relations pluralism itself continues to be highly disputed. This commentary tracks the journey from classical pluralism to neo-pluralism, then addresses three articles that offer a variety of radical pluralist alternatives. A fourth paper discussed, suggests a quantitative approach to testing Fox's frames, but this article makes a case for retaining the qualitative, case study method. A fifth explores the revival of paternalism on the border between unitarism and pluralism. Overall, the article argues that classical pluralism, based on trade unions and collective bargaining, is now outdated, but that neo-pluralism is capable of carrying forward its pragmatic, institutional spirit to explore the empirical complexity of contemporary employment relationships around the world. Finally, the discussion of employment relations pluralisms needs to re-engage with the wider political pluralism debate about liberal democratic societies and market economies.

Without Ceasing to Be a Christian: A Catholic and Protestant Assess the Christological Contribution of Raimon Panikkar by Erik Ranstrom and Bob Robinson

Reviewed by: Without Ceasing to Be a Christian: A Catholic and Protestant Assess the Christological Contribution of Raimon Panikkar by Erik Ranstrom and Bob Robinson Jyri Komulainen Erik Ranstrom and Bob Robinson, Without Ceasing to Be a Christian: A Catholic and Protestant Assess the Christological Contribution of Raimon Panikkar. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2017. Pp. 249. $79.00. Raimon Panikkar (1918–2010) was one of the most intriguing thinkers in the field of the theology of religions. He was born in Spain to a Catholic mother and a Hindu father. Regardless of this inherently multicultural background, he was brought up in a society imbued with pre- Conciliar Catholicism. It was only later in his life that he visited India, his father’s land of birth. In effect, Panikkar’s mature vision of Christianity drew from many Occidental and Indic sources, becoming so wide-ranging and inclusive that it prompts many questions regarding the limits and the possibilities of Christian theology. There seems to be continued interest in Panikkar’s legacy. For instance, an ongoing project aims to publish his multivolume Opera Omnia in multiple languages. In addition, there are some academic studies published recently. One of these publications is the theologically creative and shrewd book under review here. I find it very fitting that Panikkar’s multifaceted theology is analyzed in ecumenical dialogue by two theologians with different backgrounds: Ranstrom is an American Catholic, and Bob Robinson is a New Zealand Anglican with an Evangelical tint. The book sheds light on Panikkar’s thinking from two complementary denominational angles. In practice, the ecumenical approach means that the chapters are written individually by both authors, with the concluding chapter bringing together some themes in a form of discussion. Even though the authors come from different theological traditions, both are very ecumenically minded and hold the “Great tradition” in high esteem. In their use, this term denotes “that broad and ever expansive stream of Christian tradition common to the oikumene and marked by the profession of the faith of the apostles through canon, creed, and council that Jesus Christ is Lord” (p. xviii). Mirroring Panikkar with the Great tradition proves to be a rewarding starting point. With their sympathetic reading, Ranstrom and Robinson show lucidly that Panikkar’s christological musings are well- grounded in the Christian mainstream tradition. Especially in his earlier writings in the 1950’s and 1960’s, Panikkar made a bold and innovative effort to recognize revelatory aspects of Hinduism from a robustly Catholic perspective. In fact, Ranstrom makes a valuable contribution when drilling into the Spanish writings of Panikkar’s lesser- known period in Opus Dei, thus unsealing this early chapter of [End Page 154] his oeuvre for the English- speaking audience. His interpretation of Melchizedek as a kind of prototype of the Cosmic religion forecasting Christ is especially worth reading. Ranstrom also tries to contextualize the evolution of Panikkar’s thinking in major shifts in his life, one of which was the above- mentioned acquaintance with India. Even though it seems hard to pinpoint when and why Panikkar amplified his thinking to his later phase of “radical pluralism,” dispensing ultimately with the concept of God, there is no doubt that something happened in his thinking. Ranstrom suggests quite plausibly that one of the major shifts in Panikkar’s intellectual evolution occurred when he moved to the “post- Christian” milieu in Santa Barbara, California, in the early 1970’s: “It is quite possible that Panikkar, discerning the academic and spiritual contexts where he was living and working, decided that he must undergo a kenōsis into the traditions and life of peoples that were outside of the church, in order to keep pace with the cultural movement of global humanity” (p. xiii). Surely, the same applies also to Panikkar’s earlier relocation from Europe to India. Eventually, Panikkar’s method of self- emptying results in a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the Great tradition that upholds High Christology but, at the same time, yields “a de- kerygmatization of Christianity” (p. 111), to quote Robinson’s expression. Both authors make critical observations about Panikkar’s proclivity to sever Christ from Jesus of Nazareth, whose meaning almost disappears from his thinking...

The Realism of Taxonomic Pluralism

In this paper, I present a critique of taxonomic pluralism, namely the view that there are multiple correct ways to classify entities into natural kinds within a given scientific domain. I argue that taxonomic pluralism, as an anti-essentialist position, fails to provide a realist alternative to taxonomic monism, i.e., the view that there is only one correct way to classify entities into natural kinds within a given scientific domain. To establish my argument, I first explain why the naturalist approach to natural kinds adopted by pluralists requires them to give up the mind-independence criterion of reality presupposed by monists. Next, I survey two types of pluralist account. I argue that, while the modest pluralist account is not pluralistic enough, the radical pluralist account fails to come up with an alternative criterion of reality that is robust enough to differentiate its position from anti-realism about natural kinds. I conclude by drawing out the implications of my critique for the essentialism/anti-essentialism debate about natural kinds.

Made by a human like you or me: Back to the Greek classics to further develop the rhetorical paradigm of public relations

The first aim of this paper is to establish some of the core assumptions and concepts that have been used to build the rhetorical paradigm for developing public relations theory. The key tenets of this paradigm are deployed to enable some critical reflection on the value of the model, and particularly the work of Heath, for scholars who accept that public relations is constituted by persuasive discourses and perpetual competition between opposing interests and values. The second aim of this paper is to explore the question of where next? How do we develop the rhetorical paradigm and take it into new directions and allow it to embrace new problems? This paper will attempt to do this by applying agonistic theories of democracy. To mirror how Heath has drawn on classical writers such as Aristotle, Isocrates and Quintilian, this paper will also draw on classical texts: Firstly, through the satirical drama and social commentary in the writing of Aristophanes; and then through Honig’s work in reinterpreting Sophocles’ play Antigone. Agonism derives from the ancient Greek word agōn - a contest or struggle. A key priniciple of classical agonism is that protagonists should seek to win acclaim and admiration by performing openly in public, and it extols plurality above dispassionate deliberation. This suggests some resonance with the dominant assumptions of the rhetorical paradigm, but more modern forms of agonism make post-foundationalist assumptions of the impossibility of any consensus existing beyond precarious hegemonic relationships. They also hold to a radical pluralism that when applied challenge widely-held assumptions that ethically grounded public relations practice is that which seeks to eliminate conflict in favour of seeking consensus. Fusing agonistic cooperation with Heath’s notion of concurrence is suggested as a means of integrating critical theory into the rhetorical paradigm.

The Myth of the Given today: Perspectives of realistic epistemology

The article deals with the reception of Wilfrid Sellars’s The Myth of the Given. The Problem consists in the ontological status of reality and the possibility of empirical knowledge. The ideas of well-known representatives of modern analytical epistemology are analyzed: J. Searle, H. Putnam, J. McDowell, G. Evans, C. Peacocke, W. Child, T. Rockmore, etc. An attempt is made in the article to show that The Myth of the Given is losing its relevance in modern humanistic realism where the world is already becoming a symbolic construct within the epistemological framework. Experience as such is no longer deemed as a linguistic phenomenon in modern epistemology. Sellars’s argumentation is convincing only if universalism, in terms of the interpretation of experience and reality, is criticized from the standpoint of radical pluralism of epistemological theories. In this case, indeed, no “Given” exists, viewed as a correlation between the substance of Sensitivity and the only possible world of Reality. It is illustrated that modern analytical epistemology is an arena of competition between two leading positions in the interpretation of the world: externalism and internalism. Despite the contradiction between these theoretical positions, they are in accord in recognizing a pluralistic worldview, which is, moreover, of a “humanistic” nature. These theories address neither “the given” nor “the world of facts”. The main trouble with The Myth of the Given is the lack of criteria of objectivity in any act of experience.

Contractualism and Radical Pluralism

How should contractualists seek to accommodate and respond to the existence of radical pluralism within contemporary liberal states? Ryan Muldoon has recently argued that a) the dominant Kantian liberal model of contractualism is hopelessly ill equipped to do so but that b) there is a particular kind of Hobbesian contractualism that can do much better. I raise some problems concerning the capacity of Muldoonian contractualism to respond appropriately to the problem of radical pluralism. I then propose a very different kind of solution that involves embracing an advice model of contractualism.

"Introspection — One or More? Pluralism about Self-Knowledge"

The aim of this paper is to provide a metaphilosophical analysis of the debate between monistic and pluralistic approaches to self-knowledge. I start by presenting the background for the discussion, clarifying the terminology, and drawing a distinction between moderate and radical pluralism. I then discuss and evaluate arguments for monism that appeal to general methodological guidelines as well as those relying on specific assumptions about the objects and character of self-knowledge. I offer a separate analysis of Eric Schwitzgebel’s radical pluralism, which threatens to undermine both monism and moderate pluralism. I close by describing a way of looking at the problem of the homogeneity of self-knowledge that goes beyond the monism–pluralism dichotomy and arguing that the heterogeneity and multidimensionality of the problem of self-knowledge are more important than the plurality of the solutions.

On Wittgenstein, Radical Pluralism, and Radical Relativity

In this paper, I introduce the idea of ‘radical relativity’ to elucidate an undervalued justificatory context for Wittgenstein’s affirmation of radical pluralism. I accept D.Z. Phillips’s definition of radical pluralism as the view that certain radical differences between people’s ordinary practices prevent the latter from being reduced to a necessary set of common interests, meanings, or truths. I argue that radical relativity provides this form of pluralism with the logical justification it requires in that it accounts for how pluralism became radical. More specifically, I argue that the contingent, non-causal, and yet non-arbitrary relation between ordinary concepts and the pluralistic world through which they emerge explains the reality of radical pluralism. Radical relativity is suggested in Wittgenstein’s three notions of ‘concept formation’, ‘agreement in reaction’, and ‘world pictures’, I argue, without endorsing traditional forms of relativism. Finally, I show that although D.Z. Phillips and Hilary Putnam promote notions of pluralism indebted to Wittgenstein, neither philosopher utilizes the radical relativity suggested in his work to justify his respective version of pluralism or Wittgenstein’s version of radical pluralism.

Radical pluralism and the challenges of educating for democratic-ecological civic identities: Reflections from the Mexican school context

This article builds on the growing importance of concepts of identity and diversity in citizenship education studies and argues for an expanded conception of diversity that ultimately includes the non-human and even inanimate realm. The dramatic pace of human-induced global climate change requires a commensurate urgency in developing forms of citizenship education that shape new ecological as well as political civic identities, and which expand democracy beyond the human community. Situating my empirical work on Mexican civic education reform in a global, comparative context, I consider the challenges that all schools and school systems will need to address to incorporate even deeper practices of respect for diversity and acknowledgment of the radical pluralism that life (and non-life) on earth presents.

Radical pluralism, classificatory norms and the legitimacy of species classifications

Moderate pluralism is a popular position in contemporary philosophy of biology. Despite its popularity, various authors have argued that it tends to slide off into a radical form of pluralism that is both normatively and descriptively unacceptable. This paper looks at the case of biological species classification, and evaluates a popular way of avoiding radical pluralism by relying on the shared aims and norms of a discipline. The main contention is that while these aims and norms may play an important role in the legitimacy of species classifications, they fail to fend off radical pluralism. It follows from this that the legitimacy of species classifications is also determined by local decisions about the aims of research and how to operationalize and balance these. This is important, I argue, because it means that any acceptable view on the legitimacy of classification should be able to account for these local decisions.

Pluralismo y unidad. El significado de la idea metafísica de participación

The post-modern pleading for radical pluralism has an anti-totalitarian intention: it is directed against the idea of a unitary science as well as against the idea of a progress in history and demands the acception of the otherness of the other. Because the postmodern concept of pluralism shares with the totalitarian concept of unity (oppposed by it) the same presupposition – the anti-thesis of singularity and pluraility – the concept of pluralism is itself totalitarian. Whereas participative unity does not exclude diversity, but includes it. The practical relevance of the concept of participation is that it is not subject to the dialectic of diversity negating unity and unity negating diversity, because wherein everything comes together is exactly wherin everything is distinguished. A true pleading for plurality includes concern about community.