What-is-Politics---The-approach-of-radical-plurali

©PoliticalStudiesAssociation,2003.PublishedbyBlackwellPublishingLtd,9600GarsingtonRoad,OxfordOX42DQ,UKand350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USAWhatisPolitics?TheApproachofRadicalPluralismMarkAnthonyWenman1StaffordshireUniversityInthisarticleIevaluatetheconceptionsofpoliticsandof‘thepolitical’characteristicof‘radicalpluralism’.Iarguethatinordertocomprehendtheradicallypluralistconceptionofpoliticsitisnecessarytograspthepost-structuralistcritiqueofthephilosophicalprincipleofidentity.Theconcernwiththeinterfacebetweenpoliticsandethics–whichistypicaloftheradicalpluralistapproach–isalsoexplored.Throughoutthearticlecontrastismadewiththeconventionalplu-ralismofAmericanpoliticalscience.Iconcludewithaconsiderationoftheimportanceofradicalpluralism,withreferencetothedifficultiesthismaypresentforthemethodsandsuppositionsofpoliticalsciencetraditionallyunderstood.IntroductionOverthepastfewyearsthisjournalhasfacilitatedadebateaboutthenatureandscopeofpolitics.ThediscussioncommencedwithaninterventionbyAlanFinlaysonandJamesMartinin1997(17(3)),whichmetwitharesponsefromRobinBrownin1998(18(3)).ThegauntletwastakenupagainbyTonyBurnsin2000(20(2)).InthisarticleIseektocontributetothisdisputebyintroducingthereflectionsonpoliticsand‘thepolitical’characteristicof‘radicalpluralism’.Radicalpluralismisthemostappropriatetermtodifferentiateaseriesoftextspublishedduringthepastdecadeandahalf.TheseincludeConnolly(1995a),Keane(1988),LaclauandMouffe(1985),Mouffe(1993b),Mouffe(2000),andYoung(1990).Thesetheoristsdevelopcontrastingaccountsofpolitics(seeforexampleMouffe’scritiqueofYoung:Mouffe,1993b,pp.85–86).However,formycurrentpurposesthesimilaritiesaremoresignificantthanthedifferences.Eachofthesetheoristshasdevelopedconceptionsofpoliticsguidedbythephilosophicalinsightsofpost-structuralism.TheworkofWilliamConnollyandofChantalMouffeisexemplaryoftheapproachofradicalpluralism:theideasoftheseauthorswillprovidethemainsourcesofreferencehere.Inordertograsptheconceptionofpoliticsadvancedbyradicalpluralists,itwillbehelpfultojuxtaposethistotheapproachofconventionalpluralism.ConventionalpluralismandthenatureandscopeofpoliticsThepluralismofAmericanpoliticalsciencehasbeenmassivelyinfluentialinshapingtheanalysisofpoliticsinthetwentiethcentury.Althoughpluralistideasandmethodshavebeenverywidespread,itispossibletooutlinethepluralistconceptionofpoliticsdrawingfromahandfulofkeytexts.Theseare:BentleyPOLITICS:2003VOL23(1),57–65(1908),Dahl(1961),DahlandLindblom(1976[1953]),Polsby(1963),andTruman(1962).Asthetitlesofthesebooksindicate,thepluralismofAmericanpoliticalscienceequatespoliticswithprocedure:with‘theprocessofgovernment’.Themostcelebratedofthesetexts–RobertDahl’sWhoGoverns?–exploresthedeci-sion-makingprocessinNewHaven,Connecticut.Dahlexaminesdifferent‘issueareas’inwhich‘importantpublicdecisionsaremade’(Dahl,1961,p.64).Fortheconventionalpluralistthisisthematerialofpolitics.ThetheoreticalsuppositionsofconventionalpluralismareperhapsbestlaidoutinPolsby(1963)andTruman(1962).Politicsisconceivedascompetitionbetweenapluralityoforganised‘interestgroups’or‘pressuregroups’toinfluencetheoutcomeofexecutivedecisions(Polsby,1963,pp.118and121;Truman,1962,p.vii).These‘interestedgroups’areconceivedascoalitionsofcitizensthathave‘sharedattitudes’towardsparticularprevailingissues(Polsby,1963,p.115;Truman,1962,p.33).Itisimportanttonotethatpoliticalcompetitionispresumedtotakeplacebetweensocialentities–interestgroups–whoseidentityistakenasgiven.Theactualconstitutionoftheidentityofthesesocialgroupingsisofnoconcerntothestudentofpolitics.Thisiseffectivelyexcludedfromthearenaofpolitics,andisexplainedastheinevitableoutcomeoftheindividual’scapacityfor‘rationalaction’(Polsby,1963,p.120).Itshouldalsobenotedthatpoliticalcom-petitionisunderstoodtotakeplacewithincertain‘rulesofthegame’(Truman,1962,p.507).Thesearealsotreatedasgiven,andthereforebeyondthescopeofpoliticaladjudication.Criticismsofconventionalpluralismarewellknown.InresponsetothepluralistapproachPeterBachrachandMortonBaratzidentifiedthe‘secondfaceofpower’:i.e.thepowertodecidewhichissuesareexcludedfromorincludedwithinthedecision-makingagenda(BachrachandBaratz,1962,p.948).Followingthis,StevenLukesemphasisedthe‘three-dimensionalviewofpower’:i.e.thepowertoshapepeople’sactualpreferences(Lukes,1974,p.24).Bothoftheseripostesre-presentattemptstoextendthedimensionofpolitics.Someconventionalpluralistshaverespondedtothesecriticisms.Commentatorsnowrefervariouslyto‘reformed’pluralism,to‘neo’pluralism,andto‘elite’pluralism(DunleavyandO’Leary,1987,pp.271–318;Manley,1983,pp.368–393;Marsh,1995,pp.277–280;Smith,1990,pp.311–319).InhisNewHavenstudyDahldefinedaplu-ralistsystemofpower–orpolyarchy–asaformofinequalitythattendsnottocumulateintodefinitepatternsofsubordination(Dahl,1961,p.7).InhisandinCharlesLindblom’smorerecentworkthereisrecognitionoftheinadequacyofthismodelasadescriptionofthepowerstructurecharacteristicofcontemporarymarket-basedsocieties(DahlandLindblom,1976,p.xxxvii).Bothauthorsnowemphasisethepersistentpredominanceof‘businessinterests’or‘giantfirms’(DahlandLi