Radical democracy and associationalism
Modernized notions of pluralism, which have resonance with social capital, are the concepts of radical democracy and associationalism. Ironically whilst pluralism appears foundationalist in its epistemology and positivist in its methodology, pluralist concerns can be discerned in postmodernist writings.
Like pluralists, postmodernists reject monism and in particular the Marxist belief in a single truth and explanation. Postmodernists and radical democrats pick up on many of the traditional concerns of democracy. According to McClure (1992: 15),[they] have been articulated in crucial opposition to unitary, monolithic or totalizing conceptions of the political domain, particularly in so far as these presume some singularly sovereign or unique agency overseeing or determining political processes and/or social relations
This leads to a pluralist conception of knowledge. No organization can have a monopoly of knowledge. Wainwright (1993) highlights knowledge as socially constructed; it is impossible for a single person, group or party to know everything. Ideally knowledge should be demystified into a range of social movements. Thus central to radical democrats, like Putnam, is a strong belief in the richness of civil society and the importance of social movements as a mechanism for controlling and circumventing the monopolizing tendencies of the state. Like traditional pluralists radical democrats see social movements as crucial elements in society. Civil society is complex and pluralist, with individuals belonging to an array of social groups. These groups do not have a preordained existence or identity but develop as a consequence of struggle and social interaction (McClure 1992: 115).
Radical democrats offer their pluralism as a critique, rather than legitimization, of liberal democracy and in their extreme relativism take a very different epistemology to classical pluralism.
Nevertheless, some of the criticisms of traditional pluralism can also be made of radical democracy. Like most of the forms of pluralism discussed in this chapter they fail to develop a convincing theory of the state. State power is almost bracketed off into a separate sphere from the world of social movements and self organization. Where radical democrats do conceptualize the relationship between the state and civil society, they tend to offer an almost benign notion of the state (see Dryzek 1996). Consequently, they do not offer effective strategies for overcoming state power. Like traditional pluralists and Putnam, hope for political transformation is vested in social groups. However, the relativism of postmodernists means that they can make no moral claims regarding the status of various groups and thus cannot deal with groups that do not subscribe to the goals of radical democracy. Their approach is to politicize the whole of society (which is very different to traditional pluralism). The problem then arises of how the interests of minorities are protected if the state is weak and political interests are highly salient?
More on the topic Radical democracy and associationalism:
- Modern elitist perspectives - from radical elitism to the statists
- Disempowerment and democracy
- Democracy and Autonomy
- Linking Democracy and Intergovernmental Politics
- Autonomy and Interdependence in Federal Democracy
- CHAPTER 2 Squaring the Circle? Balancing Autonomy and Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Democracy
- The relationship between constitutions and law
- Conclusion
- Structure of the book
- National elite power studies
- There appears to be a veritable industry of academic work on globalization, which reflects, in turn, the way in which this term has entered into common currency in the media and even in public discourse.
- Conclusion
- Contingency: is a theory of the state possible?
- Conclusions
- The domestic socio-political context
- Multiculturalism and the plural society
- The modern elitists in perspective
- Contents