---a social organization in which diversity of racial or religious or ethnic or cultural groups is tolerated
---the doctrine that reality consists of several basic substances or elements
---the practice of one person holding more than one benefice at a time
---the doctrine that reality consists of several basic substances or elements
---the practice of one person holding more than one benefice at a time
The current political and social climate in the U.S. is fraught with contention and polarity. The concept of bipartisanship in Congress is spoken of as a mythical Holy Grail. Social issues of gay-vs-straight marriage, religious-vs-atheist thought, color-vs-white racialism, native-vs-immigrant citizenship threaten to mire progress for all on any social or economic problems.
Pluralism, as defined above, is seen by some as a remedy for this dichotomy-based quagmire. In other words, "Can't we all just get along?" I tend to agree, to a point. My ongoing question is this: When does pluralism blur into moral/ethical equivocation, as definition below? This is the inherent challenge of pluralism, in my opinion.
---evasion: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth
---intentionally vague or ambiguous
source:wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
---intentionally vague or ambiguous
source:wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So, it is my practice to carefully gauge pluralist rhetoric against a standard of universal human rights and global peace. For example, while I do not feel it is my place to determine whether or not an adult woman wears a head scarf or a nose ring, I do feel it is my responsibility to stand against these symbols when they mask misogyny and the abuse of women's rights of choice over their own bodies. In other words, while accepted as cultural markers, they must also be open to frank inquiry and discussion in a free pluralistic society.
Pluralism has been used in Neo-Liberal circles as a leveling method to create a Big Tent for progressive political movement. But, the Neo-Liberal line often drifts into equivocation as a way to avoid political dissension in the ranks. This sabotages its own effectiveness as a political philosophy. The free market in Reaganite capitalism often thrives on the abuse of social responsibility and individual rights, for example. This is at the core of the current unpopularity of the Obama administration's Neo-Liberal approach to the financial capitalists who have brought on the current economic collapse.
Progress means change. Change often necessitates choosing between those things which are functional and just over those things which are not. Stagnant pluralism can be a drag on change for this simple reason. Pluralism, to be effective at promoting human rights and global peace, must also be dynamic, ever evolving, always examined. This is very hard work, but it can be less bloody and more effective at getting us to where our core human values guide us.
