The way that I look at pluralism, is as a way of thinking. To me pluralism represents the ability to think about diversity in a positive way. It is the ability to celebrate diversity while recognizing that it comes with challenges, but being willing to work to overcome these challenges... but is this it?
This definition is a very broad one, but I don't know if it's broad enough to capture a concept that is as pervasive as pluralism. Here's an example of the problem I have with the above definition... if you were an individual who lived by pluralistic values and you were placed in a very restrictive society where homogeneity was encouraged and all those around you refused to accept diversity... would you still be a "pluralistic individual"?
It's an odd question, but if you really think about it, it makes some sense... by the definition pluralism is something that can be accomplished on an individual level - I can personally celebrate diversity, recognize it's challenges and work to overcome these challenges - without involving anyone else. But this isn't right!
The more I think about it, the more I believe that pluralism depends on one's environment to truly flourish. It is a thought - a way of thinking, a way of communicating. So, pluralism cannot exist on a purely individual level... We can individually enact pluralistic values, however the true form of pluralism can only be found on a societal level. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't each work to live by pluralistic values, but it does mean that a primary goal of anyone who wishes to encourage the growth of this value system is to help others achieve the values that you wish to espouse. So really... it isn't possible to be "pluralistic individual," but it is possible to build a pluralistic society. So... wanna help me try?!
No comments:
Post a Comment