#pluralism | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 17 days ago

Text

Ouroboros Der Siebente Ring Stefan George Illus. by Melchior Lechter Berlin: Blaetter für die Kunst, 1907.

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

December 7, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Dec 08, 2024

On Thursday, December 5, in Chicago, Illinois, former president Barack Obama gave the third in an annual series of lectures he has delivered since 2022 at his foundation’s Democracy Forum, which gathers experts, leaders, and young people to explore ways to safeguard democracy through community action.

Taken together, these lectures are a historical and philosophical exploration of the weaknesses of twenty-first century democracy as well as a road map of directions, some new and some old, for democracy’s defense. In 2022, Obama explored ways to counteract the flood of disinformation swamping a shared reality for decision making; in 2023 he discussed ways to address the extraordinary concentration of wealth that has undermined support for democracy globally.

On Thursday, Obama explored the concept of “pluralism,” a word he defined as meaning simply that “in a democracy, we all have to find a way to live alongside individuals and groups who are different than us.”

But rather than advocating what he called “holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’” as we all tolerate each other, Obama described modern pluralism as active work to form coalitions over shared issues. His argument echoed the concepts James Madison, a key framer of the Constitution, explained in Federalist #10 when he was trying to convince inhabitants of a big, diverse country that they should endorse the newly written document.

In 1787, many inhabitants of the fledgling nation objected to the idea of the strong national government proposed under the new constitution. They worried that such a government could fall under the control of a majority that would exercise its power to crush the rights of the minority. Madison agreed that such a calamity was likely in a small country, but argued that the very size and diversity of the people in the proposed United States would guard against such tyranny as people formed coalitions over one issue or another, then dissolved them and formed others. Such constantly shifting coalitions would serve the good of all Americans without forging a permanent powerful majority.

Obama called the Constitution “a rulebook for practicing pluralism.” The Bill of Rights gives us a series of rights that allow us to try to convince others to form coalitions to elect representatives who will “negotiate and compromise and hopefully advance our interests.”

Majority rule determines who wins, but the separation of powers and an independent judiciary are supposed to guarantee that the winners “don’t overreach to try to permanently entrench themselves or violate minority rights,” he said. The losers accept the outcome so long as they know they’ll have a chance to win the next time.

Obama noted that this system worked smoothly after World War II, largely because a booming economy meant rising standards of living that eased friction between different groups: management and labor, industry and agriculture. At the same time, the Cold War helped Americans come together against an external threat, and a limited range of popular culture reinforced a shared perspective on the world—everyone watched the sitcom Gilligan’s Island.

Most of all, though, Obama noted, American pluralism worked well because it largely excluded women and racial, gender, and religious minorities. He pointed out that as late as 2005, when he went to the Senate, he was the only African American there and only the third since Reconstruction. There were two Latinos and fourteen women.

In the 1960s, he noted drily, “things got more complicated.” “[H]istorically marginalized groups—Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans; women and gays and lesbians; and disabled Americans—demanded a seat at the table. Not only did they insist on a fair share of government-directed resources, but they brought with them new issues, born of their unique experiences that could not just be resolved by just giving them a bigger slice of the pie. So racial minorities insisted that the government intervene more deeply in the private sector and civil society to root out long-standing, systemic discrimination.”

Women wanted control over their own bodies, and gays and lesbians demanded equality before the law, challenging religious and social norms. “[P]olitics,” Obama said, “wasn’t just a fight about tax rates or roads anymore. It was about more fundamental issues that went to the core of our being and how we expected society to structure itself. Issues of identity and status and gender. Issues of family, values, and faith…. [A] lot of people…began to feel that their way of life, the American way of life, was under attack” just as increasing economic inequality made them think that other people were benefiting at their expense.

Increasingly, that economic inequality cloistered people in their own bubbles as unions, churches, and civic institutions decayed. “[W]ith the Cold War over, with generations scarred by Vietnam and Iraq and a media landscape that would shatter into a million disparate voices,” he said, Americans lost the sense of “a common national story or a common national purpose.” Media companies have played to extremes, and “[e]very election becomes an act of mortal combat.”

With that sense, there is “an increasing willingness on the part of politicians and their followers to violate democratic norms, to do anything they can to get their way, to use the power of the state to target critics and journalists and political rivals, and to even resort to violence in order to gain and hold on to power.”

For all that he was speaking in 2024, Obama could have been describing the realization of the fears of those opposed to the Constitution in 1787.

But he did not agree that those anti-Federalists had won the debate. Instead, he adapted Madison’s theory of pluralism to the modern era. Obama stood firm on the idea that the way to reclaim democracy is to build coalitions around taking action on issues that matter to the American people without regard to personal identities or political affiliations. Pluralism, Obama said, “is about recognizing that in a democracy, power comes from forging alliances, and building coalitions, and making room in those coalitions not only for the woke but also for the waking.”

And that, in many ways, identified the elephant—or rather the donkey—in the room. In the 2024 election, the Democratic Party under Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz very deliberately moved away from so-called identity politics: the idea that a person builds their political orientation around their pre-existing social identity. During the campaign, Harris rarely referred to the fact that if elected, she would be the first woman, as well as the first woman of color, to hold the presidency: when attendees at the Democratic National Convention wore white in honor of the suffragists, Harris wore black.

Instead, Harris and Walz embraced investing in the middle class and supporting small businesses. But that shift to the center did not translate into a presidential victory in 2024, and those on the political left, as well as progressive Democrats, are not convinced it was a good move.

Since the rise of Donald Trump, the MAGA party has been the one championing identity politics, rejecting American pluralism in favor of centering whiteness, a certain kind of individualist masculinity, Christianity, and misogyny. Making common cause with Republicans, even non-MAGA Republicans, in the face of such politics seems to the left and progressive Democrats self-defeating.

Obama disagrees. “[I]t’s understandable that people who have been oppressed or marginalized want to tell their stories and give voice fully to their experiences—to not have to hold back and censor themselves, especially because so many of them have been silenced in the past,” he said, “But too often, focusing on our differences leads to this notion of fixed victims and fixed villains.”

He stood firm against compromising core principles but said: “In order to build lasting majorities that support justice—not just for feeling good, not just for getting along, to deliver the goods—we have to be open to framing our issues, our causes, what we believe in in terms of ‘we’ and not just ‘us’ and ‘them.’”

And he emphasized that such cooperation works best when it’s about action, rather than just words, because action requires that people invest themselves in a common project. “It won't eradicate people's prejudices, but it will remind people that they don't have to agree on everything to at least agree on some things. And that there are some things we cannot do alone.” “It’s about agency and relationships.”

Then Obama addressed the political crisis of this moment, the one the anti-Federalists feared: “What happens when the other side has repeatedly and abundantly made clear they’re not interested in playing by the rules?” When that happens, he said, “pluralism does not call for us” to accept it. “[W]e have to stand firm and speak out and organize and mobilize as forcefully as we can.” Even then, though, “it’s important to look for allies in unlikely places,” he said, noting that “people on the other side…may share our beliefs in sticking to the rules, observing norms,” and that supporting them might help them “to exert influence on people they’ve got relationships with within the other party.”

The power of pluralism, he said, is that it can make people recognize their common experiences and common values. That, he said, is how we break the cycle of cynicism in our politics.

Obama’s argument has already drawn criticism. At MSNBC, Ben Burgis condemned Obama’s “centrist liberalism” as inadequate to address the real problems of inequality and warned that his political approach is outdated.

But it is striking how much Obama’s embrace of pluralism echoes that of James Madison, who had in his lifetime witnessed a group of wildly diverse colonists talk, write letters, argue, and organize to forge themselves into a movement that could throw off the age-old system of monarchy in favor of creating something altogether new.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From An American #Barack Obama #both sides #Pluralism #Bill of Rights #centrist liberalism #allies #economic inequality

8 notes · View notes

omegaphilosophia · 10 months ago

Text

Theories on the Philosophy of Power

The philosophy of power encompasses various theories that seek to understand the nature, sources, and implications of power in human societies. Here are some key theories in the philosophy of power:

Pluralist Theory: Pluralist theory posits that power is dispersed among multiple groups and individuals in society, and no single entity holds absolute power. According to this view, power is decentralized, and different groups compete for influence through political, economic, and social channels.

Elite Theory: Elite theory contends that power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite group within society, such as political leaders, business magnates, or cultural elites. According to this perspective, elites wield disproportionate influence over political decisions and societal outcomes, often at the expense of the broader population.

Marxist Theory: Marxist theory emphasizes the role of economic power in shaping society and maintains that power relations are fundamentally determined by class dynamics. According to Marxists, the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) hold power over the proletariat (working class) through the control of economic resources, leading to exploitation and inequality.

Foucauldian Theory: Drawing from the work of Michel Foucault, Foucauldian theory examines power as a diffuse and pervasive force that operates through disciplinary mechanisms and social institutions. Power is not solely held by individuals or groups but is embedded in societal structures and practices, shaping norms, behaviors, and subjectivities.

Feminist Theory: Feminist theories of power highlight the gendered dimensions of power relations and critique patriarchal structures that perpetuate male dominance and female subordination. Feminist scholars analyze how power operates within families, workplaces, and political systems, and advocate for gender equality and social justice.

Poststructuralist Theory: Poststructuralist theorists, such as Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler, challenge essentialist notions of power and instead focus on power as performative and discursive. Power is understood as fluid and contingent, constructed through language, discourse, and social practices, rather than being inherent or fixed.

Network Theory: Network theory conceptualizes power as emerging from relational connections and interactions between actors within complex networks. Power is distributed unevenly across network structures, with some nodes or actors exerting greater influence due to their centrality, connectivity, or resource control.

Rational Choice Theory: Rational choice theory models individual behavior as driven by rational calculations of costs and benefits, including the pursuit of power. According to this approach, individuals seek to maximize their utility or achieve their goals by strategically deploying resources and forming alliances to enhance their power position.

Critical Theory: Critical theories of power, influenced by the Frankfurt School and critical social theory, emphasize the role of ideology, culture, and social institutions in perpetuating power inequalities. Critical theorists analyze how power operates through processes of domination, hegemony, and ideological control, and advocate for emancipatory social change.

Intersectional Theory: Intersectional theory considers how power operates at the intersections of multiple axes of identity, including race, gender, class, sexuality, and ability. This approach recognizes that power relations are shaped by intersecting systems of oppression and privilege, and emphasizes the importance of addressing multiple forms of inequality simultaneously.

These theories offer diverse perspectives on the nature and dynamics of power, illuminating its complexities and providing insights into its effects on individuals, groups, and societies.

27 notes · View notes

strangerthanfictive · 3 months ago

Text

Recognizing You Have a Fictitious Identity

An Informal Discussion Between 2 Fictive Headmates Key - Sorrel - Sorrel Accent Text - Aster - Aster Accent Text Why am I me? Why did the brain choose him out of countless other characters to make a pitiful clone of? That was the first mystery I had to solve; the homework the doc gave me. And I know it was for the best that things move fast, yeah? A head-start before I get a chance to start to feel things about this "life," these "memories" I have that are just fabrications of a broken mind. But then I also needed to recall those memories of this person that I really am (but feel like I'm suddenly inhabiting) to figure it out in the first place. I remember thinking; how in the hell am I going to go about this? Rewatch the show, and take notes whenever I feel like something aligns with our trauma? Is the doc expecting me to, like, draw up a venn diagram and bring it next week? Do I just think about the two of me—of body and fiction—and the answer will just come to me? Honestly, I didn't even think about that question for months. I asked myself why I was here moreso in the sense that I was stuck in someone else's body and needed to find a way to get home so that they could get their body back and I could get back to my family. It took me nearly a year to actually realize that we're all part of the same whole; that I took on this identity and more importantly, that I could part with it should I want to. I remember that call with our therapist very vividly. I was seeing her—"my" mother—as in, hallucinating her corpse in places nearly nightly beyond just nightmares. Her body is never explicitly shown in the comics, and our imagination filled in the blanks. I had broken down crying, and I was telling our therapist; "I'm so tired. I don't want to be him anymore!" Without hesitation, she told me,

"You don't have to be."

...And I was gobsmacked. I was thinking, What do you mean? I have all of these memories and I've held onto them for 11 months! It cannot be that simple. Ironically, just as I had that thought, I realized...yes, yes it absolutely was that simple. I did not have to subject myself to someone else's trauma—let alone someone who isn't real—when, frankly, I have my own tonterías to deal with.

I had the privilege of being your successor, being the second fictive on the block, and you told me pretty much day 1 that I don't need to have any sort of connection or feeling about my source. That of course helped, but I think it was also easier on me with it being a show. I could just look up the actor and see yeah, he's got a whole other life and other roles. On top of that, by rewatching it, I'm seeing the stuff I remember as my memories from the perspective of an omniscient camera—how I'm supposed to in the first place, and not through a character's eyes. Being a fictive of live action media VS illustration...it's no contest on what's easier to shake yourself out of.

But still, that question just loomed over me. Why him? Obviously, the doc didn't tell me I had to completely figure it out in a week, but I do love a distraction from my own existential dread challenge. So I hyperfixated on unpacking every bit of trauma this sorry bloke had to see if there were any parallels for basically every bit of free time I had. I honestly don't remember how long it took; whether I got it done in the week. I just remember the moment it clicked for me. I find it so fascinating how she handled our cases in reverse. We didn't start to unpack the "why" of my source until after I had changed my name, appearance, and age.

That might be thanks to you, mate. You didn't know any better than to treat your "memories" as real off the bat.

That's a very good point. In the event that there are more fictives in our system going forward, they may reach a point of understanding fact from fiction even quicker than you. But I digress.

I don't think I ever asked myself, "Why him?" An answer came to me without me truly seeking one out. That answer certainly explained a lot about me, but nevertheless, it just didn't occur to me to question why I took on that form. Perhaps if I had done so, I may have spared myself a lot of pain, but there's no instruction manual on how to cope with waking up in a strange body and everything you know to be your life being a work of fiction.

Well, that's the point of writing out our talks, isn't it? We're not really qualified to write, like, a whole scientific book on OSDD or the ✨plural experience✨ but we can definitely have chats about how we specifically feel and how we got to a...semi-stable place. Worst case, our thoughts go to the void. Best case, it might reach someone interested in our stories. Our real stories. Not to, you know, be confused to the ones we spawned from, haha. So if anyone actually is reading this, hi! Glad you dropped by. Let us know if you have any questions about ourselves. I think we got the ask box set up proper with anon and everything.

I think that's all for our discussion tonight. Perhaps, if we want to cover the basic aspects of being a fictive, we should speak next on grief. I briefly touched on mine already, but you have a unique perspective, Sorrel, as you've met and befriended another fictive from your source. Getting right into the angst, are we? Perhaps. But you've proposed we discuss our recovery process on this blog, and coping with grief is a sizeable portion of that process. You're right. Not chuffed about it, but you're right. We can talk about it next. Until then, I look forward seeing what happens with this chat, if anything. Good talk, mate. Good talk.

8 notes · View notes