Pluralism is generally acknowledged to be a desirable condition for contemporary societies. Yet pluralism’s strongest advocates tend to be the oppressed, those who recognize it as an ideal not yet achieved. For them, advocating pluralism is a sort of survival tactic. The unoppressed, on the other hand, tend to advocate it (to a limited extent — extended to the loudest sets of the oppressed) because it contributes to peaceful co-existence.
But I am interested in pluralism as a form of public self-subversion.
The necessity of self-subversion, to repeat a common theme of this blog, arises from the finitude-denying tendencies of the human psyche — ie., pride requires a fall. The recognition of subtle and deluding aspirations to hegemony in our own hearts should lead us to carefully prevent ourselves from ever achieving the kind of power — intellectual power or, dare I say it, social or political — that would free us to carry out these aspirations. Yet self-subversion is manifestly difficult when pursued in private or by oneself. The result is often not so much dialectical as self-deceivingly predictable — one practices a reverse psychology on oneself such that every “subversion” actually contains the kernel of our heart’s original but cleverly withheld intention.
But advocating pluralism — provided one seriously advocates pluralism, not strategic political correctness — seems to be a really fool-proof method of self-subversion. Nothing subverts one’s own stated position so well as common dwelling, common projects, common discourse with dissenters from it. So it seems to me that there is a profound self-subversive quality to advocating pluralism.
All this of course does not supersede other arguments for pluralism.
To bring your important insight into an ecclesial context: It’s precisely this pluralistic self-subversion that the church should be seeking through cross-cultural encounters. If it wants to understand its Gospel better, then a church must allow itself and its own desire for hegemony to be disrupted by the Gospel of another people and another context.
Very relevant application.
I would say pluralism is less tolerated in ecclesial contexts than anywhere else — probably because the reasons that it is advocated in political contexts do not obtain in what is commonly taken to be the social context of the church. I think it was Arendt who wrote that political life relies upon equality while social life relies upon discrimination. For this reason, both resentment at oppression and fear for the peace are largely unknown in ecclesial contexts (to my knowledge).
Consequently, when pluralism is actually advocated in ecclesial contexts some other motivation than the ones I mentioned as driving most political pluralism becomes necessary — such as the motivation of self-subversion.
I appreciate the exquisite relevance of your blog’s title to this subject, by the way.
Thanks Robert. You’re getting me to think harder about my own ecclesial context: the PCUSA. In the meantime, I think you would enjoy reading some of John Bowlin’s remarks when he first came to Princeton Seminary in 2007.
Not sure that link worked above. Here it is again:
http://www.ptsem.edu/news/convocation2007.php
Thanks for the link. I think Bowlin is right, forbearance is a necessary element of pluralism. The references to Kuyper struck a chord, as I am persistently interested in Kuyper’s thought — though I sometimes wonder whether Kuyper’s political and ecclesial pillarizing was the best concrete expression of pluralism. The associated language of sphere sovereignty has always made me wonder whether his idea of pluralism wasn’t simply the miniaturization of hegemonic impulses rather than the subversion of them. If that makes any sense.