Hard Pluralism – by William C. Green

The urgency of current events can obscure lessons essential to the rebirth of democracy.

Wouldn’t it be better if we could understand each other more? Or will it make things even worse? I don’t really understand. Sometimes what we don’t know can be the reason we live with it. “If I had known you felt that way…”

To understand is not to stand above something, but to stand below something. german Verstehen It resists the habit of treating understanding as acquisition, a position common in political, administrative, and moral discourse.

People often treat the Tower of Babel as a curse, that is, as a “talk”. It can also be read as a blessing. We are freed from the illusion of complete understanding and the pressure to be the same or imagine that we know more than we do. [*]

The tower collapses, revealing the pretense of infinite unity. Pentecost does not reverse Babel. It shows the difference without falling apart. People are understood “in their own language.” They do not return to one language or one mind, but remain separate and perceived as such.

Read this way, Babel and Pentecost are lessons in self-control. Mutual intelligibility does not require uniformity. Understanding doesn’t erase the differences. There will be space for it.

This is where politics comes in. Liberalism errs when agreements are treated as moral outcomes rather than temporary outcomes. Once justified by consensus, disagreement becomes a lack of understanding or a lack of good faith.

In a world of diversity, differences of opinion are not flaws. It’s evidence of real differences between real people. Any power that suppresses the opinions of others must come with the acceptance that we disagree with our own opinions.

When politics tries to eliminate friction, persuasion gives way to sameness in the name of the common good. Hannah Arendt saw this clearly. in human conditionshe writes that plurality is not simply the existence of many people, but the fact that each can arrive as a new person and start doing something unexpected. Each of us is unique. Reversal of the US motto: E unum pluribus.

In this perspective, differences are not flattened but disclosed. Arendt wrote, “Only through the full experience of this faculty can faith and hope be given to human endeavors.”

This creates a harsher pluralism that is more easily misinterpreted as intolerance or reduced to good manners. We are told to “dissent, not disagree.” This advice sounds wise. Often means “dial back.” The phrase “don’t hate the sinner, hate the sin” sounds charitable, but can be draining of disagreements about consequences.

When a leader acts cruelly or disrespectfully, calls for leniency are muffled. What divides us is just as important as what unites us. Pluralism fails when respect becomes tolerance, tolerance becomes rule-following, and rule-following replaces judgment. Politeness replaces civility, the process of persuasion, and the performance of openness. Black tie is optional. We rehearsed. Comes with script. Scheduled to attend.

I have seen this in civic meetings, churches, and campuses. Disagreements are welcomed in principle and managed in practice. The tone will be monitored. My language has become softer. Objections are acknowledged and then set aside. It’s not what is said that matters, but how it is said. No one is completely silent. Objections are allowed and then overridden. Disputes are only allowed to the extent that they do not interfere with the outcome. good taste.

Hard pluralism starts elsewhere. Democracy does not require harmony, much less consensus. It takes courage to face disagreements without exhausting yourself. It depends on the distinction between dissent and dishonesty, civility and safety, civility and propriety. This is harder than enforcing rules and more risky than managing tone. It calls for government agencies to persuade rather than contain, and for people to stay if it is easy to leave.

Teresa Bejan, a political theorist and historian of civility, warned early in the Trump administration that the greater danger was not so much vulgar speech or deceit as the use of force to end debate. Ending disagreements by force and eradicating them by control end up in the same place. In other words, conflict disappears, and with it, responsibility also disappears. Or so it seems. What is suppressed comes back stronger.

Pluralism fails not when disagreement persists, but when it ceases to matter. Democracy declines not only when opposition is suppressed, but also when civility takes power away from democracy.

The rest of the work is modest and demanding. Stay present, speak up, and don’t mistake silence for consent. This does not resolve our differences. It keeps them visible. It opens up the future.

notes and reading

[*] Tower of Babel, Genesis 11:1–9. In the Jewish interpretation, Babel is more of a restraint than a curse. God thwarts dangerous unity that concentrates power and erases differences. Language confusion protects dissent, responsibility, freedom, and makes multiple lives possible. (“Blessed be the Holy One, who exalts peace and greatly rewards those who seek peace.”)
-from Genesis Rava, through Maharal quoted Includes commentary on “Ancient and Modern Pluralism.” Explanation (December 1978).

pentecost, apostle 2. “The Mystery of Language and the Mystery of Pentecost” – Andrew Kuyper, Church life diary (May 17, 2024).

• human condition—Hannah Arendt (1906–1975). The 2001 edition is the definitive source on her concept of “pluralism,” or irreducible human distinctions in political life, not to be confused with the later doctrinal “pluralism.” See Chapter 1 (“Introduction”) and Chapter 24 (“Representative Disclosures in Statements”).

• Prohibition of Crime: Civil Religion and Protestant Hobbies (1987); test of politeness (1978) — John Murray Cuddihy (1935–2015). Protestant norms of honesty and restraint shaped liberal civility, often turning pluralism into civility and condemning dissent as inappropriate. Politeness hides a system of preferences.

• Beyond empathy and inclusion—Mary F. Scudder (2020). Listening is a democratic act with coercive powers independent of consent. Empathy may provide a sense of humanity. Listening democratizes listening. Empathy can transform contemplation into self-revelation, molding others into your image and strengthening the group. If empathy sentimentalizes politics, inclusion proceduralizes politics. The vitality of a democracy depends on its exposure to dissent, not just its demographic breadth.

• “You don’t need to be nice to your political opponents, but you do need to talk to them.” — Teresa Bijan washington post (March 8, 2017);See also just politeness (2017). Bejan restores traditions of rival civility (Hobbes, Locke, roger williams— “Father of American Pluralism”) Defends disagreement without coercion.

• Solidarity: The past, present and future of ideas that change the world (2025) — Leah Hunt-Hendricks and Astra Taylor. It distinguishes between solidarity and unity, alliance and consensus, and bases democratic cooperation on difference rather than consensus.

Let’s get our time back

stay by my side

2+2-5 degree