A social compact theory of pluralism / Roberta A. Adams.

Format:

Book

Manuscript

Microformat

Thesis/Dissertation

Author/Creator:

Adams, Roberta A.

Contributor:

Harris, William F., II, advisor.

University of Pennsylvania.

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Penn dissertations--Political science.

Political science--Penn dissertations.

Local Subjects:

Penn dissertations--Political science.

Political science--Penn dissertations.

Physical Description:

vii, 310 pages ; 29 cm

Production:

2000.

Summary:

The focus of this project is pluralism and its relationship with theories of consent, political justification, and political formation. Both what pluralism is, and what a pluralistic political theory would necessitate is investigated. Pluralism is the political replication of the individual ability to live a consistent meaningful life while maintaining the ability to choose different particularistic options. Such an ability requires the coexistence of a stable context to maintain consistency in life, and to direct one's choices, as well as freedom to choose among a multitude of options. This coexistence enables a unity to be formed among members of a polity, but also allows diversity to exist in that context of unity. How is such a coexistence to be achieved, especially when each seems to preclude the other? This can be achieved through the social compact. Consent makes this coexistence possible, while pluralism makes it apparent. Pluralism serves as an indication of consent's legitimacy. If desires to pursue a particularized form of existence can be actualized and made meaningful in a system created through consent then such consent is seen to fulfill the criteria of validity, including its status as informed and free. Through the creation of a value generating context which is not continually mutable, consent makes it possible to reflect on and select particularized choices. People become able to choose commitments by which they are bound. Consent also mandates consequences and, therefore, collectively limits choice. In seeking to maintain choice exclusively, however, commitments which generate consequences and bind people become impossible and life choices which generate such binding are negated. In this way the dichotomy of the liberal-communitarian debate often centered around which human capacity, the creative or the reflective, is the proper one on which to focus in the protection of pluralism is faulty. The individual needs to engage in stable reflection and particularized choice, and the same coexistence needs to exist across the polity. The social compact and the use of consent provides individuals and groups this opportunity for pluralism.

Notes:

Adviser: William F. Harris, II.

Thesis (Ph.D. in Political Science) -- University of Pennsylvania, 2000.

Includes bibliographical references.

Local Notes:

University Microfilms order no.: 99-76393.

OCLC:

187484874