Introduction to the Problem of Pluralism and Law

Just started on one of the books in the Emory University studies in law and religion: Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society, edited by James W Skillen and Rockne M McCarthy. This book looks promising because it seems to deal with the question of the participation of religion in the law from a theological standpoint. The content page itself looks promising! I'm starting at chapter 1 because I think that for this topic it will be important to give a sense of the tensions and problems involved in questions of this sort.

I should caveat at this point that I haven't read the primary sources (like MacIntyre), so when I talk about thinkers, I'm talking about them as the book presents them. Quotations are from the book, and not necessarily from the primary sources which are the topic of the individual portions.

---

Chapter 1 largely sets out to introduce the issues (as with most chapter 1s). It begins by defining the terms "individualism" and "collectivism" in non-contentious ways. Its approach to defining "pluralism" becomes more nuanced, acknowledging that scholars have recognized differing meanings to it. The book adopts an approach "to categorize the structural differences among the diverse institutions and associations of society", in contrast to a behaviourist view of pluralism which emphasizes changes in political power among different groups. Admittedly, this definition isn't saying alot. But in general I guess its just a professional need to say acknowledge the diversity of definition. As the book goes on, it is evident that the problem of pluralism considers the interaction of diverse groups in the public square.

The chapter then moves on to consider liberalism through the lenses of three thinkers: Alisdair MacIntyre (we see his name alot don't we?), Jeffrey Stout and Michael Novak.

MacIntyre critiques the 'liberal' mode of practical reasoning: in its affirmation of individualism and relativism, liberalism cannot affirm the idea of the "common good of justice" because it "does not accept the idea of a common natural social order that precedes individual claims to autonomy". "Practical reasoning can truly succeed only in a community that agrees on the moral virtues appropriate to the different social roles performed by its members". MacIntyre takes the approach of finding an "ordered natural (or natural/supernatural) hiearchy within which reasoning can find its mooring and proceed coherently", rooting it in the tradition of the truth and justice of human community (whatever this means).

Jeffrey Stout takes a more moderate approach, seeing that the impact of liberalism has not left America without "degrees of social agreement about the nature of the common good and about the virtues needed in diverse spheres of social life". It is still possible to build a "thin" conception of the common political good. This leaves room for "complex equality" as well, space to nurture "virtues proper to each sphere". This is a "stereoscopic" view of society in which "the political common good is understood as an agreement to protect both individual freedoms as well as the integrity of diverse spheres of social life". Stout's mode of reasoning takes the form of "pragmatic social criticism with both eyes open" (whatever this means as well). While he affirms that there are certain principles and practices transcending personal preferences, it is unclear if his model can articulate standards for the broad range of institutions and practices.

Michael Novak stands closer toward liberal individualism. He affirms a conception of the common good which "presupposes and reinforces the free initiative of individuals to shape community life, to argue rationally, and to seek multiple forms of the common good" (emphasis mine). There's an interesting twist here because he also conceives of a dynamic, historical teleology of human existence. He sees an aim "toward the full and ultimate development of human beings", and the ultimate eschatological good being the kingdom of God.

The chapter moves on to the next part. It considers a Calvinist approach of Ralph Hancock. The sovereignty of God over this world meant "an intensification of world activity understood as redounding not only to the benefit of God's innocent natural creation but especially to the glory of God". Every sphere of existence thus depends on God, and societal differentiation is but a part of religious intensification, and the order of God's creation.

The conversation then shifts to talk about the possibilty of a theological interpretation of the discussion.

---

I think this is a good introductory chapter to the nature of the conversation from a political science perspective, since I suspect that the next few chapters will be more theological in nature. Its good that some of these thoughts were explored in depth, but I was kinda hoping that there would be just a few more references to other models, or a bibliography of some sort which would allow the reader to continue research.