What is a pluralistic perspective?

Pluralism is the recognition and positive valuing of multiplicity, difference and diversity. Prescriptive pluralism is a key concept in philosophy and political science (Berlin, 1990; James, 1977; Kekes, 1993; Taylor & Guttman, 1994; Walzer, 1997). However, psychological research on how people actually come to think pluralistically is sparse.

To envision what a pluralistic perspective might mean in the psychological sense, imagine a double-storied structure. On the bottom level are attitudes towards multiplicity and difference ranging from monism to relativism. Pluralism is situated between them, reflecting a perception of difference in “both/and” terms. On the upper level are attitudes towards social and cultural “others” ranging from rejection (e.g. xenophobia and prejudice) via reluctant tolerance to a multicultural recreation of self by interacting with the “other”. Cultural pluralism lies between the last two, reflecting a valuing of diversity from the position of a committed identity. Cognitive pluralism functions as an infrastructure to cultural pluralism, and together they make up what Berlin (1993/1953), and later Tetlock (1996) termed “Value Pluralism”, a second-order value about the incommensurability of values. Berlin described it as “The conception that there are many different ends that men may seek and still be fully rational, capable of understanding each other and sympathizing and deriving delight from each other” (1993, p. 11).

Using the term “perspective” connotes a broad lens for viewing reality. A pluralistic perspective combines a cognitive/epistemological style and an attitude/value element. Typically, researchers consider each element separately: Cognitive psychologists explore how individuals make epistemological sense of multiplicity. Social psychologists consider how people manage social and cultural diversity. Developmental psychologists look at how children’s understanding of diversity evolves over time and cultural psychologists study cultural variability in managing contradictions and multiplicity. The Pluralistic Perspective Theory combines these four strands of research to explain how, why and to what effect people come to think pluralistically, offering a shared theoretical framework for researchers exploring diversity-embracement.

Is pluralism merely the reverse of prejudice? Arguing for its own conceptual space requires a careful answer to this question, especially as prejudice has been so thoroughly explored. Like prejudice, pluralism can be functionally explained, but while prejudice is often considered a consequence of a biologically driven preference for kin, pluralism can be considered a form of cultural adaptation to human diversity. It is a way of coping with the many forms of cognitive dissonance forced upon us by culture. When dissonance and contradictions are acknowledged, greater social harmony under conditions of social complexity ensues. According to this distinction, prejudice is primarily an attitude towards groups while pluralism is an attitude towards difference. Further, a pluralistic perspective is not an intuitive mode of thought, whereas prejudice typically is. In Kahneman’s (2003, 2011) terms, pluralism is the outcome of a deliberate (system 2) cognitive effort. It involves attenuating the effects of an intuitive (system 1) perception of otherness as foreign and therefore wrong and dangerous, by deliberately seeking to recognize multiplicity and complexity. Thus, pluralism and prejudice can be construed as inversely correlated, but conceptually distinct.

As a subtle and at times counter-intuitive notion, a comprehensive pluralistic perspective is rare. Pluralism must challenge the primal egocentric conviction that the way I see the world is the only real way of seeing it at all. Tetlock and his colleagues (1986; 1996) found that fewer than 10% of their subjects used value pluralism when considering value conflicts. They reasoned that this is because value pluralism is cognitively expensive, emotionally painful, and politically embarrassing. For those who embraced it, however, value pluralism was a pivotal cognitive feature. Tetlock (2005) also analyzed two cognitive styles among political experts: Following Berlin (1993) he termed them “foxes” (with many “tricks of the trade”) and “hedgehogs” (who know “one big thing”). In many respects, “foxes” and “hedgehogs” parallel cognitive pluralists and monists. In Tetlock’s groundbreaking study, “Foxes” outperformed “hedgehogs” on measures of prediction accuracy, attesting to the utility of viewing reality through the lens of multiplicity.

Not only does pluralism vary between persons, it varies within persons as well, indicating a domain specificity. Pluralism reflects a basic tendency to perceive the moral, conventional and personal domains as distinct, and to be much less accepting of difference when the dividing issue is considered moral. Indeed, my studies found a significant negative correlation between how strongly people care about an issue (i.e. how much they consider the underlying issue to be moral) and how pluralistic they are about it. Despite these and other challenges to the pluralistic perspective (is it extended to non-pluralists?), pluralism is a prerequisite for sustainable coexistence; without a cognitive recognition of irreducible multiplicity and complexity in the world, tolerance could easily crumble in situations of conflict.

The acquisition of a pluralistic perspective involves the combination of developmental factors, dispositional traits, cognitive aptitude and cultural values.

First, it involves a developmental trajectory. In one of my studies I found that the pluralism level of students increased significantly between ages 7, 11 and 15. Although the level of pluralism was domain-specific at all ages (i.e. children were always more pluralistic about personal choice than about moral issues), children also followed a Guttman scale in extending its scope across domains with age. Younger children applied pluralism mostly to the personal domain, older ones extended it to the conventional domain and adolescents extended it to the value domain. Some researchers argue that in the post-formal thinking stage and especially as “wisdom” sets in, people become more accepting of difference.

Second, it reflects personal attributes such as cognitive aptitude and dispositional tendencies. The above-mentioned fox/hedgehog distinction juxtaposes a pull towards unity and closure with a drive towards complexity and open-endedness. What makes one person more of a “fox” than another? I propose an additive model: Integrative complexity and perspective taking ability make up the cognitive aptitude. Empathic concern and openness to experience along with a low need for closure and high ambiguity tolerance are dispositional tendencies that provide motivation for viewing the world pluralistically. These attributes explain within-group diversity in embracing a pluralistic perspective.

Third, it reflects cultural values. People from collectivistic cultures, such as Eastern ones, tend to embrace “both/and” positions and to tolerate contradictions. People from Western cultures, historically focusing on “either/or” logic, are more challenged by it. People who were socialized to believe in a single truth will be less pluralistic than those who were taught to accept multiple systems of belief. Therefore, a culturally sanctioned valuing of multiplicity is another component of the pluralistic perspective, which would explain between-group diversity in embracing this perspective.

This is a very broad sketch of what a pluralistic perspective is. Are you curious about your own level and domains of pluralism? You are welcome to try one of my pluralism measurement tools.