The Mask of Pluralism

There is something suspect in the pluralist notion of society, a place where different cultures and values meet, but a place nonetheless where there is dialogue (even if it is agonistic rather than antagonistic). The only (seeming) condition is that in order to come to the table, to be a part of this society in the first place, any claim to central authority must be waived. So for example, political pluralism cannot exist in a society where a particular ideology is time and again foisted upon the public, where time and again the proponents of this ideology try to gain ruling majority in a bid for political hegemony (and eventually the complete conversion of the masses). Usually in this regard (and let's be brutally honest here), the unspoken referent is Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, or perhaps even secularization in some contexts.

So what is the problem here? I see here an assumption being made by those supporters of pluralism: namely, that there can be no central authority, except the commitment to pluralist values and renunciation of anything else that may endanger these. Supporters of pluralism will even go so far as to suggest that in certain circumstances force must be used to deactivate those who pose a real threat to these ideals (William Connolly for example). The problem then becomes, what difference is there between a pluralist political hegemony and that of one of these fundamentalist groups in regard to central authority claims? Are they both not willing to use force to uphold their ideals? Do they both not claim to offer what is Good, and therefore something that should be embraced universally?

I feel here that one should not be fooled by the appearance of pluralist tolerance and willingness to "listen" to the Other. Proponents of pluralism claim that all opinions are taken into consideration before making policy. But isn't this very refusal to accept claims about authority already an indication that pluralist "dialogue" is a smokescreen? What pluralists (part of the current liberal democratic regime in the West) are saying is: "It's ok to be a Christian or a Muslim as long as you empty your beliefs of any offending characteristics." Who decides what those characteristics are, the "majority"? What happens when a democratic majority may hold a conception of central authority that is fundamentalist in nature? This doesn't even take into consideration the role of mass marketing and indoctrination. In the words of one lover of humanity and freedom: "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."