Paul Hirst's Pluralism: A Response to Mark Wenman

Abstract

In a recent article in Political Studies, Mark Wenman advances a critique of Paul Hirst's theory of associative democracy. In response, we argue that Wenman overstates the importance of G. D. H. Cole in the formation of Hirst's theory, that he therefore misrepresents important aspects of Hirst's argument, and that, as it stands, his own theory of ‘agonistic pluralism’ is less the ‘alternative’ he claims than an observation about the ineradicability of social conflict that Hirst would have regarded as true, but sought to move beyond in thinking about how a viable pluralism could be politically constructed and sustained in modern societies.