The Counterculture of Pluralism
A Field Report
“The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”
--Judge Learned Hand
The Setting
I was fortunate to attend the second annual Pluralism Summit, sponsored by the Mercatus Center through its Pluralism and Civil Exchange Program at George Mason University, September 25-27, in Falls Church, Virginia. The invitation to present at this conference came from my collaborative work with Sarah Hartman-Caverly and Christina LaRose on the Open Inquiry for Information Literacy Project, one of HxLibraries’ recent projects to explore new ways of thinking about collaborative learning design in which academic librarians can be involved, focused on intellectual virtues and cognitive biases. We expanded our presentation to discuss pluralism in libraries more generally, to address libraries as epistemic institutions essential to sustaining liberal democratic norms—aligning with Jonathan Rauch’s system for truth-seeking described in his Constitution of Knowledge.
The conference itself deepened my own understanding of a still-emerging idea, or cluster of ideas: pluralism itself. Across two conferences now, I have participated in a growing community of what John Inazu calls “confident pluralists”: individuals who learn to work together across deep divides of culture, politics, religion, gender, race, institution types, professions, and geographies, in order to increase collective understanding and renew liberal democratic norms. This grassroots movement speaks to the best of what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as the “little platoons” of American life that engage citizens in contributing to self-government and forging a common American identity.
Timely and compelling topics this year built on the first Summit, and included: religion and pluralism; fostering rural-urban discourse; measuring depolarization; meta-perception (how we perceive one another); citizens’ assemblies; racelessness as an alternative to identitarianism; teaching virtues and habits of mind to promote pluralism; trusting news (how to improve journalism); engaging public leaders in pluralism; using messages to reduce political violence; and First Amendment rights and pluralism. The conversations stimulated across all of these sessions were invigorating and offered opportunities for participants to reflect on viewpoints not familiar to them, and to create an environment, with others, of social trust during the conference itself.
The major themes that emerged from this year’s Summit laid out more starkly the stakes for those engaged in the work of pluralism, viewpoint diversity, and peaceful discussion in resolving differences across those deep divides. The most obvious contested terrain is, of course, the Presidential campaign of 2024. However, the sustained arguments over the past decade about national identity, immigration, COVID policies, policing, racial inequities, transgenderism, accuracy of media/news coverage, trust in experts, climate change, effects of social media, and election fraud/voter integrity itself have produced sharply different interpretations across divides of all types in our society—and many of these same conflicts manifest themselves in all western liberal democracies. The accelerants of affective polarization, loss of trust in institutions, and generational change have coalesced into an ongoing whirlwind of uncertainty, and lack of good-faith civil dialogue where citizens are willing to listen to each other and strive for a more productive discourse that allows a peaceful common life to continue, where a shared “epistemic commons” emerges, and where human flourishing itself is possible.
Countercultural Principles
In addition to the starkness of the stakes, the Pluralism Summit of 2024 was more clearly for me a countercultural experience. It illuminated ideas and practices that cut most clearly against the prevailing cacophony of our culture, where family members, members of organizations and disciplines, and political leaders are often more interested in conflict for prestige- or reputation-enhancing reasons, rather than in finding solutions to complex and knotty problems that affect us all. The Summit accomplished this countercultural tone through several means, which I will refer to here as the “signature moves” of pluralism:
Abolish the binary: our sharply polarized times push people to extremes that may not truly reflect their ideas, because the loudest voices predominate and are most interested in perpetuating conflicts. Reducing or eliminating binary thinking was a recurring theme in several presentations, and learning to see fellow citizens as complicated human beings with often emerging ideas or inner conflicts themselves. Political scientist Lauren Hall, in her Pluralist Points talk on “radical moderation”, spoke compellingly of the need to introduce complexity and nuance into our conversations, in families, in the workplace, and in our politics. Her research into the seemingly paradoxical but totally well-reasoned “radical moderation” stands as a stellar example of what a scholar can do in thinking “beyond the binary.”
Manage high conflict: we all experience conflicts of various types throughout our lives. The core question is whether conflicts are good or productive ones, where those involved emerged with greater understanding of others, are strengthened and clarified in their own inner state for familial, organizational, or civic participation; or whether the conflicts are toxic or “high” ones, where dysfunctional habits persist for long periods, with resolution only possible with strategies deployed by one of the parties in order to emerge on the other side with sanity and integrity intact. Journalist Amanda Ripley spoke at two events at the Summit on the etiology and lifecycle of bad or “high” conflicts and how those involved can manage them through better active listening (“looping”); understanding the origins or the “backstory” of the conflict, and why participants get swept up into its vortex; complicating the “narrative” beyond the binary of good guys and bad guys (similar to Amanda Hall’s “abolish the binary”); and seeking time and space to reduce the conflict, or exit from it.
Amanda Ripley’s richly textured accounts of “high conflicts” in her book High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out, was a springboard for her discussions at the Summit. Clearly, learning to manage toxic polarization that perpetuates itself in our politics, in our culture, and in many of our organizations and professional associations depends upon wiser strategies and emotional stamina than many of us now deploy. In this sense, managing “high conflict” is counter-cultural to much discourse that envelopes us. It calls on us to be agile and responsive, and at other times to be quiet, in working through conflicts. In the words of T.S. Eliot, in a masterstroke of poetic concision: “Teach Us to Care, And Not to Care/Teach Us to Sit Still.” * Looking beyond the binary is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for creating a society where mutual respect can take root and grow—where pluralism can flourish.
Ripley’s frequent use of the term “conflict entrepreneur” resonated with me, and I am sure for other Summit attendees. Conflict entrepreneurs are those most invested in sustaining conflict, for power or prestige enhancement, rather than in solving problems and overcoming challenges. We see them in multiple venues: in politics, in professional associations, in social media, in professional forums, and in numerous groups, religious, civic, or others, where the incentives for creating conflict are greater than the rewards for learning collaboratively with others, and shaping a common future. Ripley refers to conflict entrepreneurs as “fire-starters” because their motivations center on chaos, point-scoring, and attention-seeking. Among the strategies she recommends for those attempting to work through high conflicts, this is the most directive one: to avoid “fire-starters.” How this actually works in our political debates and media ecosystem remains an open question for me, but the account of small-scale reduction in conflicts makes much sense.
Cultivate curiosity: If we avoid the binary and seek to complexify or complicate our understanding, we will inevitably need to become more curious. Ripley’s recommended questioning strategy of “looping”, with repeated clarifying questions asked of someone making a claim not understood, is the most obvious way of demonstrating curiosity when discussing a contested question with another person. The person who uses “looping” is paying the respect needed to the conversation partner, rather than asking closed questions or making dismissive statements and sweeping generalizations about the original claim. But curiosity asks for more from pluralists. It calls for a participant in a pluralistic community to reframe questions and thoughts in advance; to seek other perspectives through a richer variety of information sources, experts, and schools of thought; to avoid disciplinary preciosity and the closed siloes of self-regarding expertise; and to engage in what philosopher Nathan Ballantyne calls “knowing our limits”: to cultivate open-mindedness about others’ perspectives, identify appropriate experts who can provide guidance because of their proven track records; and to calibrate one’s one belief formation through more humility and curiosity—and give up some certitude in the process. Curiosity, in other words, is a necessary norm for pluralistic discourse and for one’s own intellectual growth as a participant in a pluralist community.
Use Civic Solitude for Identity Formation: Freeing oneself from binary thinking and moral certitude is one part of pluralism. Learning to transcend “high conflicts” and becoming more curious throughout the lifespan is another. I was most intrigued by another vantage point on these ideas in a session led by philosopher Ian Marcus Corbin of the Harvard Medical School, and the Human Flourishing Program there. Corbin spoke of his own teaching experience and observation of Gen Z students and their success metrics, and the underdevelopment of their identities because of lack of solitude and testing experiences to create more fully developed identities capable of dealing with moral and ethical complexities of adulthood. Throughout human history, such testing experiences have been available in the wilderness (though most often for young men), who would seek a vision and return to be accepted into the tribe by the elders, with this crucial state of identity developed as an emerging adult.
We now too often lack such experiences for young people to become initiates into adulthood, and one accelerating cause may be the infinite distractions provided by ubiquitous smartphones and social media—those indispensable but addictive devices. An essential part of Gen Z’s communication repertoire, they are causing too much shallow identity development and lack of deeper reflection upon one’s self, and engagement with others. These immersive social media environments are producing a flattening, not a deepening, of identity for too many. Approximations of civic solitude through quiet periods of communion with nature, freed from technology, may be one option for producing better habits of mind, to avoid the constant attention fragmentation and lack of focus so noticeable among those most immersed in the artificial culture of digital life, which in turn causes less civic participation and understanding of others, if not kept without reasonable limits.
These four signature moves are just several of the especially important ideas that emerged for me from the multiple sessions at the Summit, whether in keynote talks, Pluralist Point/TED Talk type talks, or breakout sessions. They coalesced to form a firmer grounding in pluralistic practices and what I now think of as core pluralistic norms: to be curious and open; to be comfortable both in solitude to develop one’s own identity, but also to participate in community; and to elevate one’s ethical obligations in creating conditions for human flourishing.
Pluralism Demonstrated
The most fortuitous part of the Summit was a demonstration of the Pluralist Lab methodology, developed at the Mercatus Center as a workshop experience for students (and others). We saw a panel of conference speakers on stage be presented with the contested topic of election integrity and the collateral issues of voter certification and voter participation, with three propositions presented to them: (1) that election integrity is currently sufficient and voter participation should be widened in order to enhance democracy, or (2) that there are reasonable concerns about election integrity and greater measures should be taken to insure the integrity of voting, or (3) that the election integrity issue produces an undecided stance because of conflicting evidence.
Members of the panel were allowed time to decide which of these three positions they would take, were given worksheets to make notes about evidence for their positions, and were then prompted to raise a color-coded “paddle” to indicate their position. The group moderator then stepped the participants through a process of mutual inquiry and questioning, where one participant who chose the option for greater election integrity was prompted to ask another participant who favored greater voter participation and looser restrictions, about the claims that participant made to support that increased voter participation option. Participants on the panel engaged in a round of mutual inquiry into each other’s thinking processes and were asked to produce reasons and evidence, in an iterative process—with no interruptions, with careful listening, no judging, and with no attempts to persuade or proselytize on behalf of one’s own position.
The process of inquiry demonstrated shows how the mental processes of pluralism should work: through careful listening, avoiding the binary, making no assumptions, looking for complexity, and learning a disciplined process of curiosity. In effect, the Pluralist Lab distills in small form the habits of mind needed to participate in a community where divergent views are common but where respect and agreement on about civic norms are crucial. In real time, it was a demonstration of how democratic pluralism should work.
After observing this demonstration, all of us attending that session were asked to participate in groups of 6-8 in the same Pluralism Lab process, with different topics. My group’s topic was the highly contested one of affirmative action in faculty hiring and student admissions: whether to strengthen it, eliminate in it favor of totally merit-based hiring and admissions; or whether to choose “undecided” because of uncertainty or conflicting evidence. The same iterative process of mutual questioning and conversation, guided by a moderator, prevailed. My experience and that of others in this session, in experiencing this approach to pluralistic behavior, confirms what one of the group moderators mentioned at the beginning of the session. In addition to listening for nuance, some development of “emotional muscle” is needed in order to discuss conflicting or divergent views with those whose beliefs are very different. That affective ability is surely missing from many of our debates and discussions in our society, and developing that “emotional muscle” is a necessary condition, along with the appropriate habits of minds and behaviors, to produce and sustain a liberal democracy. What was implicit throughout this Summit was an underlying commitment to open debate, civic dialogue, and complexifying our inquiries away from certitude and toward a shared intellectual humility-- and “living the questions” rather than reproducing calcified dogmas.
Forward-facing Questions
After participating in two Pluralism Summits, I have learned enough to see questions that should be grappled with in order to advance the work of those involved in pluralism as a both intellectual and community-building movement:
Scaling pluralistic habits: the “little platoons” of grassroots initiatives offer exemplary practices for promoting the signature moves and habits of mind of pluralism. Will these always live at the local level, or is it possible to expand their reach and influence?
Epistemic liberalism as touchstone for pluralism: will a growing network of pluralist groups always position themselves within the evidentiary landscape of epistemic liberalism, such as that described in Emily Chamlee-Wright’s “The Four Corners of Liberalism”? The special focus here is open inquiry and standards for evidence, within an empirical framework. What are the outer boundaries for empirical discussions within pluralistic communities? Are there any contested questions that cannot be discussed within a pluralist group due to ideologies or moral allegiances of members?
Belief formation within pluralistic communities: how do both individual beliefs and group norms change as pluralists convene and learn from each other? Do contested questions remain contested, or do new forms of knowledge and potential solutions emerge? Two recent books on politics and beliefs suggest contrasting possibilities: Oliver Traldi’s Political Beliefs: A Philosophical Introduction, which address the “reason-giving” mode of political beliefs and the empirical foundations for those beliefs; and Jason Blakeley’s Lost in Ideology: Interpreting Modern Political Life, which offers an interpretive lens approach to help citizens “map” belief systems and gain some confidence to participate in pluralistic communities. These two approaches should offer a provisional, complementary approach to belief formation in pluralist groups.
Expert/elite vs. populist divides: related to previous questions, how do pluralist groups think about, discuss, and reflect on the current polarization around the “common set of facts” trope that lives in much current discourse, and the imputations of bad faith across this divide? Pluralism searches for habits to bridge numerous divides; what ongoing practices can build those connections in the face of distrust?
The Big Picture for Librarianship
This Pluralism Summit reinforced for me the need for librarians to join larger communities and to break from ideological siloes of whatever origin in the field. The highly interdisciplinary, multi-profession community of pluralists who have gathered at the two Summits at this point, along with the Mercatus Fellows whose scholarly projects delve into numerous aspects of community, grassroots associationism, volunteerism, local news and media development, are intent on renewing together the foundations of liberal democracy—and living together peacefully in doing so.
The library field is now caught in a monoculture of its own creation that is shutting down pluralistic habits of mind and thinking. Too often, only a certain range of perspectives is possible at library association conferences, in library journals, and in other venues, and in some instances, there are practices that threaten intellectual freedom itself. In the Heterodox Academy, on the other hand, we claim to uphold as core principles, Open Inquiry, Viewpoint Diversity, and Constructive Disagreement. But enlarging these precepts into the pluralistic habits of mind and practices discussed and demonstrated at this Summit will require a thoroughgoing remaking of professional life, both within organizations and in broader associational programming. My ongoing thought experiments for change follow here:
Reducing the unacknowledged, but very real, illiberal theories and practices in the field that drive library commitments, or create indoctrination, should become a goal. Derivatives of Critical Theory that have become ensconced in library school/LIS curricula as the only lens for shaping professional practices should be balanced with other theories that more closely align with the historic intellectual freedom foundations of the field
Including many more interdisciplinary readings, discussions, and “convenings” for professional development: with philosophers, psychologists, political scientists, historians, media and communications specialists, literacy scholars, economists, and others whose knowledge and expertise with a wide array of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies will produce a better ongoing scaffolding for library practice—and the different professional vantage points of those experts will enable better discussions where pluralistic habits of mind can grow. Community formation with the practices of pluralism discussed here should be the goal in order to librarians to transcend parochialism and unquestioned assumptions about social reality in the field and with the students, faculty, and communities they serve.
Creating a network of generative grassroots communities that mirror the HxA’s Campus Communities: communities of librarians apart from national associations, at the local or regional level, would reinforce what the Pluralist community is learning about the importance of the local, rather than the national, in order to effect change and develop leadership.
Developing a network of mentors in the field who promote pluralism: this action could be accomplished through the network of grassroots communities of practice, but an independent infrastructure will need to created to connect mentees with potential mentors, where local availability of mentors is not possible to a new or mid-career librarian wanting professional renewal and guidance.
Building a infrastructure for librarians to support them within their home organizations, using principles and strategies discussed in Helen Pluckrose’s recent Counterweight Handbook, which addresses the very real challenges for those who are interested in intellectual pluralism in organizations that stifle such pluralism.
Widening the aperture of curiosity, learning to complexify, and redeveloping habits of mind through the “little platoons” within our own field, should guide recommendations like these, along with others. Our collective inquiry in widening that aperture should become our own “countercultural” move within the field.
Conclusion
The two Pluralism Summits I have attended have shown me what is possible when a diverse group of writers, thinkers, academics, artists, and scientists come together to think together, free from strictures of orthodoxy and in an open-minded way that honors the knowledge and expertise of all involved. The energy of pluralism comes from engaging in provisional testing of ideas and possible solutions for the great challenges facing all of us in our local communities and in our national life. We have learned that potential answers and solutions are possible though this testbed of ideas, without engaging in narrow activism—but in celebrating what we see other pluralists accomplishing through curiosity, scholarly inquiry, applied research, and an action orientation.
We know that upholding the “Constitution of Knowledge” discussed by Jonathan Rauch—of which libraries are part as an epistemic institution—will require an ongoing commitment to pluralism and the spirit that Judge Learned Hand described, of shedding dogmatism while learning to reflect and act together with the collective humility to recreate libraries, and our professional norms and ethics, to advance the epistemic commons of which we are a part.
****************************************************
“Teach us to care, and not to care,
Teach us to sit still.”
--T.S. Eliot, Ash Wednesday.
Readers are invited to extend their reflections on pluralism through principles and applications in libraries in Michael Dudley’s article, Library Neutrality and Pluralism: A Manifesto. Michael’s manifesto is a compelling example of reinvigorated thinking in the field about professionalism and our core purpose.
To promote viewpoint diversity, Heterodoxy in the Stacks invites constructive dissent and disagreement in the form of guest posts. While articles published on Heterodoxy in the Stacks are not peer- or editorially-reviewed, all posts and comments must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).
To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, submit theHeterodoxy in the Stacks Guest Submission form in the format of a Microsoft Word document, PDF, or a Google Doc. Unless otherwise requested, posts will include the author’s name and the commenting feature will be on. We understand that sharing diverse viewpoints can be risky, both professionally and personally, so anonymous and pseudonymous posts are allowed.
Thank you for joining the conversation!
Excellent account of the Pluralism Summit, Craig! I encourage librarians to explore alternatives to conventional library conferences and to find touchpoints with other scholars and practitioners working in complementary areas of social / applied epistemics, literacy, pluralism, freedom of expression, and privacy.
Karl Popper summed it up in *The Open Society and Its Enemies*. The open society's 2 principles are, "I may be wrong and you may be right" and "here (free discussion, rule of law) is how we will settle our differences without bloodshed if we still don't agree."