Part 4. Blog discussion “Pluralistic Society” (25 min):
Who rules and/or who should rule in a pluralistic society? Your answers should demonstrate your understanding of the concepts, vocabulary, and analytical tools you have developed in this course. You should make original posts and reply thoughtfully to others. 20 min.
In a pluralistic society, I think that the political strata is controlled by the different factions and by the people who run them. Do factions imply no leadership or by the very fact of existing within the group itself, does that require a core leadership? Does an ideology passed down need someone to execute ideas? Or does that just pollute and twist the original intent of whoever came up with the idea that it perverts the ideology so much until it’s unrecognizable? Could this be said about the constitution? In a pluralistic society, wouldn’t it make the most amount of sense to have a ranking system so that everyone gets a voice? Party 1 gets 60% of the votes so they get 60% of the power, Party 2 gets 20%, Party 3 and 4 get 5 %, and so on?
I completely agree, i posted almost the same thing…. i just didn’t see your comment before.
I agree with your idea that each party should get an amount of votes proportional to the number of people that vote for them, but it would be awfully hard to split up the number of electoral college votes of a state that had say, four, if the percentage of direct votes was 63 to 37. I think that the minority is completely disregarded in the current electoral system and that needs to be fixed.
I don’t like the electoral college 🙂
Its the best way to filter people that are unknowledgeable about the governmental system but still adhere to their opinions. I don’t like it either though. But it is still an effective way for a government to succeed.
But should we view government from the standpoint of the average voter, or from the standpoint of gaining and keeping power?
From the standpoint of the poorest member of society, for those who don’t have voices.
Why?
We are only as strong as our weakest link. Do you not want to become stronger as a nation? Or is the constant good enough for you? I want to become stronger, smarter, the best nation we can be. I want this country to be the powerhouse it used to be. That’s only possible if we look through the broken glass.
O hey I did not know that Mintz was commenting on this blog.
Well Jerry, if your are referring to the “little” factions then yes. But understand their ideals are always adopted by one of the 2 major parties. How long do you think it will be until the green party joins the democrats just as populists did more than a century ago
In a pluralistic society, the people and different groups of people rule. This type of society allows for the input of all different factions, opinions, and beliefs to be debated and incorporated into the system. Pluralism does not mean equality, however equality is an inherent factor in pluralism. This type of government recognizes the benefits of Hegelian dialectic and cognitive dissonance in that the clash of opposing ideas forms the most moderate answer that benefits the general public the most. This debate of ideas is very important in democracy. The ability of the people to achieve cooperative federalism, in which the local, state, and federal government interact collectively and abide by the rules of the union well still having the power for any person or state propose ideas and new laws differentiates America from other nations. The internal efficacy that allows the needs of the people to be heard and answered is what creates a great pluralistic society and a functioning democratic government.
Doesn’t federalism itself defeat the purpose of factions? Haven’t we seen this on our own national stage with the two party system? I would ague the two party system itself is detrimental to factions, because it limits thought and the ability to have public discourse.
Well isn’t the whole idea of federalism a competition between factions. One being the different factions represented by the states and the other found within the Federal government? Furthermore simply because factions align together to create parties does not mean that factions don’t exist within those parties. It’s simply coalition of these different interest groups and our current political situation shows that neither party really is able to be the true “majority” for long and thus we are not under majoritarian rule.
No. Federalism is the ability for the state and federal governments to work together and create a working order. I also disagree with the fact about what you say with factions and political parties. While it may be true there are different coalitions within the parties (radicals, centrists, in-between), these cannot really be called factions if they’re not given the voice on a national stage. Why would people want to be involved in the political strata if they meet in the middle all the time? I would argue this makes people apolitical and leads the problem with the populations apathy. Majoritarian rule is not what I was suggesting, I say we need to give the different factions real voices instead of hiding behind the false compromises and “big” tents
No. I explained federalism correctly. Also the fact that there are different coalitions within the parties proves my point. These coalitions are evident in congress and do give a voice to all the people who are similar to them in political views. And the whole point of having different factions is to ensure there isn’t some extremist party constantly imposing its beliefs on us. I’d rather meet in the middle and compromise than have the Tea Party passing extreme bills because they are accurately representing a faction. And we give these different factions voices by allowing them to vote. If they choose to be apolitical and not vote its not my fault if their views aren’t accurately represented.
My explanation was a way of saying you took federalism out of context. Who in Congress gives a voice to these people? Elizabeth Warren? Bernie Sanders? Who in the House? These people aren’t leaders of the factions. While they may be progressives, putting all of your eggs into one basket is exactly what I am against. The point of factions ARE to have the Tea Party and then the Socialists arguing so much to come to a middle ground or some compromise through the political strata itself.. NOT the system. Systems are detrimental to the political strata. Votes don’t count. Votes mean nothing. [i]Money is speech.[/i] “Corporations are people my friend.” – Mitt Romney
How can pluralism mean equality but not achieve it as a factor of the system? If some groups have unfair control of internal efficacy doesn’t it remove the legitimacy. Communism.
In a pluralistic society, the government rules through the majority. The pluralism is mostly within the people who are overlooked by the government. A pluralistic society holds various factions. The majority rules because the minority’s voice is excluded. Some people are part of the political strata and others are part of the apolitical strata. However, it is inevitable that the larger faction with the popular opinion dominates and the minority is disregarded.
According to Madison, factions are harmful to society and can only be abolished by removing the causes or controlling the effects. You could remove the causes by destroying liberties but that would be unacceptable or you could homogenize and standardize everyone’s thoughts to be the same but that would be nearly impossible. If government were to control the effects, that would essentially be a tyranny so the only solution to pluralism and factions would be a republican government. However, Madison recognizes the advantages of pluralism. With a diverse group of people, this widens the talent pool and there are more benefits with many different people. There is more competition of ideologies and deviance to norms.
Is the apolitical strata a faction, or the exact opposite (those not wanting to be involved with them)? Isn’t this the same type of redundancy we see with Atheism? Do you argue Madison supported or did not support factions? I’m confused.
Madison sees both the advantages and disadvantages of factions within a pluralistic society.
What do you argue, though? Madison covered both, yes. But which side do you take up?
The government creates factions by creating external efficacies and certain factions are not satisfy with the results. In addition, the results of external efficacies creates conditions for certain factions and the demand for the factions’ needs grow and then other factions want other things creating competition amongst each other. This leads to a pluralistic society.
Agree 95%
In a pluralistic society nobody should rule because according to the definition of “pluralism”, a pluralistic society is a society that recognizes the benefits and inputs of different people and factions. When a pluralistic society is in equilibrium, there is competition and no faction rules. In a democratic government, a pluralistic society is needed so there can be different needs and there can be internal and external efficacies. The only time in a pluralistic society where someone/a group rules is when a certain group being the majority, share common ideas or goals, overruling the other factions. As a result, these other factions become the minority.
But, in a pluralistic society, there is still a rule by the majority, and the majority rule isn’t always a good idea, because sometimes, the minority has the better, more correct option.
Someone always has to rule, or anarchy ensues. Someone always has power.
In a pluralistic society, the rulers need to be able to get their word out. Some people get their word out with money, so they spread their agenda through mass media. Other people spread their word through the internet and social media, and they have an agreeable voice, so other people spread the same thoughts through social media. Sometimes, a faction gets so large that its presence becomes noticeable, and other people start to listen. Even if someone is able to get their word out, though, they still won’t be a ruler if they have a disagreeable voice. The rulers are the people who can get their word out, and can present their thoughts in a way that sounds agreeable.
The people who should rule in a pluralistic society are a little bit harder to think of. Sometimes, the majority is wrong, and only the minority have the idea that will make the country a better country, but other times, there are people who have ideas too radical to work, and would put a system of tyranny and oppression into effect. Because there is no clear way, a pluralistic society is a good compromise. There will never be a clear way to rule a government, only clear ways to not rule a government.
So who rules America currently? Just people who get their words out to the public? Can you have an example on one today who is not an elite, who is succesfull?
The point I was trying to make was mostly elites rule America, because they are able to get their word out to the public. There are groups, like workers who go on strike, or occupy movement participants, who are also able to push their word out to the public, not through funds, but through media coverage.
The President obviously has control over this nation, but does the President have the most power within the government? No. To me, Congress holds the most amount of power from Article 1, Section 8.
So how can the minority be recognized if the majority is the only group who has their opinion considered? Do radical opinions appeal to people? And when you say that there are only clear ways to not rule a government, that their way of ruling is flawed?
The problem is the minority has a hard time getting their opinions considered, while sometimes the minority has better thoughts than the majority. Sometimes they don’t though, and their opinions are too radical to be considered. When i’m saying radical, I’m talking about complete government overturns, or the eradication of a certain group of people, which are both not thoughts needed right now, the former being irrelevant for the time, and the latter being irrelevant almost always if not always. When I say there are only clear ways to not rule a government, I am referring to governments that have too much corruption, too much oppression, too much unhappiness, too much tyranny, or governments that are in a state of atrophy.
The real question is who shouldn’t rule in a pluralistic society? I believe that in a society it should be divided or split up among those who the people voted for. With multiple factions or groups or Parties having a voice it won’t be just one ruling the government. Having just one faction ruling a country would lead to tyranny. Multiple voices will divide the power.
I agree. We need pluralistic societies, or else radical groups, such as neo-nazis, would be able to have a larger voice. That also answers your question about who shouldn’t rule, because there are radical groups who shouldn’t have a large say in government.
or hackers.
As in my post, the question of who shouldn’t rule is more important that who should. Way to go I’m in your boat.
Why would that be the real question? In the society at hand, everybody rules. The different factions should all be represented, as that is the idealistic philosophy built into the system that is pluralism. Also, the definition of a pluralist society is that it represents the different opinions/factions, so it makes no sense whatsoever when you say that one faction rules the country. There is not “one faction ruling a country” so your point is irrelevant.
My question is pretty much the opposite of the question asked above. I asked that because it gives a different view. My comment after that states that a pluralistic society is better than “one faction ruling a country”. I know one faction doesn’t rule this country.. i was stating that if it did, it wouldn’t be pluralist society so what you just said just restated my argument… Thank you.
Who are the ones the people voted for?
The citizens of a state should rule in a pluralistic society. The citizens are the reason it is called a pluralistic society, they have more than just one opinon and are not all the same. The U.S.A.’s government has only been set up to work in pluralistic society. The only way checks and balances can work is if there are different factions in the government. Internal efficacy keeps these checks and balances in place. Internal efficacy is the most vital part of a pluralistic society, because it allows for the citizens to control the decisions made by their government. Therefore the people are the ones who should rule in a pluralistic society.
Who does rule in our society today, is a more difficult question. The iron triangle has made things difficult for the majority of the public to feel that they control their government. If the citizens of America actually felt that they were the people in control of their government then why do they complain about things like the Patriot Act and the NSA monoriting everything they do? The elites in America have always run the country through the government. Since the founding of this country the richest have made laws to benefit themselves. For example in the early 1900’s Henry Ford was able to influence the government, so it would make laws to benefit his bussiness. Just like today, although lobbists have increased the strength of the iron triangle. The iron triangle has made it very difficult for the citizens of America to change their government without a revolution. The elites of America are the people who actually rule the American government today.
In a pluralistic society, the leading individual of the majority has the power. While all of these factions are competing for power, the fact of the matter is that there can be only one real winner. As much as we like to pretend that we can share power through a system, this is not the case. There is always someone in charge, and their opinions are what ultimately guide the final decision. With power, realistically, an individual only needs to please their essential supporters and to some extent their influential supporters. However, the interchangeable body – the average voter – does not necessarily need to be pleased. The society believes that the word of the people matters, when in fact the views of the people simply happen to align with the views of the essentials and interchangeables. Granted, this dynamic is a little bit harder to maintain in a democracy, but the foundation still stands. In a pluralistic society, the winner always rules. Whether we like it or not, internal efficacy is largely driven by this group of essentials and influentials. The bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists all have a greater say than the “average” people because having power is the ultimate goal of any society, and keeping that power is crucial. The majority should run things simply because they have the backing to gain momentum and support from their essentials. Power only changes hands within a pluralistic society because the parties or groups are evenly matched by way of support from their constituencies. Third parties do not gain ground because our system does not allow for it; they do not have the proper amount of support. And the idea that the people should govern a pluralistic society is also not realistic; the people don’t have the proper influence to have control. Most of the population is in the apolitical strata; they are not informed enough, nor do they care enough to take charge. The political strata are largely filled with those essential members, who thus take charge of their stratum and dictate the policies and decisions that are made. So a pluralistic society is run by the leader of the majority because they have the most power, and power equals ruler in most government systems.
Kali, I really like your evaluation on who has power, but I think you get a bit carried away in that only one person can have power. At least in the American Democratic system there are 4 groups, The Legislative, Executive, Judicial Branches, as well as the people ( the argument could be made that people are loosing power) so I think its a bit of a stretch in saying that only one can have power. Im right with you in the sense that lobbyists and corporations are gaining unfair shares of power, check out my post. All else looks a okay.
Thank you for being diplomatic about it, Lane. And to an extent, I suppose I don’t necessarily mean that only one person can have power, just that one person always has more power than someone else. There has to be a top of the food chain, and I don’t think it’s in our nature to share that top spot.
I think people are just tired with the current system. They’re tired of the rich having all the say while the working man has none. I would argue that most working class are actually within the political strata, just on the wrong side. People need to begin fighting for their own factions and ideas, instead of supporting others who work against their own interests. I think the wealthy actually have more power over the President (who I assume you say is the leader of the country)?
I actually don’t think the President is the leader in this case. And I do agree that other factions should start fighting for their ideals – it’s just that there is a system to this, and individuals who can learn the system and use it properly will be victorious. A lot of factions just don’t understand the system yet, and so it is hard for them to reach a position of power.
What do you view as more important? The factions, or the system? Would you argue that whichever holds more weight gets put above the other, and that if factions were the most important we wouldn’t need the system because the factions would create a form of friction and political strata of their own?
Who do you see as the leader in this case, then? Who is the one who holds all of the power? I ask because I do not see the issues that way, and so I’d like to try and understand your point of view.
I think the system is more important because the system governs the factions. You can’t have a faction without the system, because the system just is. It’s not so much about friction and the political strata as it is about how things work. Factions have a system, and you can’t really get around it. I believe that there is a logical system for everything, and if you can understand the system, you can use it to your advantage and get what you want.
The leader would be whoever uses the system the most efficiently and effectively.
Who are they? I’m sure the rich are not tired of being rich. The working man is still content if he has a job and is able to feed his family, those who are discontented are jobless and have a different set of criteria. Also, how do you judge a correct or incorrect side? Is the side that supports the working class but has little influence the wrong side? Who are you to say that the people are supporting the wrong side and working counter intuitively? You can’t speak for everyone
Part 4: A pluralistic society is one that has many parts, and they all function cooperatively in order to promote a common good in society. It should represent a diversity of views and in competition. In todays economy, large conglomerates such as Monsanto, Utopia, Coca Cola, Pepsico, and Nestle are all taking control of other smaller companies and in doing so are causing a loss in diversity, and representation in our democracy. They are unjustly taking control of the pluralistic society and are closing the gap between those who rule, and the ruled. This harms representation and competition because our government chooses to give attention and represent the opinions of the large companies over the smaller ones.
Like federalism, the national government still remains in control. However, in the market place, the acquisition by big companies I mentioned earlier; this would be like some of the states ( CA, ID, NY) taking to much control over the smaller ones and this harms the pluralistic system is unjust.
Is it really unjust for a big company to buy smaller companies? What’s wrong with the influence of the company being proportional to the number of people in it?
It doesn’t promote equality of outcomes, or opportunity. Its not the buying thats unjust, its the billions spent on lobbying that is disproportionate. 1 vote should be 1 vote not 1 company gets an inside line to passing legislation.
We don’t want equality of outcomes…everyone having the same outcome in terms of money, influence, and power is right on the line of Communism.
Wouldn’t the smaller companies still have their voice even if they belong to a bigger company? The smaller voices may not be strong in the government but they still have a say…
In Federalist Paper 10, Madison explains that the main idea behind a pluralistic society are different factions with different interests and opinions attached to passion. A pluralistic society takes into account the everyone’s different political ideologies. A pluralistic isn’t about ensuring that everyone’s opinions are heard and taken into account but rather ensuring that we realize the benefits of those opinions. It allows for the distribution of power and ideas across society while avoiding a static society that eventually results in atrophy. The competition of ideas are what keeps a society moving. The exchange and flow of ideas allow us to continuously re-evalute our own idealogoies and contribute to the growth of society.
Yes we have a two-party system, but does this mean we are no longer have a pluralistic society? No it means that we’ve learned to standardize and ensure cooperation amongst the factions. We still have people with different ideals and political values. This fact will never change and that’s what Madison and the Founding Fathers counted on. The inherent desire to expression ones passion through political involvement. We worry that by having only two parties we are not accurately representing the views of the people who don’t align with the party values. But I argue that as we’ve seen in class we may consider ourselves democratic but differ on government involvement in the economy. There are still different interest groups within the party and this is accurately represented in the congress. There are people on the very far left and those somewhere in the middle. It’s just in our nature to differ in opinions and yet we’ve been able to create a government that values this nature.
Would you say that we are less pluralistic though than countries in Europe where there are many more parties which represent more specific ideals? The two party system tends to water down these factions in order to gain power. I do think though that once either is in power the different “planks” have a role in determining policy. Do you think Plurality is represented more by voice/expression or by which groups people invest their money in?
Why do you think a pluralistic society isn’t about everyone’s voice being heard? A pluralistic society is BY THE PEOPLE.
But I do agree that competition of ideas is what keeps the society moving. So do you believe that because some voices aren’t heard that competition begins?
Plural means many, and in pluralistic society many opinions are heard and discussed on the premise that in creation every opinion is as important as the next. Ideally in a pluralistic society, everyone and every group ought to be able to express their ideas and have equal power and influence. In a pluralistic society, ambition is countered by ambition(Madison), vice by virtue(Hofstader). Pluralistic society allows for the faction and self check Madison appreciated in a free society. Most importantly however, truth is found through the abundance of opinion, discussion, and the fight among factions to determine what is right. This is in contrast to artbitrary rule where justice is whatever the people in power determine it to be(Plato).
So who rules the United States of America?
The people.
That’s a bit of a simplistic and idealistic answer. Do you really feel like you rule America?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^UP THIS COMMENT
I feel like I can if I can put together a large enough faction that fits within the agendas of one of the parties than yes
look up wolfpac. What you have there is one person who though that Citizen’s United was such a bad ruling he started a superpac to end all superpac. This man put together a faction that has now convinced 16 states to call a constitutional convention to add an amendment to the Constitution saying that only people can donate to political candidates.
I DON’T THINK THAT IS NECESSARILY TRUE, IN MY OPINION, THOSE WITH IMMENSE WEALTH HAVE THE MOST POWER IN A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY
I agree with Timmy and that’s how a monarchical government begins.
yes tim but only because a majority of the people are not educated. Think about tim if America where us think we stand for congressman who do not stand up for our needs, you think that if Americans were decently educated that they would buy the BS propaganda from the left and right. The point I am trying to make is that in order for pluralism to be fair the people must all be educated and must all be in the political strata otherwise their are welcoming oppression.
A pluralistic society can be very complicated to understand. In my point of of view a pluralistic society is one which the factions should rule. With the idea of factions (if there are multiple factions) and individual can express their opinions through joining a specific faction. Within this kind of pluralistic society a self-governing body can be accomplished through both the political strata and apolitical strata. The political strata addresses their opinions which feeds into internal efficacy and then the apolitical strata receives the external efficacy. Many many think that the a pluralistic society only favors the majority (which is true), but without multiple factions ruling a pluralistic society there would be tyranny in a government. Isn’t pluralistic society in which there is some self-government better than a tyrannical government? The idea that no one should rule in a pluralistic society is completely false. Without the majority ruling through factions in a pluralistic society we would inevitably fall under a tyrannical form of government.
So who is at more of a disadvantage, the political or apolitical strata? And if the factions should rule, who gets the power since there are many competing groups?
The apolitical strata is at more of a disadvantage, but that is by their own choice. By choosing not to participate in political world the apolitical strata shouldn’t have a say in external efficacy. When the factions the majority does have the most power, but isn’t that better than having one large faction without separate opinion which would form a tyrannical government?
Yes I agree with you Shaddy. And JC I see what you are saying but our form of government has a lot of road blocks in place to prevent tyranny of the majority and the good thing about the two party system is that most of factions are adopted by the two parties (exception miles who is an anarchist).
A pluralistic society is us, the people. It’s no question who should rule but us the people. We would be divided into factions which is kind of excessive in my opinion but I do see the need for them in a nation as big as America. But if there are factions there will be disagreements and not everyone will get their way in the end. So my question is can a fair and equal pure pluralistic society exist?
If we the people rule, but our individualism gets in the way how do we balance this to make it just in a pluralistic society?
I think it can if all the people are educated and members of the political strata
then
A pluralistic society is controlled by the government and the people in order to apply what they see fit for the overall citizens. It should be controlled by the different and diverse factions of society. But in reality the power of the people is limited. People have diverse views in a pluralistic society and in order to try to please all these views without having a tyranny or arbitrary government they filter it through a series of governments, then the Federal government branches. But if a pluralistic society was to not be filtered it would turn into a tyranny and would eventually have a dictator, arbitrary, or a monarchy.
I agree that the government ultimately controls a pluralistic society. However, doesn’t the government filter factions through the majority instead of trying to please everyone (with a protection of minority rights). the government cant please EVERYONE (they just try to, well maybe). If a pluralistic society was not “filtered” by government wouldn’t this just lead to more competing factions instead of tyranny?
IN A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY, PEOPLE OR GROUPS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE DEEP POCKETS AND PEOPLE WHO OWN VAST AMOUNTS OF VALUABLE PROPERTY ARE THE ONES WHO RULE. IT IS THEM WHO HAVE THE MOST INFLUENCE ON THE SOCIETY. COMPANIES LIKE BOEING, EXXON MOBILE, GOLDMANN SACHS, AND BANK OF AMERICA ARE EXTREMLY INFLUENTIAL. IM NOT SAYING THAT THEY HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL, BUT THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SWAY THE OPINIONS OF POLICY MAKERS.
HERE ARE THE REASONS WHY:
1) THE EXTREMLY WEALTHY ARE USUALLY OWNERS OF LARGE CORPORATIONS. THESE CORPORATIONS HAVE HELD AND PRODUCED WEALTH FOR OVER A CENTURY IN THE UNITED STATES
2) THIS CLASS OF PEOPLE HAVE THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THE POLITICIANS OF WASHINGTON THROUGH LOBBYING. IN EFFECT, REGULATIONS AND LEGISLATURES ARE FAVORED TOWARDS THESE SUPPORTERS
3)
Tim I do not completely agree with this. I see where you are going in that in order to be elected either have to have deep pockets or be a shape shifter (someone who becomes what donors want them to be). The people have the ultimate say. With something like Citizen’s United and the notion that we can only elect the people who greatly funded and therefore not actually in touch with common is true. But this onl because they are too many uneducated people. Think about our class is a pluralistic society in that we come from all branches of life, but the one thing we have in common is that we are educated. If the country was life us it would not matter who was on the ballet so long as we could write someone who actually do good. Now what I am trying to say is your statement is only true in a pluralistic society where a vast majority of the people are uneducated or apolitical
In a pluralistic society, it is the political strata that controls the government (as discussed in the Dahl reading) I agree with this, the political strata be the ruling class because they are the ones who know and understand the issues. However I disagree with the thought the ruling class has to be he rich or even the elites. Take JC into account, she is a leader and member of the political strata (someone one would want to make important decisions in society) but does not see herself as an elite. In other words one does not have to be an elite to be part of the political strata (ruling class) just educated.
I think the educated and the political strata should rule a pluralistic society,
I also believe they are the only ones who can control faction. I would equate this statement to the tea party movement (a conservative faction that I believe is out of control and out of touch). Essentially, when educated members of factions do not control said factions (us) then that allows entrepreneurial politicians to take over the government (Elizabeth Waren, Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz)
In a pluralistic societty, there is no one person that rules. Because of the fact that pluralism requires several different factions, there cant be a single figure to look up to. However, we, the United States of America actually represent a pluralistic society. However, I believe in a PLURALISTIC society, factions as a whole should rule. There shouldn’t be a single person or figure to look up to when it comes to pluralism. Although the United States is split up into different factions like a pluralistic society, there is still the President of the United States who serves as that figure who has doesn’t necessarily have a lot of power, but can strongly influence the course(s) the nation takes. The political group that does have at least a large amount of power would be Congress all listed in Article 1, Section 8. But within each faction, a sense of internal efficacy is sensed because even though it is split up into factions, the people within them still have certain beliefs which is when cognitive dissonance comes into play. To me, the concept of pluralism is far too complex to say that pluralism is one certain thing.
In a pluralistic society, i believe the truthful, smart, outstanding (the ELITES) ones should be working in the society because they know all and are smarter than the others. They can own the country and control them with absolute intelligence. And with their smartness they can overcome obstacles and solve the problems just by paying it off with GREEN PAPER(money). Elites can change the society because they have the powers to change hands in committees. But the people having multiple different factions are ruled/under leadership of the majority, working together to make a difference in society. Multiplying their voices makes it more stronger, thus they can too make a difference but there will be an individual that will disagree with certain agreements and would benefit the majority. The group may be tight but once something gets loosen, it will then be Messed up!