Segmented Foundations and Pluralism 219the expressed needs of diverse or plural cultural groups to develop their own moral,
political, or even legal frameworks. In this sense, communitarianism is trapped in a
contradiction. Although logically predisposed to be amenable to diverse cultures, the
occurrence of polyethnicity and multiculturalism also engenders some apprehension
amongst communitarians.^16
Difference Pluralism
This is a convenient point to move the discussion to the final and most recent form
of pluralism, the difference theory. In certain respects, if liberal multiculturalism
embodies a thinner form of multiculturalism, then difference theory incorporates a
more robust and occasionally illiberal form of multiculturalism. The genealogy of the
term difference embodies forms of postmodernism, post-positivism, post-Marxism
and feminism, amongst other elements. One should not necessarily expect much
coherence here. In addition, some understand difference as just an instrument of
investigation, others see it as a specific political doctrine (see Benhabib, introduction
to Benhabib (ed.) 1996: 12; Vincent 2003).
In reviewing this area, various species of difference are drawn distinct, that is,
ethnographic, postcolonial, gendered, postmodern, agonistic, and total difference.
The one proviso to add here is that, once again, not only have some communitarians,
such as Walzer, been associated with difference, but also, more surprisingly, certain
liberals. Thus, Berlin and Kymlicka have been categorized as ‘difference theorists’.
Walzer has indeed categorized his own theory in this manner. Difference has even
been used as a basic synonym for ‘liberal pluralism’ (see Baumeister 2000). Usually the
argument maintains, first, that more radical difference theorists misunderstand the
deep internal complexity and resilience of liberalism and have neither taken on board
the counter-enlightenment, nor the community-sensitive liberal variants, which are
much more attuned to real difference. Second, in a broader vein, liberalism has been,
historically, well able to cope with all forms of difference. In fact, liberalism, as a
political doctrine, was founded on the problem of difference.
The present discussion neither seeks to defend nor prosecute so promiscuous a
concept as ‘difference’, but rather to trace its genealogy. The broadest assumption
to make about it is that it lays an inordinate stress upon uniqueness and incom-
mensurability. However, there are some mistaken assumptions concerning difference
theory to note immediately: first, that difference is solely associated with either lib-
eral pluralism or multiculturalism, and second, that it has intimate associations with
postmodern theory. It is undoubtedly true that a version of difference theory does
underpin radical multicultural arguments, butonlyone version. It has also been
used to describe liberal pluralism. However, difference, in itself, does not necessar-
ily imply either multiculturalism or liberal pluralism. Second, although postmodern
theory does quite definitely cultivate a difference perspective, nonetheless, this alone
does not suffice to explain difference. The more complete difference perspective is