of agonistic engagement. Here, inclusive forms of deliberation are indispens-
able in the development of a politics that oVers respect and recognition
to diverse citizens. MouVe( 1999 ) is the only pluralist theorist who explicitly
challenges the link between pluralism and deliberative democracy, but
she mistakenly insists that all deliberation aims at erasing antagonism
and creating perfect, permanent harmony. On the contrary, most pluralist
models of deliberation transform political discourse from antagonism
between enemies to a more civil agonism between adversaries—just what
MouVe desires.
While this is not the place to go into any detail regarding institu-
tionalization of democratic forms of discourse amenable to pluralist engage-
ment, there are some important aspects that others in deliberative or
discursive democracy might not address. First, institutions of engagement
could not exist solely at the state level; the focus must be at both macro
and micro levels, or both the state political realm and the cultural sub-
political realm. Deveaux ( 2000 ) thoroughly addresses this interface of
pluralism and deliberative democracy, and she notes that macro-level
democracy alone cannot secure adequate respect and recognition for cultural
minorities; this requires more democracy down to the micro-level of society.
Second, any agonistic institutions must pay attention to the interplay of
identities, both individual and in groups. Pluralists encourage a move
away from thinking of diversity in terms of individual beliefs; diVerence is
both socially constructed and collective. Recognizing the role of groups as a
font of the values that form the basis of agonism moves engagement
away from that solely between citizens and the state. Finally, pluralists eschew
the idea that any result of an agonistic engagement is ever permanent.
Institutionally, this means an ever-adaptive management—policies are
developed and implemented, but constantly revised with input from feed-
back, additional knowledge, and ongoing discourse. Pluralism—the engage-
ment, the agonism, the understanding, and the resolution—is always
in the making. James ( 1976 [ 1912 ], xxii) argued that ‘‘knowledge of sensible
realities thus comes to life inside the tissue of experience. It is made;
and made by relations that unroll themselves in time.’’ From James
to Connolly, pluralists have cited the inXuence of Bergson’s notion
of creative evolution and the continuously creative nature of our engage-
ments; the process is one of becoming, rather thanWnishing. It gives us a
permanent and always contingent politics, aYrming the importance of on-
going engagement.
152 david schlosberg