The centre must hold: navigating pluralist governance across ideological divides

Written by Jeremy Stowe-Lindner, Principal

Pluralism is the town square that defies the polarising algorithm, validating, embracing and encouraging a diversity of views. That makes it worth fighting for, writes JEREMY STOWE-LINDNER.

We live in a pluralistic society, yet we are surrounded by orthodoxies; of faith, of politics, of logic and reasoning, and therefore orthodoxies of direction.

The very word ‘orthodox’ is derived from the Greek and was first used by the early Christian ideologues to mean ‘of the right opinion’.

Whilst to orthodoxy, pluralism is its (so to speak) anti-Christ, to pluralism, orthodoxy is one set of equally valid opinions in the spectrum of variance. The love, therefore, offered by pluralism to orthodoxy, is necessarily unrequited.

The orthodoxies of interest groups and social media algorithms, encapsulated by identity politics, is on the one hand a search for justice and truth, whilst on the other hand risks being a descent into a mutually exclusive scramble for special treatment, polarisation and privilege.

So how do we navigate this landscape as organisations which strive for pluralism?

We begin with definition. A common criticism of pluralism is that ‘anything goes’. From a religious perspective, this means that pluralism enables and validates inauthentic beliefs and practices at best, and heretical ones at worst. From a societal cohesion perspective, it facilitates ideologies and movements which to its detractors undermine the safety and security of society itself.

"Pluralism by its nature is a shape shifter, reflective of a society in that moment and constantly introspecting and reevaluating. Pluralistic leaders are value navigators rather than value imposers."

Yet these arguments lead us down a rabbit hole, since in reality, these critics of pluralism are critiquing anarchy. Pluralism is not anarchy. It is a broad set of beliefs or practices (or whatever the modus operandi of the organisation may be) that is defined by an agreed set of guardrails.

A pluralistic definition will, as a result, identify what it is, and also what it is not – in other words what actions or behaviours are beyond the pale.

We then consider membership and strive to ensure that our membership throughout our stakeholder groups reflect the pluralism of our mission, and not just the orthodoxy of some. Governance groups, employees, service users and so forth all fall within this. The risk, of course, is that we create an orthodoxy of type in our membership, so ensuring that our definitions are constantly reflected in these groups is essential.

In Talmudic times, the Jewish sages spoke of the Acher, the ‘Other.’ The Acher was a sage, presumed to be Elisha ben Abuyah, who became a heretic. The Talmud is replete with stories of the Acher, it presents his opinions, and it narrates his logic. What the Talmud has found is a balance between representation versus voice. The Acher’s voice is valued, but albeit with a credibly weakened reputation. In other words, whilst some cultures may be tempted to redact their heretics (or in ancient times burn them, and in contemporary times cancel them), the tradition is teaching that the inclusion of the counterpoint is as important as the inclusion of the point.

Process and practice in pluralistic governance is a necessary and public process. How is disagreement and dissonance managed? Governance documents and processes which resolve (or attempt to resolve) disagreement embrace respectful disagreement as healthy and necessary, not as divisive, or inappropriate. Thus, a model such as deliberative democracy, which has consensus building and facilitated dialogue as part of its conflict management ethos, may be embedded in the organisation.

The challenge always is that pluralism requires leaders to be interpreters, and not just implementers, of pluralistic vision. This is because orthodoxies have a defined, often publicly available, and doctrinally ‘approved’ set of values, beliefs and practices which can be used as a reference point for decision-making. Orthodoxies stand (or fail) the test of time, like weathered statues on a blustering hilltop.

"The centre does not hold by itself. It is held, and articulated, and fought for, by people like you and me."

Pluralism by its nature is a shape shifter, reflective of a society in that moment and constantly introspecting and reevaluating. Pluralistic leaders are value navigators rather than value imposers.

Consider in the political realm leaders such as the German Chancellor Angela Merkel who in 2015 navigated enormous ideological divides within Germany and the EU during the refugee crisis. Her statement Wir schaffen das (We can do this) framed a moral vision in the context of the time that tried to bridge humanitarian obligation and national concern, despite political backlash.

In contrast, consider British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who declared, "There is no alternative," pushing through free-market reforms and union restrictions with little tolerance for dissent. Her style exemplified conviction politics – a refusal to compromise or mediate between competing ideologies.

With the structures, policies and definitions in place, the pluralist organisation only transcends the theoretical by successfully translating these into action. Tools such as value mapping, scenario planning or multi-criteria decision-making (a quick Google search will give you examples of these in practice) help organisations implement the change they wish to see, with constant reference and deference to their governance documents.

W. B. Yeats coined the phrase "The centre cannot hold" in his apocalyptic 1919 poem The Second Coming. Written after the First World War, at the start of the Irish War of Independence and in the midst of the Great Flu Pandemic, it was a time when things were falling apart.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world;

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

We live in a world of increasing polarisation, in which (paraphrasing Jonathan Sacks) multiculturalism is leading to coexistence and tolerance, rather than engagement and respect. Exemplified by the urban street of international takeaways – Indian, Chinese, Malaysian, Ethiopian – we coexist side-by-side but do not genuinely interact and learn from each other. Even customers simply dip in and out, extract what they can take, and then carry on, unchanged, with their lives.

Yet it is my thesis that pluralism is the Centre. It is not the mid-point between extremes of orthodoxies. It is the town square that defies the polarising algorithm, since it gives time and space for, validates, embraces and encourages diversity.

The apocalypse of Yeats need not come about; the centre need not fall. Predating Yeats, the liberal conservative Edmund Burke is alleged to have said that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

The centre does not hold by itself. It is held, and articulated, and fought for, by people like you and me.

Jeremy Stowe-Lindner has served on a number of not-for-profit boards in Australia and the UK and is Principal of a pluralist Jewish school.