Dichotomy Between Private and Public Thoughts as a Measure of Pluralism

Recognizing the dichotomy that exists between private and public thoughts suddenly caught my attention as I sorted out the number of occasions in which I myself has on a conscious level attempted to keep my private thoughts from the prying eyes of the public either through a non-participative level or even betray it publicly through sheer denial or expressing a contrarian thought. The frightening thing is that such behavior has at time been a placid involuntary reaction that bypasses the cerebral much like how my eye lids shut in reaction to bright lights. It is only on conscious reflection that I realizes it. So this  dichotomy between private thought and public thought is a reality.

Pluralism takes many forms like cultural, political, value etc. I am pursuing pluralism in a broader sense of existence, acceptance and real tolerance of differing, alternative or opposing thoughts within a society.

What are the linkages between the two and why the degree of dichotomy between private and public thought is one of the many means to measure pluralism within a society?

Firstly, in a more pluralistic society, the dichotomy between private and public thoughts would be narrower as there is more tolerance and therefore removes one of the many barriers for transparency. The populace would be more willing to go public on their private thoughts as the repercussions for doing so is less damming.

Secondly, on a more positive note, a more pluralistic societal norm also tend to reward divergent thoughts and therefore provide a more fertile landscape for divergent views to not only grow privately but also to come out in the open more readily.

Thirdly, there is a difference between pluralistic society and a multi-variate society. A multi-variate society is a society where people differentiated along various lines like race, religion etc  exists in a melting pot together and does not necessarily means that it is a pluralistic society. More often than not, a multi-variate society tend to be less pluralistic and tend to exhibit a synthetic tolerance because such divergence without pluralism provides for a potential flashpoint for societal unrest. Therefore, it is not uncommon for laws on equal opportunism, affirmative activism and legal framework to diffuse such differential. Most of these tend to narrow the opportunity for individual to go public with their private thoughts especially if it would lead to trespassing of the legal framework. Synthetic pluralism tend to thrive in such societies with strong fault lines that could fractal easily. Such societies also tend to be either a migrant society that resulted from a convergence of a multi-variate nature often without a strong sense of nationhood as such values takes time to take root. Sometimes, such multi-variate society can also be the result of artificial political delineation that forces such a formation or the close proximity with a history of violence between them.

Pluralism is not necessarily a final destination nor a nirvana to be pursued with an endless wit but a form of ideal with its root primarily from philosopher Isaiah Berlin.




Peter Lye aka lkypeter.blogspot.com

Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye