Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:24:37.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Technique of the Pluralistic State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Francis W. Coker
Francis W. Coker
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What is the pluralistic theory of the state? Roughly speaking, we may identify the pluralistic theory as that theory which denies the logical validity and the practical and moral adequacy of the traditional doctrine of state sovereignty, or of the doctrines of sovereignty which have prevailed since the eras of Bodin and Hobbes, and have in a peculiar degree dominated political thought since the time of John Austin. Although the pluralist dogma does not take precisely the same form for all of its adherents, views held in common by them all are to be found in the chief criticisms which they offer against what they regard as the now prevailing notions of state authority and competence. The pluralists maintain that sovereignty is not, in any community, indivisible, and they deny that the state either is or ought to be sovereign in any absolute or unique sense. They cite many facts of recent political and social experience to discredit the belief that the state does persistently exercise sovereignty over other essential social groups; they argue that the tendency of social and industrial change today is in the direction of a progressive weakening and narrowing of state power; and they hold that the effect of a still further disintegration and decentralization of authority will be to improve the economic, moral and intellectual well-being of man and society.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , May 1921 , pp. 186 - 213
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1921

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 An excellent analysis of recent pluralistic theory is that contained in the sympathetic, though at some points adverse, criticism by MissFollet, M. P., in chapters 28–32 of her volume the New State (New York, 1918).Google Scholar The article by MissEllis, E. D., on “The Pluralistic State” (American Political Science Review, August, 1920, pp. 393–407)Google Scholar presents another useful exposition and criticism of the doctrine.

2 The views of Gierke, appear in his Das Genossenschaftsrecht (1868)Google Scholar and his Die Genossenschaftstheorie (1887).

3 Maitland's views are found in his introduction to his translation of Gierke's, Political Theories of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1900Google Scholar: a translation of a section of the Genossenschaftsrecht) and in various passages in his Collected Papers.

4 For Figgis', view see especially his Churches in the Modern State. (London and New York, 1913).Google Scholar

5 Figgis, , Churches in the Modern State, p. 87.Google Scholar

6 Ibid., p. 49.

7 Ibid.

8 The pluralistic theory of Duguit is set forth in parts of almost all of his works. See especially his Manuel du Droit Constitutionnel (2nd ed., 1911), and his Trans formations du Droit Public (1913). The latter work has been translated by Frida, and Laski, Harold, under the title Law in the Modern State (New York, 1919)Google Scholar; this translation is marred by numerous errors in rendition.

9 Duguit, , Manuel du Droit Constitutionnel, pp. 49–51, 69–79.Google Scholar

10 Duguit, Transformations du Droit Public, chs. 1–3.

11 Duguit, Transformations du Droit Public, introduction and ch. 2.

12 Duguit, Law in the Modern State, p. 51.

13 Laski's, general theory is found chiefly in his Problem of Sovereignty (New Haven, 1917)Google Scholar, especially chapter 1 and appendix A, and his Authority in the Modern State (New Haven, 1919), especially chapter 1.

14 Laski, , Authority in the Modern State, p. 65.Google Scholar

15 Laski, , Problem of Sovereignty, p. 269.Google Scholar

16 Duguit, , Transformations du Droit Public, chs. 3–7.Google Scholar

17 Some of the difficulties in Duguit's discussion may be due to the varying meanings and connotations of the French term, “droit” and the English “law.” Where he urges the existence of a “regle de droit” superior to the state, he apparently means something more than a moral principle; but it is not clear that he means an officially declared “rule of law,” as is implied in Dicey's well known phrase. If “regle de droit” is translated as “rule of justice,” the ambiguity of the French phrase may be indicated; and the same problem will arise whether such a standard can be something more than a moral principle without being identified with the law officially declared by the organs of the state. [Ed.]

18 Laski, , Problem of Sovereignty, p. 25.Google Scholar

19 Austin, , Lectures on Jurisprudence, I, secs. 190, 254ff.Google Scholar

20 Austin, , Lectures on Jurisprudence, I, secs. 248 and 254.Google Scholar

21 Hauriou, , Principles de Droit Public (2nd ed., 1916), pp. 32ff.Google Scholar Cf. also Berthélemy, , “Le Fondement de l'Autorité Politique,” Revue du Droit Public, Vol. 32 (1915), pp. 662–682.Google Scholar

22 See Barnes, , “Durkheim's Contribution to the Reconstruction of Political Theory,” Political Science Quarterly, June, 1920, pp. 236–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 For description and discussion of the regionalist movement, consult the following: Brun, Charles, Le Régionalisme (1911)Google Scholar; Hennessy, Jean, Regions de France: 1911–16 (Paris, 1916)Google Scholar, and Reorganization Administrative de la France (1919); Buell, Raymond Leslie, Contemporary French Politics (New York and London, 1920), ch. 12.Google Scholar

24 Belloc, , The Servile State (London, 1912).Google Scholar

25 Ibid., p. 52.

26 Ibid., p. 49.

27 Ibid., pp. 5–6.

28 For discussion of French theories and projects of professional representation, see the following works: Benoist, , L'Organisation de la Démocratie (1900)Google Scholar and Pour la Reforme Electorale (1908); Leroy, , Pour Gouverner (1918), chs. 2, 9, 14–20Google Scholar; Lysis, (pseudonym for Eugène le Tailleur), Vers la Démocratie Nouvelle (1917), ch. 7Google Scholar; Duguit, , Manuel du Droit Constitutionnel (1918), pp. 176–179Google Scholar, and Traité de Droit Constitutionnel (1911), I, pp. 391–392; Buell, , Contemporay French Politics, pp. 358–372Google Scholar; “La Represéntation des Intérêts à la Chambre,” Revue Bleue, series 5, Vol. V (1906), pp. 703–704.

29 For examples of such boards, cf. “State and Municipal Enterprises,” special supplement to the New Statesman, May 8, 1915, pp. 24–25; Thureau, , “Les Délégués élus du personnel des chemins de fer en France et en Allemagne,” Revue Politique et Parlementaire, Vol. 73 (1912), pp. 454–481Google Scholar; New Zealand Year-book, 1914, p. 496; ibid., 1916, pp. 17–19.

30 Except for France we have only scattered and piecemeal accounts of the recent evolution of unionization in the civil service. For England, see Moses, , The Civil Service in Great Britain (Columbia University Studies in History, Economics and Politics, VII, 1912), pp. 200–211Google Scholar; Hemmeon, , The History of the British P. O. (Harvard Economic Studies, VII, 1912), pp. 79–88Google Scholar; Report of the Royal Commission of the Civil Service; Third Report (Parliamentary Papers, 1913, Vol. 18)Google Scholar, and Fourth Report (ibid., 1914, Vol. 16). For France there are numerous compendious studies; see especially Lefas, , L'État et ses Fonctionnaires (1913)Google Scholar; Harmignie, , L'État et ses Agents; Étude sur le Syndicalisme Administratif, (1911)Google Scholar; Leroy, , Syndicats et Services Publics (1909)Google Scholar; Laurin, , Les Instituteurs et le Syndicalisme (1908)Google Scholar; Paul-Boncour, , Les Syndicats de Fonctionnaires (1906).Google Scholar For other countries see Holcombe, , Public Ownership of Telephones on the Continent of Europe, (1911), chs. 11, 14Google Scholar; Fourth Report of Royal Commission of Civil Service (Parliamentary Papers. 1914, Vol. 16), appendix, pp. 161ff.Google Scholar

31 See Buell, , Contemporary French Politics, pp. 348–349.Google Scholar

32 See Revue du Droit Public, April–May–June, 1920, pp. 314–324.

33 Penty, , The Restoration of the Guilds System (London, 1906).Google Scholar

34 Orage, , “Politics for Craftsmen,” Contemporary Review, Vol. 91 (1907), pp. 782–794.Google Scholar

35 On the evolution of the movement in Great Britain, see Cole, , “The National Guilds Movement in Great Britain,” in Monthly Labor Review, (U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, IX, July, 1919), pp. 24–32.Google Scholar For the principles of guild socialism, see the following more important books: Hobson, , Guild Principles in War and Peace (London, 1917)Google Scholar and National Guilds and the State (London and New York, 1920); Orage, (ed.), National Guilds: an Inquiry into the Wage System and the Way Out (London, 1914)Google Scholar; Cole, , Self-Government in Industry (London, 1918, and Social Theory (New York, 1920)Google Scholar; Reckitt, and Beckhofer, , The Meaning of National Guilds (New York, 1918)Google Scholar; Russell, Bertrand, Political Ideals (New York, 1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Proposed Roads to Freedom (New York, 1919).

36 Cole, , Self-Government in Industry, pp. 85–89.Google Scholar

37 Cole, , Social Theory, pp. 86–87, 100–101Google Scholar; but compare page 137.

38 Ibid., p. 140.

39 Ibid., p. 134.

40 Cole, , Social Theory, p. 137.Google Scholar

41 On the history of the syndicalist movement in France, see Levine, , The Labor Movement in France: A Study in Revolutionary Syndicalism (New York, 1912, Columbia University Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3)Google Scholar; Cole, , The World of Labour (London, 1913), chs. 3, 4.Google Scholar

42 Sorel, , L'Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats (1897)Google Scholar, Le Décomposition du Marxisme (2nd. ed. 1910), Reflexions sur la Violence (3rd ed. 1912), Reflections on Violence, translated by Hulme, (New York, 1914)Google Scholar; Berth, , Les Nouveaux Aspects du Socialisme (1908)Google Scholar; Lagardelle, , Le Socialisme Ouvrier (1911).Google Scholar

43 For critical exposition of the syndicalist theory, see the following: Levine, cited in note 41, chs. 5, 6; Deschanel, , L'Organization de la Démocratie (1910), pp. 39–115Google Scholar; Russell, , Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism (New York, 1919)Google Scholar, ch. 3, and passim.

44 See Allix, , “Syndicalisme et Nationalisation,” Revue Politique et Parlementaire, July, 1920, pp. 117–129.Google Scholar

45 Among the numerous accounts of the history and policies of the “I. W. W.” the following may be cited as among the more useful accounts: Brissenden, Paul F., The Launching of the Industrial Workers of the World (Berkely, 1913, University of California Publications in Economics, IV, No. 1)Google Scholar; Levine, Louis, “Development of Syndicalism in the United States,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, (1913), 451–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brooks, John Graham, American Syndicalism: the I. W. W. (New York, 1913)Google Scholar; John, Vincent St., The I. W. W.: Its History, Structure, and Methods (Cleveland, 1913, and Chicago, 1917, I. W. W. Publishing Bureau)Google Scholar; Parker, Carleton H., “The I. W. W.,” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 120 (1917), 651–662.Google Scholar

46 Joint Control in Private Industry. Another practical movement which is in part decentralizing in tendency and which involves a recognition of group interests, is the movement for joint control (or workers' participation in control) in private industry. The movement may be regarded as a practical application of principles similar to those of the sociologists referred to above. There are a great many illustrations in the field both of practice and of proposals, and there are many familiar recent examples of a recognition by the state of the need for dealing with industrial problems through agencies representative of the organized groups immediately concerned. The working of some systems of compulsory arbitration is largely dependent (as in New Zealand and New South Wales) upon action of workers and employers in their respective organizations. And in England, the Whitley system of joint standing industrial councils in each industry to settle by periodic negotiation a wide range of questions in that industry, affords another example. The experiences of a number of these Whitley councils during the last two years proves them competent to deal intelligently with a variety of industrial questions and to reach conclusions acceptable to both sides and practically applicable. Similar schemes have been instituted in other European countries, and the tentative and partial steps in the same line in this country are familiar. There is a copious current literature on this general movement. See especially Sidney, and Webb, Beatrice, A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (London, 1920)Google Scholar, and Gleason, Arthur, “The New Constitutionalism in British Industry,” Survey, Vol. 41 (1919), pp. 594–598.Google Scholar

47 Laski, , Authority in the Modern State, pp. 45, 83.Google Scholar

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.