Human beings experience forces to conform when they migrate into new and culturally foreign atmospheres. Immigrants may adapt to the cultural and social practices of their host communities through assimilation, ethnic pluralism, or transnationalism. These forms of adaptation have a number of similarities and differences that make them appropriate in different conditions.
Assimilation involves the incorporation of the minority immigrant groups into the majority group. They adopt the culture of the majority community. Ethnic pluralism, on the other hand, does not involve full integration.
The minority communities retain their cultural and social distinctions, as they dwell in foreign countries. Transnationalism is the next mechanism for conformation. It applies to migrants who do not stay in one country but continuously cross-national borders.
Assimilation has negative psychological consequences. Leading researches say that migrants who culturally assimilate experience advanced levels of stress and metal problems. In addition, such immigrants live under fear if they conform due to external forces.
This is because it is not possible for immigrants, particularly first and second generations, to assimilate completely. Usually, if immigrants do not experience social assimilation, they cannot experience cultural assimilation and identity assimilation. The latter is the perfect form of assimilation, yet is difficult to achieve.
Unlike assimilation, the modern society widely accepts transnationalism. This form of adaptation helps individuals to maintain social connection across national borders. In so doing, immigrants increase positive relationships between receiving countries and home countries.
This helps immigrants to have an economic impact in two countries simultaneously. Immigrant entrepreneurs bring capital from their home countries and invest in the foreign countries. In return, they repatriate some of their profits back home.
Transnational immigrants have the opportunity to influence politics in the host country. They can also influence politics back at home. However, in practice, only a few of them make use of the absentee ballot.
Immigrants can develop transnational identities. They may identify with both their home countries and receiving countries. However, it is always not easy for them to identify fully with receiving countries. This is because immigrants, especially high-skilled immigrants, rarely have negative encounters in host countries.
Therefore, they maintain national identity with home countries and endeavor to build national identity with host countries. This usually leads to rising of cosmopolitan individuals who have developed transnational identification with many nations.
Many people also appreciate ethnic pluralism. It works when the majority communities and minority communities tolerate each other. In this case, each community learns from each other.
In addition to transnationalism, assimilation and ethnic pluralism cause identity change. Immigrants experience an increase in levels of loyalty towards their home countries.
Immigration, also, disrupts an individual occupational identify. Individuals who work as middle class employee in their home countries cannot find similar jobs a broad. They end up doing unskilled jobs. Their social position in the society also declines.
When immigrating, people should be aware of their right to movement, expression, and association. The information is useful in choosing the right ways to conform to their host communities. Assimilation has a number of setbacks and, therefore, not fit for immigrants.
Individuals should embrace ethnic pluralism while permanently dwelling in foreign nations. However, immigrant who can take advantage of globalization should not embrace either assimilation or ethnic pluralism. Transnationalism offers many advantages to both the receiving and sending countries.
In terms of modern practices, religions may seem outdated in the mindset of the general Western population, where scientific knowledge domineers. Some people may find religious rituals barbaric due to the influence of the modern skepticism agenda. It does not nullify the great impact religions still have on people. Religion is a complex concept, constantly changing, adapting according to time demands, and gathering followers. Nevertheless, it does not mean that all modernizations within religions go without any hindrance and that all religions are ready to face diverse modernity. In some of them, variety and pluralism are embraced, which in turn leads to inclusivity. Others struggle with reality and thereby causing radicalism and exclusivism.
Under the word pluralism, the general population understands diversity in the sense of the religions variety. According to Netland, this fact was not evident before 1492. The Western world was Christian, and homogeneous in terms of beliefs.1 In the modern world, however, religious pluralism is an axiom not hidden by distances between countries. It manifests itself in languages before anything else. The English term religion entails different meanings and connotations in other languages. Netland states, The Sanskrit term normally used in these contexts is dharma, which can be translated into English as truth, duty, law, order, or right . 2 Pluralism of opinions is evident even in the existence of different interpretations of one word.
Another concept, inclusivism, entails some old customs evasion for the sake of greater integration. In some religions, the such attitude was more distributed than in others. However, it always requires study and deep integration from a new member. Nevertheless, there are particular circumstances and interpretations of inclusivism in some beliefs. For example, Christianity implies that there is another path to salvation apart from the extolment of Jesus Christs death and resurrection.3 People who proclaim this view on the Christian faith are called inclusivists, and they face strong resistance from other factions. As many can see, inclusivism can imply free integrity, regardless of members upbringing and their potential involvement in the fundamental idea of the religion.
Exclusivism is a delicate matter in modern society because, in most cases, it implies discrimination and radicalization based on aberration from the religious norm. It can entail only one Gods complete faith or demand strict adherence to all religious standards. Sometimes, exclusivism tends to exclude only people who do not share the general ideas of the religion. Undoubtedly, it also means that a member of one religion cannot always be a member of the other one because their teachings are often mutually exclusive.4 Although, in the modern Western world, diversity and variety of opinions and beliefs are implicit, it does not extend to religions, where a person can only be a follower of one faith in most cases.
Some religious practices and rules can be set in stone, including rejection of people who do not share the same faith as the group and closed nature for the third party. Various religions exist in the world, and although people can observe pluralism, it does not mean that it extends to personal faith. Although some religions allow interpretations of their teaching and are inclusive in that sense, others are stricter and less lenient. Most religions are also mutually exclusive, meaning that a person cannot simultaneously be a follower of two or more religions. Albeit evolving, religions stay a cornerstone in our society, still having the power to either unite people or divide them based.
Bibliography
Harold Netland. Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitments in a Globalizing Age. Ada: Baker Academic, 2015.
Todd Miles. A God of Many Understandings?: The Gospel and Theology of Religions. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Winfried Corduan. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions. Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2013.
Footnotes
Harold Netland, Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitments in a Globalizing Age (Ada: Baker Academic, 2015), 9.
Netland, 13.
Todd Miles, A God of Many Understandings?: The Gospel and Theology of Religions (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 17.
Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions (Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 54.
While discussing two models of U.S. government and analyzing which of them best explains the realities of federal authorities, it is necessary to consider some fundamentals the most prominent schools of thought represent. First of all, there is a need to point out that pluralism is mostly regarded as a marketplace, with more or less perfect competition ( Interest Groups and Political Systems, n. d., para. 2).
One is to keep in mind that in America the main idea of pluralism is related to the most important questions concerning American identity. In other words, pluralism is associated with the issues of democracy, religion, and ethnicity. It should be noted that the idea of pluralism cannot exist without four premises.
These include equal access to the policy-making arena, fragmentation of the marketplace, a competitive process for the determining policies, and the neutrality of government ( Interest Groups and Political Systems, n. d., para. 2). Although America can be regarded as a country, which has the power to implement the above-mentioned premises, some politicians criticize the model pluralism is based on.
For instance, political constraints, varying levels in the economy are recognized to be the most widespread perspectives of pluralism. However, even though pluralism has been criticized, it expresses the complexity of society. Nobody will deny the fact that American society is plural; so, pluralism and American identity seem to be the common issues.
Generally, it is necessary to point out that political pluralism in the United States is closely related to religious pluralism in America. In other words, it becomes obvious, that the kind of democracy ensures the free existence of all cultural groups as well as religious beliefs.
The weaknesses of the most dominant theory
As far as pluralism is criticized by many politicians, it is recognized to be an undesirable form of government. Inequality in the distribution of various resources is considered to be one of the most important objections to the pluralist interpretation of American government.
Moreover, pluralisms critics state that politically valuable resources, in their turn, are also distributed among rich members of American society. So, one can conclude that there are the top layers of modern society, who have certain advantages.
However, the most interesting point, which cannot be neglected, seems to be the idea that pluralism is at variance with its basic principle. It is obvious that pluralism functions best when people direct and control the least. In other words, the so-called democratic elitism is recognized to be the key principle the model of pluralism is to be based on.
However, the major point is that democratic elitism is a preposterous phenomenon, as a government of elites cannot be regarded as a democratic government.
Some fundamentals of the elitist theory
So, as far as the idea of pluralistic American government has been criticized, the elitist theory appeared. It should be pointed out that the elitist theory is based on the idea that all contemporary societies are dominated by elites. However, it should be noted that the kind of the theory does not fully appreciate the degree to which corporate-based owners and managers dominate other institutionally based elites in the United States (Domhoff, 2005, para. 41).
The elitist theory emphasizes the interdependence between corporate-based owners and the members of the working class, although it underestimates the differences between the representatives of the above-mentioned groups. Thus, according to the elitist theory, the major conflict between corporate-dominated organizations and the working class is that certain objectives the union leaders set are still recognized to be class-based objectives.
So, on the one hand, the corporate leaders want to put an end to the unions; on the other one, there are no restraints on corporate attacks on unions in the United States (Domhoff, 2005, para. 43). For this reason, one can conclude that the elite theory seems to be the most appropriate kind of theory for most of the European countries.
According to the elitist theory, political power belongs to the elites. Usually, upper socioeconomic strata of society are better educated and have certain advantages; so, they have more opportunities to govern the society. The changes the American government is to implement must be slow and evolutionary.
Generally, it must be pointed out that the values of public policy are not formed by ordinary citizens. On the contrary, they are created by elites. The masses have little impact on elites, and they are usually poorly informed.
Pluralism vs. Elitism
When analyzing pluralism, it is necessary to state that interest groups are considered to be the basic elements, which should be studied, to understand the way American democracy operates. However, even though pluralism is regarded as the most controversial theory, it is also recognized to be the most dominant theory. In the early sixties, the kind of theory was increasingly discredited.
Since that time no new theory of interest groups has emerged to replace pluralism. The scope of pluralist theorynothing less than a claim that our country is a democracyis intimidating (Berry et al., 2006, p. 1). Both theories, pluralism, and elitism tend to answer the question Who Governs? Still, the pluralism-elitism debate is one of the burning problems of American politics.
At first sight, it seems that the American government represents a decentralized form of government with multiple interest groups. The democratic process of election is considered to be one of the most widespread ways to resolve conflicts. On the other hand, one can probably notice that the participants of the policy process include a small minority.
In other words, it is difficult to define what theory is more dominant. For this reason, it becomes obvious that neither pluralism nor elitism can allow us to analyze a holistic view of American politics. Garson thinks that group theory loses its place as the dominant frame of analysis because it fails to offer empirical evidence that interest groups are effective participants in the policy process (Pagan, 2007, p. 2).
One can probably say that the realities of the U. S. government are best explained by the elitist theory, as the pluralist model is at variance with its basic principles. Moreover, as far as the phenomenon of democratic elitism is rather contradictory, one can suppose that the American government is based on simple elitism.
However, a deeper analysis of the elitist theory, allows us to state that the model the elitist theory is based on is also imperfect. The kind of theory is mostly applied cable to many European countries than to the United States. So, the idea of elitism can be regarded as quite attractive; however, it does not work in reality.
The conclusion
Taking into account the fundamentals of both pluralism and elitism, as well as a tension between them, it becomes evident that neither of two rival theories can be used to identify the policy of the government of the USA.
References
Berry, J., Portney, K., Liss, R., Simoncelli, J., & Berger, L. (2006). Power and Interest Groups in City Politics. Tufts University. Web.
Pluralism is the idea that political systems are made up of divergent and powerful sub-groups that have their distinctive loyalties and interests as well as their leaders and objectives. In the contemporary world, fragmentation has become a common complaint. As a result, functional specialization has advanced, ushering in a new era where no ruling faction holds absolute power. However, according to Stone, such a change does not mean that people have become pluralists (131). In his article Looking Back to Look Forward: Reflections on Urban Regime Analysis, Stone critiques arguments presented by two of the most renowned pluralism theorists; David Truman and Robert Dahl. Particularly, he is strongly opposed to the pluralist view that universal suffrage turns politics into a penetrable and open process, yielding to individuals who are always active around specific interests relevant to them.
Stone argues that although pluralism encompasses some characteristics of political reality, the theory is primarily flawed. The author uses regime theory to debunk the pluralist idea that the ballot box makes politics penetrable and open (Stone 132). He claims that urban regime analysis looks in a different direction to explain why politics is mainly accessible to those who can meet substantial thresholds and tests (Stone 132). Stone believes that even in the existence of ideal conditions, suffrage serves as a limited tool of popular control. According to him, public policies are impactful, thus dependent upon actions from sources outside the government. As a result, electoral responsibility does not cover the whole process of making public policy, making it to be practically far from being considered a robust process.
Stone also opposes the pluralist argument that individuals are mainly concerned with issues that are of interest to them. The author contends that coalitions are unstable and realign as issues shift with changing times and conditions (Stone 132). Conversely, in typical pluralism, every issue occurs on the same plane, where a concerns immediacy is an unavoidable situation with centrifugal forces taking the center stage. Nonetheless, Stone emphasizes that the capacity to modify, reinforce, or build governing arrangements needs skills and resources that are naturally scarce (132). As a result, economic, social, and political inequality becomes persistent, substantial, and systematic. Characteristically, such qualities do not reflect classic pluralisms view of a penetrable and open system. The author further insists that for factions with a history of social, economic, and political marginality, possessing a political influence requires more than being active around specific matters of immediate concern (Stone 133). While politics can be described as a process that is not permanently closed to any party, meaning political impact depends on the capacity to meet significant threshold tests.
In regime theory, the major role of inequality is that it is a deterrent to the ideals of the model. Stone claims that histories of past frustration and neglect as well as lack of confidence that opportunities can be realized may serve as great barriers to concerted efforts of winning the target populations hearts (133). As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve grassroots engagement in matters pertaining to such issues as workforce development, reducing crime, countering youth violence, and maintenance of neighborhoods (Stone 133). Thus, in regime theory, inequality is a limiting factor to problem-solving efforts.
In summary, Stone strongly rejects the pluralisms view that the vote makes politics a penetrable and open process. The author argues that suffrage does not fulfill the ideals of the pluralism model. For instance, the policy-making process cannot be completed successfully without the involvement of non-governmental sources, raising concerns over the robustness of electoral accountability. Moreover, a worthwhile political influence requires the ability to meet crucial threshold tests. Furthermore, in regime theory, the key role of such disparity is that it serves as a barrier to the ideals of the concept such as the establishment of fruitful grassroots engagements.
Work Cited
Stone, Clarence N. Looking back to Look Forward. Urban Affairs Review, vol. 40, 2005, pp. 130140.
Making of Public policies can be theorised in a number of way among them rational theory, Marxists theory and pluralist theory. With regard to Cope and Goodship, the drafting of a public policy is not just a task of the government.
Instead, it should be viewed as a complicated process that requires the input of political leaders and the diverse society (1999, p.9). These forces have the capacity to impact and affect the outputs of policies.
Hills defines public policy as the product of political influence, determining, and setting limits to what a state does (1993, p.47). The definition broadly sets the guidelines for realising certain state-driven goals coupled with aspirations in the future (Toke & Marsh 2003, p.229).
Despite the presence of the many differing theories for explaining the process of making public policies, all of them use a similar definition of a policy. Public administrations scholars have both theorised and broadly described the process of making public policies.
For instance, Edward (1992) claims that public policy can be understood better by taking it as a set of interlinked process (p.39). The claim follows since policymaking requires the contributions of all sections of an organisation and not just one section or level that is mostly the top staff members (Gilliat 1984, p.345). Other public administration scholars see it as a single process that is defined by differing phases.
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast contributions of the rational theory, Marxists theory, and pluralist theory to the study of public policy. The paper is organised into two sections. The definition of theories is considered first under the description section followed by comparison and contrasting of the theories.
The question of how they contribute to the public policy study follows later in the analysis section. In conclusion, from the paradigms of rational theory, public policies are guided by mythological individualism and self-interested maximisation behaviours of people.
Description
Defining Rational Theory
Rational theory has its roots anchored in the work of Adams Smith, Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776. This work also forms the foundation of theory of neoclassical economics. As revealed by Smith, individuals who work to fulfil their personal desires can yield some collective gains to the community following some concealed forces (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.193).
For people to fully meet their egocentric interests, there must be a continuous state of competition, which often leads to production of goods of better quality, which would benefit everybody besides being sold at low prices in the end. In making of public policy, rational theory forms the basis of decision making in the sense that the most appropriate policies are the ones, which deliver more and higher quality public good.
Such a scenario cannot exist in an unregulated market. Frederickson et al. (2012) note that factors such as the egocentric party, rivalry witnessed in producers, and the unorganised markets are all indicative of neoclassical economics (p.183).
Since rational theory rests on the platforms of neoclassical economics, these elements are also definitive of rational choice theory. From this context, rational choice theory entangles a theoretical construct for modelling and understating various economic and social behaviours. In theory, the term rational is applied to refer to the behaviour of people to constantly want more as opposed to less of any public good.
Defining Marxism Theory
Marxism sees the process of making public policies as the interplay of political power and economic class. Marxist theory is composed of a number of doctrines. Marxist theory has been strongly upheld by many people based on the wide range of sentiments within an analytical model that undermines the capitalist society (Burnham 1994, p.73).
From the paradigms of Marxist theory, policies are made to fulfil the function of the state. One function of the state is to make improvement of various conditions that foster accumulation of capital.
This means that the state makes policies that will ensure that industries are able to make optimal profits. The second function of the state encompasses legitimisation of the resulting capitalistic system. This is accomplished through the introduction of myriads of policies such as welfare policies, health services, and pension policies among others.
These policies are formulated such that people will not reject them and hence embrace the capitalist system (Hill 2005, p.23). Even if Marxist theory is supported by some public administration scholars as one of the mechanisms of effective allocation of limited public resources, it faces some drawbacks that are akin to the description of the concept of capitalism.
For instance, based on Bonefields (1996) findings, Marxist theory approach in making of public policies faces an objection since it depicts societal authority as one that has divisions with no specific ownership (p.115). It says that nations that uphold the wellbeing of their people do so out of their heart and will rather than mere pretence or forces of circumstances.
Another challenge is that the need to reflect the concepts of legitimisation and accumulation of capital in the public policies are contradictory. Often, the costs associated with the legitimisation process have the repercussion of creating a legitimisation crisis.
Defining Pluralism Theory
Classical pluralism theory for making public policies sees decision making in the formulation of public policies as being centrally located in the governments frameworks although numerous nongovernmental groups utilise their resources to influence the process of making public policies. The main interrogative that is addressed by pluralism theory is how power is distributed across a political process of making public policies.
From the contexts of this theory, in making public polices, lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups (Ackers 2002, p.8). While formulating public policies, inequalities are often created in terms of participation in the policy ideation process.
However, the inequalities are distributed and evened out through adoption of various mechanisms of resource distribution within the unequal population. The theory puts an emphasis that the power to make public policies does not amount to a physical entity, which people have or do not have. The power spreads from varying sources.
Analysis: Comparing and Contrasting the Three Theories
The development of differing theoretical paradigms that provide insights to the process of making public policies is owned to the contribution made by various theories among them being Marxist, Pluralist, and rational choice theory.
In this section, these theories are compared and contrasted in terms of the contribution they have made in guiding the manner in which public policymakers view the purpose and function of the polices they formulate and then later to be implemented by a bureaucratic system either from an approach of top or bottom or top-bottom
Marxist theory sees public polices as serving the purpose of creating conflicts between the economic classes in a society. These policies favour the Bourgeoisie, who is a composed person who owns all the production means (Konings 2010, p.175). In fact, the policies led to exploitation of the Proletariat, which is composed of the working class.
In particular, the Marxist analysis of the wellbeing of people focuses much on its connection with the peoples exercise of authority (Jessop 2002, p.105). From the paradigms of Marxist theory, this means that the state is an instrument of ruling people belonging to the capitalist class (Bourgeoisie) through formulation and implementation of appropriate public policies.
Alternatively, a state is a complicated combination of systems that reveal the many differences that the larger society has of which the state itself is a subset (Duncan & Goodwin 1982, p.158). Marxism theory contributes to the study of public policy by introduction a theoretical paradigm for interpreting the process of making public policies by maintaining that policies that develop welfare to the society are the ones advocating for strengthening of the Proletariat via making them resist exploitation.
Opposed to Marxism theory, public policies under pluralism theory are not made to satisfy the quests of one principle group of people within a society.
Instead, it sees public policy making process as being well comprehended based on the extrapolation that authority is relatively wide and unevenly shared among the various more or less coordinated groups in the society that rival each other in an effort to get hold of public policy (Dowding 1995, p.143).
Some specific groups dominate in some arena or areas of public policy struggles while others are concerned with some different public policy areas.
The Marxism theory maintains that the capitalistic group is favoured by the policies so that it can continue to support the economy through increased productivity and hence profitability. Through such policies, the Bourgeoisie is able to influence the Proletariat.
Comparatively, the pluralism theory differs from this view by revealing how there is an insignificant intersection between the leaders who take part in a certain section of policy and the ones who take part in other sections of the same policy making process (Grillo1998, p.45).
The two theories are similar in that they present the process of making public policies as entangling friction between various parties. Some parties are composed of the policy makers while others are composed of those people to whom the policies will apply.
Somewhat different from the concerns of the both the above two theories in the making of public policies, rational theory holds that self interest among policy making stakeholders acts as the drive for determining the manner in which policies are formulated.
It upholds the notion that the key conduct hypothesis of the neoclassical economic image is cosmopolitan. It points out peoples decisions and conducts, for instance, buying a house, making elections decisions, and or deciding on what and when to budget for are controlled by their ego (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.194).
This means that public policies need to be made in a manner that fits the demands of the people to whom they should apply.
The producers of the public goods are required to competitively respond to the needs of consumers in a manner that is consistent with their self-interest. Hence, policies should be made in a manner that makes it possible for the organisations, which are guided by self-interest, to deliver services and public goods that satisfy the utility of the consumers.
For instance, in the healthcare setting, accessibility of quality healthcare is public good. From the paradigms of rational theory, organisations that are charged with the noble roles of ensuring the public has access to quality healthcare, for instance, a health insurance organisation must be favoured by the policies in the health care sector such that they will be able to deliver quality healthcare.
From the context of this example, rational theory differs from Marxist theory in the formulation of public policies because Marxism theory would call for a free operation of market forces to determine the delivery of quality healthcare.
It will not impose regulations to control the organisations such as the insurance companies in facilitation of delivery of quality healthcare as public good.
From the approach of pluralism theory, there will be people of diverse settings, scopes, and their mode or way of input to the larger community who are fighting for authority (Howlett 2002, p.237) to determine the appropriate mechanism of formulating a policy that will ensure accessibility of quality healthcare.
The government or the state would play only the roles of mediation by shifting and balancing the interests of various interest groups as opposed to playing active roles in imposition and active innovation of various policies that would ensure accessibility of quality healthcare.
Marxist theory suggests that persons whose voices are likely to be heard and taken into consideration in the formulation of public policies are those who are economically endowed, being also the people who control the factors of production.
This means that Marxism theory contributes to the study of public policy in that economic power has the potential to translate into political power because policy formulation and implementation are inseparable from political influences (Toke & Marsh 2003, p.234).
Therefore, the political power, which plays active roles in the process of making public policies, is a function of the economic power. Hence, the economic class is the one that makes policies indirectly. This argument forms the point of departure between the proponents of classical Marxism and neo Marxism.
Classical Marxism sees the government as serving the roles of ruling the economic class while neo-Marxism contends that the government has a proportional liberty from capital (McLellan 1999, p.83). It does not then principally serves as an economic class-ruling agent.
Pluralism approach to making of public policies sees power as not being centralised to the state. It views people as the carriers of power because they are in charge of most of the public resources (Ackers 2002, p.9). The resources are the tools that are used by people to compel others to do what they want them to.
Politicians are then able to push through the process of making public policies since they have the capacity of commanding various resources, which people feared, want, or even respect. There are two main important approaches to public policy from the paradigms of pluralism theory.
Firstly, one needs to view resources as being everywhere in the society (Ackers 2002, p.12). Secondly, all the resources are almost available to almost every person.
Since the degree to which people have accessibility of resources determines the extent to which people possess the power to influence the process of making public policies, making of public policies from the contexts of pluralism is a function of many actors.
This implies that power is also distributed across many actors with the state only taking passive roles in the making of the policies.
Policymaking is thus a procedure that is free and competitive (Dowding 1995, p.142). From the perspective of neo-pluralism, rather than power being distributed across all people, it is seen as only distributed in significant magnitudes across the key actors in the process of making public policies.
Such actors include professionals who evaluate the policies and the businesspersons who are often impacted by the policies in terms of performance of their business activities. Since these key actors are incorporated in policymaking process, policymaking with regard to the neo-pluralism theory is a negotiated and an interdependent process (Ackers 2002, p.17).
Pluralism is then a reflection of liberal thinking and contextualisation of democratic societal ideals for legitimisation of inequalities and power structures coupled with the contribution of the democratic society in influencing the process of formulation and implementation of public policies.
The pluralism theory reinforces societal collectivism with regard to public policies. This contrasts the concern of rational theory, which reinforces self-centred maximisation conduct (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.195) and methodological individualism.
A decision maker guided by rational theoretical paradigms while making policy encounters several chances and possibilities in the course of happenings (Ostrom & Ostrom 1971, p.205). However, a similar decision maker guided by pluralism will pursue possibility and opportunities that deliver societal good.
The difference between the two approaches is that the pluralism approach will not give rise to bureaucratic self-maximising individual in charge of making policies. Theorists who subscribe to rational theory as the best mechanism of making public policies consider the collective action advocated for by pluralism as problematic.
Often, they deploy game theory to illustrate these problems. They employ simplistic models to make sense of deployment of rational theory in making of policies. Some critics of this theory see it as inappropriate for making public policies that would influence well all the stakeholders.
However, in case a government utilises rational choices theory as the model for making public policies, the assumption made particularly with regard to human behaviours end up as being self-fulfilling.
Conclusion
Decisions taken by governments to resolve certain challenges that constitute social problems through deployment of specific strategies designed for planning and implementation of a proposed action make up a public policy.
Depending on the theory deployed in explaining the making of public policies, different scholars provide differing contribution to the advisement of the discipline of public policy administration.
From this perspective, the paper compared and contrasted rational choice, Marxist, and pluralism theories contributions in the study of public policy.
Marxist theory presents the process of making public policies as the interplay of the economic power and political power. The economic class is the owner of the factors of production. Policies made tend to favour this group of people as opposed to the working class.
From a different angle, rational theory sees the making of public policies as being guided by self-interested maximisation behaviour of people and methodological individualism. This often leads to bureaucratic systems for the formulation and implementation of public policies.
Lastly, the pluralism theory sees the procedure of making public policies as a process that is competitive and open to a variety of actors. The government or the state acts as the moderator that only plays passive roles.
References
Ackers, P 2002, Reframing Employment Relations: The case for Neo-Pluralism, Industrial Relations Journal, vol.33 no.1, pp. 2-19.
Bonefield, W 1996, Reformulation of State Theory, Capital and Class, vol.11 no. 3, pp. 96-127.
Burnham, P 1994, The Organisational View of State, Politics, vol. 154, no.4, pp. 59-86.
Cope, S & Goodship, J 1999, Regulating Collaborative Government: Towards Joined-Up Government?, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 14 no.2, pp. 3-16.
Dowding, K 1995, Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach, Political Studies, vol. 45 no.1, pp. 136-158.
Duncan, S & Goodwin, M 1982, The local state and restructuring social relations, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 6 no.3, pp. 157-186.
Edward, C 1992, Political Authority and Bureaucratic Power, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ. Frederickson, G et al. 2012, Public Administration Theory Primer, Westview Press, Boulder, Col.
Gilliat, S 1984, Public Policy Analysis and Conceptual Conservatism, Policy and Politics, vol.12 no.4, pp. 345-367.
Grillo, D 1998, Pluralism and the Politics of Difference, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hill, M 2005, The Public Policy Process, Policy Press, New York.
Hill, M 1993, The Policy Process: A Reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
Howlett, M 2002, Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990-2000, Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 35 no.2, pp. 235-267.
Jessop, B 2002, The Future of the Capitalist State: Jessop State Theory 1990, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.
Konings, M 2010, Renewing state theory, Politics, vol. 30 no.3, pp. 174-182.
McLellan D 1999, Marx and Marxism Political Studies, SAGE, Beverly Hills, Calif.
Ostrom, V & Ostrom, E 1971, Public choice: a different approach to the study of public administration, Public Administration Review, vol. 31 no.2, pp. 203-216.
Toke, D & Marsh, D 2003, Policy Networks and the GM Crop Issue: Assessing the Utility of Dialectical Model of Policy Networks, Public Administration, vol. 81 no.2, pp. 229-251.
Media has always been a very important mediator of the political, social, and cultural events of the community and country. However, the news role has been changing with the period and nowadays it presents a diverse structure of multiple functions to complement all spheres and facets of life. Media largely resonates but does not depend on the political structures and the industrial ones. The geographic and cultural diversities make the media form into system structures. It has to be noticed that media is a very flexible structure that reacts to any changes from outside by reorganizing the self-substantial domestic policies for a better outcome in the future. It is hard not to mention that media depends on the culture it is created in largely (Klimkiewicz 908). The historical conditions and cultural traditions make it authentic which is good and dependent and sometimes biased which is not very good.
One of the first receivers of the media messages is the kids and teenagers nowadays. The kids get involved in the conversations created on the web. One of the extensive online forums is the Australian forum regarded in the article called Multicultural Sociability, Imperfect Forums, and Online Participation. It is said that, unlike those receivers who used to participate in telecommunications back in the days, the forums online allow talking and expressing the opinions on the most debatable topics, like race, for example. This is, of course, a very good experience for the kids and they will start getting used to another through direct debate and talking the issue over without any editing mediators (McClean 1652). However, the only disadvantage found here is the scuffles emerging during conversations.
Media is likely to announce about any occasion and any event occurring in the world. Mass media is also likely to report some interesting and sometimes weird discoveries made by a man. However, firstly it has to be mentioned that several centuries ago the Earths shape was deemed flat and people saying it was round were considered weird. So, the 1976s publications about travels in time were also added but we never know what will happen in the next era. So, the author of The Paradoxes of Time Travel David Lewis presented opportunities for time travels with different branches as if traveling by different buses. It was explained that it is possible to travel to different dimensions and it is not that much impossible rather than odd. People of other societies would deem it weird rather than completely impossible (Lewis 1).
Another source the mass media conveys the objectives through is digital media. It is one of the most important sources nowadays as per the technical progress and overall mass use of the Internet and other digital media. There has been made very prolific research on the means of communication nowadays and it is said that people are mostly reading digital sources and watching Internet videos to get information and news (Castells 789). The multidimensionality of networks is greatly underestimated today and there are practically no theories to make them structured well. The role of the Internet has been much underestimated. It was thought that it has emerged for the past two decades, though it has not as it is claimed by Wendy Hall. It has been emerging before 1990 and entered its peak of development in the 1990s.
Works Cited
Castells, Manuel. Prologue to the Special Section: Network Multidimensionality in the Digital Age. International Journal of Communication 5 (2011): 788793.
Klimkiewicz, Beata. Introduction. Structural Media Pluralism. International Journal of Communication 4 (2010): 906913.
Lewis, David. The Paradoxes of Time Travel. American Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1976): 1-7.
McClean, Georgie. Multicultural Sociability, Imperfect Forums and Online Participation. International Journal of Communication 5 (2011): 16491668.
Counseling and psychotherapy is a practice historically associated with theoretical frameworks that are unitary in that they stand by singular positions or procedures. However, this is rapidly changing as training, research, and practice are increasingly adopting a combined approach. A pluralistic framework is becoming a common phenomenon as it allows the practitioners to consider the multiple causes of the problem and to offer more than one therapeutic solution. According to Cooper and McLeod (2007), the concept of pluralism, as applied in counseling and psychotherapy, is founded on the notion that there is no one right therapeutic method appropriate for all situations. The literature presented here defines and discusses the theoretical concept of pluralism in counseling and psychotherapy and offers a critique of the theory.
Definition and Discussion of Pluralism
The concept of pluralism is used in counseling and psychotherapy is a relatively new model being embraced by clinicians. Pluralism was first established as a foundation for the psychological theory and practice by William James (McLeod, 2013). The general idea of pluralism is that there exist many different and valid responses or solutions to any situation or problem regarding the nature of reality. In other words, there is no single definitive truth, a notion that is often associated with postmodernism (Pendle, 2015; Finnerty, Kearns, & ORegan, 2018). Another aspect of pluralism, especially when applied in the field of counseling and psychotherapy, is that it advocates for greater collaboration with clients regarding issues such as selecting the appropriate interventions and approaches. Lastly, pluralism uses a work structure based on tasks, goals and methods. Therefore, the theoretical foundation of pluralism is the consideration of alternative approaches to practice.
A pluralistic approach deviates from the traditional unitary models that have been historically used. According to Greenbrook (2016), practicing pluralism means adhering to the ethical and philosophical commitment to appreciating multiple perspectives. However, it is important to acknowledge that different researchers used the theory of pluralism contrarily. For example, Pegado (2019) states that medical pluralism is the joint usage of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional medicine (CM). Other researchers associate pluralism with creative and integrative approaches to unlock the practitioners innovation and potential (Carlyle, 2017). Regardless of the usage of the theory, pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy embrace multiple solutions to problems and different mechanisms of identifying their root causes.
The use of the pluralism theory in counseling and psychotherapy involves two distinct concepts. Scholars have emphasized that it is critical to differentiate between the two concepts of pluralism: perspective and therapeutic practice (Cooper & McLeod, 2011; Thompson, Cooper, & Pauli, 2017). The pluralistic perspective can also be described as sensibility or viewpoint, which is used to imply that there does not exist a single best set of therapeutic methods. Additionally, it can also be seen as an assumption that different clients will most likely benefit from dissimilar therapeutic methods. This means that the practitioners deliver the greatest results when they work collaboratively with the patients to identify their specific needs (Cooper & McLeod, 2011). On the other hand, pluralistic practice is a terminology that refers to a specific form of therapeutic practice that is founded on methods and understandings from more than one therapeutic orientation (Thompson, Cooper, & Pauli, 2017). Pluralistic practice is the scenario where decision-making is a shared responsibility between the practitioners and the clients. These theoretical distinctions are critical and their use in research and practice makes them vivid.
Pillars and principles of pluralism and their usage in counseling and psychotherapy is another theoretical consideration emphasized by authors and researchers. By its definition, the concept of pluralism can be seen as the philosophical belief in multiplicity and mutually conflicting responses. The first pillars are described as pluralism across orientations implying the scenario where a clinician embraces varied means of resolving an issue (Cooper & Dryden, 2016). It means that a counselor considers the diversity of patient needs and the means to resolve them. Another pillar is pluralism across clients which emphasizes the contrasting nature of individual patients and that each responds to different therapeutic approaches. Lastly, the third pillar is called pluralism across perspectives, which asserts that decision-making is shared between practitioners and clients. With these pillars, it is apparent that both the perspectives and practice components of the theory of pluralism emerge.
One of the most important features of the pluralistic approach is metacommunication. This term is used to refer to the regular occurrence of episodes extending over several minutes comprising dialogues involving the deconstruction of meanings in goal statements, diagnosis, and determination of alternative methods (Cooper & McLeod, 2007). Metacommunication may also entail brief micro-episodes involving therapists asking questions and requesting the input of the patients. In essence, a pluralistic approach is founded on the exchange between practitioner and client.
Critique of Literature
Many researchers agree that pluralism in counseling and psychotherapy is one of the most appropriate approaches to practice. It can be argued that pluralism allows the clients to become the focal point of therapy. This argument is validated by considering the fact that historically, psychotherapy and counseling have been structured around distinct sets of models and ideas with each adhering to separate manuals, professional associations, and teaching schools (Pearson & Bruin, 2019). It has been estimated that there are over 400 types of therapy with varied techniques, practices, perspectives, and foundations (Pearson & Bruin, 2019). It would appear, therefore, that each customer is placed under one of these therapies depending on the psychological problem. From a pluralistic approach, however, it can be argued that rather than specialized practitioners, generalized ones function by borrowing from the wide range of therapeutic practices to tune the solutions to the needs of the client. This could be a major weakness as it may necessitate that each therapist is knowledgeable in all fields. While pluralism makes it more effective to handle patients, it may make practice harder for the therapists, a theme that has hardly been addressed in the literature.
Pluralism can be viewed simply as the integration of different therapeutic models by clinicians. According to Oddli and McLeod (2016), the integration of knowledge and practice has resulted in the concept of knowing-in-relation which can be seen as the implementation of specific integrative models. Pluralistic therapists are, therefore, simply viewed as those who adopt one or more integrative frameworks. There lacks a concrete definition of the term integrative as used in counseling and psychotherapy. However, it can be used to refer to practitioners borrowing from more than one model or even more than one type of therapy to accomplish a single therapeutic session. A moment-to-moment integration, as described by Oddli and McLeod (2016), is used to imply that the knowledge and practice used to change as scenarios and situations change. Therefore, pluralism is the ability of the clinicians to deliver sessions based on the needs of the clients.
As argued above, pluralism may require practitioners greatly knowledgeable in a variety of therapies and therapeutic models. Such levels of knowledge have significant implications for the training of the personnel. There is hardly any attempt by researchers to examine how pluralism affects training in counselling and psychotherapy. The only efforts to discuss this theme is made by McLeod, Smith, and Thurston (2016) who highlight that pluralism affects the styles and length of training and learning. The concept of integrative training is coined by these authors to imply the structuring of the programs and materials to suit the emerging needs of pluralistic practitioners. This is an area that researchers should pay more attention to since studies have already presented empirical evidence of the importance of adopting a pluralistic approach.
Even though criticism can be targeted at various aspects of the theory, it is important to acknowledge the major strengths and usefulness of the approach. The major goal of pluralism in counseling and psychotherapy, according to (McLeod & Cooper, 2011), is to offer therapy tailored to the preferences and needs of each customer. Such an approach can be deemed as customer-oriented where practitioners deviate from using preferred models. The efficiency and effectiveness of counseling and psychotherapy can, therefore, be improved.
The most important strength, however, is the fact that pluralism requires practitioners to adopt greater use of evidence. The deviation from medical models is a critical aspect because most of them are founded on theoretical assumptions as opposed to evidence. Such an argument is supported by Collins (2017) who argues that medical models (in the context of treating depression) assume that the causes of depression emanate from the patent and that the antidepressants will work on the serotonin and noradrenaline systems. This is despite the fact that, as the researchers note, there lacks evidence to indicate anything wrong with these systems among individuals with depression. As such, the adoption of multiple therapeutic approaches and combinations of nonpharmacological therapies can be appreciated as evidence-based practices. Such interventions can achieve greater results as opposed to medical models.
Lastly, it can be acknowledged that pluralism offers a means of integrating a wide range of ideas around psychological problems. According to McLeod (2013), the most striking aspect of practice and theory in counseling and psychotherapy is the presence of diverse ideas. These are reflected in the current literature examining major forms of therapy, including psychodynamic, narrative, cognitive-behavioral, systemic/family, and experiential/humanistic among others. This spectrum poses a major challenge to practitioners who have responded either by attempting to develop a single model, identifying common themes and factors, or integrating ideas and practice. The latter of the three approaches is the basis of pluralism and allows clinicians to adopt interventions that best suit the patient. It is a fact, as McLeod (2013) and other theorists explain, that there are different approaches to different problems. Pluralism is the theory that allows alternatives to be exploited.
Conclusion
In conclusion, pluralism theory is essential for modern practitioners because it allows them to integrate several approaches to offer patients the ultimate solution. The general opinion is that the true causes of a problem become easier to discover upon deviating from the unitary models. This is because pluralism implies that there is no single truth regarding reality meaning a patients issue could result from more than one factor. Most importantly, the theory allows for greater adoption of evidence-based practices and to tailor interventions to the patients needs. However, requiring practitioners to be knowledgeable in all forms, types, and models of therapy may pose serious concerns for training.
References
Carlyle, D. (2017). Promoting pluralism in counseling: An untapped sources of relational mapping as therapeutic processes. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 39(3), 311-321. Web.
Collins, L. (2017). Therapeutic pluralism in mental health nursing practice. Mental Health Practice, 20(10), 13-18. Web.
Cooper, M., & Dryden, W. (2016). Introduction to pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy. In M. Cooper, & W. Dryden, The handbook of pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 1-12). London: SAGE.
Cooper, M., & McLeod, J. (2007). A pluralistic framework for counseling and psychotherapy: Implications for research. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research, 7(3), 135-143. Web.
Cooper, M., & McLeod, J. (2011). Pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Finnerty, M., Kearns, C., & ORegan, D. (2018). Pluralism: An ethical commitment to dialogue and collaboration. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 18(3), 14-22.
Greenbrook, J. (2016). For the development of a pluralistic and person-centered mindset among mental health practitioners. European Journal for Person Centered Healthcare, 4(4), 579-582. Web.
McLeod, J. (2013). Developing pluralistic practice in counseling and psychotherapy: Using what the client knows. The European Journal of Counselling Psychology, 2(1), 51-64. Web.
McLeod, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). A protocol for systematic case study research in pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy. Counselling Psychology Review, 25, 47-58.
McLeod, J., Smith, K., & Thurston, M. (2016). Training in pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy. In M. D. Cooper, The handbook of pluralistic counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 326-336). London: SAGE.
Oddli, H., & McLeod, J. (2016). Knowing-in-relation: How experienced therapists integrate different sources of knowledge in actual clinical practice. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 27(1), 107-119. Web.
Pearson, M., & Bruin, M. (2019). Pluralism in counseling and psychotherapy: An introduction to theory and implications for practice. Psychotherapy and Counselling Journal of Australia, 7(1), 1-12.
Pegado, E. (2019). Complementary and alternative medicine and conventional medicine: Managing pluralism in therapeutic trajectories. Annals of Medicine, 51(1), 199-199. Web.
Pendle, A. (2015). Pluralistic coaching? An exploration of the potential for a pluralistic approach to coaching. International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 1-13.
Thompson, A., Cooper, M., & Pauli, R. (2017). Development of a therapists self-report measure of pluralistic thought and practice: The therapy of pluralism inventory. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 45(5), 1-11. Web.
There is the participation of different groups such as formal and informal groups based on religion, ethnicity, and language in a politically pluralistic society. State autonomy always comes to the decision independently of the dominant class. This paper presents what is pluralism and state autonomy. It gives some of the political activities of the writer and how does it influence the judgments. The last part of this paper focuses on the validity of class domination theory.
Pluralism
The political theory of pluralism can be defined as the participation of interested groups, trade unions, business organizations, and any other small coalitions in the accomplishment of political power. The political power is not restricted to the elite group of the society but it is distributed to various small and big groups. Pluralism is a theory that holds the presence of various distinct ethnic groups, religious groups, and cultural groups in a society which would give social and political benefits. The view of political science on pluralism is that the power of liberal democracy is vested not with the elite group but is distributed among various economic and political groups. There are several multitudes of formal and informal coalitions that would influence the power in the society and the involvement of all these groups in the political process is called pluralism in politics.
State autonomy
The capitalist states can formulate and organize the plans for their own, independently of social interests and the dominant class. The ability of the capitalist states is referred to as state autonomy and there are two oppositional approaches to understand state autonomy. The state-focused theory states that the capitalist state is independent and autonomous while society-focused theory postulates that the capitalist state is relatively autonomous. The state may face several pressures from different realms of state such as economic, political, etc. Spain and Britain had to face pressure from the industrial pressure groups in the twentieth century; this is an example of the economic pressure that challenged the state autonomy.
I am a person who had participated in many political activities. I have observed so many factors which are involved in politics. There are several groups formal and informal, such as ethnic groups, religious groups, political groups, different sects which have different ideologies. All these groups influence the political power on how it is to be executed. All political parties have their agendas and ideologies. Some groups are dominants in some parts of the nation and they constitute a majority. Even though the people belong to the same party, the people from different regions may have slight differences in their ideology. I belong to a religious group that has its dominance in that area. I have participated in most of the discussions conducted by this religious group. No political party is as strong as this political party. This party has a strong influence on politics. Likewise, a lot of parties are there which have a majority in their areas. Therefore, what I would like to tell is that power is distributed pluralistically to different groups, parties, religious groups, and ethnic groups. My activities in politics have influenced me in molding this judgment because I have witnessed so many instances where some different groups are dominant in some parts of the nation.
Political pluralism is a system of government that forms the government by the people, for the people, and of the people and this system is followed by the government of the United States also. Political pluralism respects everyones religious point of view and all these religions will have a political influence. In a politically pluralistic society, there is no absolute right and wrong. The United States is an example of this type of government. India is the second mightiest county that has a pluralistic form of government. India is a good example of this since there are several religious groups, language groups, ethnic groups, and political groups. Every group based on religion, politics, and language has political influence and representation in the government.
There is only less chance of sacrificing the general good in terms of the elite group in a politically pluralistic society. The negation of the will of the majority is seen in an aristocratic society. We have certain examples even today where military rule and royal rule exist. There is no freedom for the people to express their views publicly. Their freedom to speak and organize, choice of religion, etc are restricted by the autonomous sovereignty of the state. In a politically pluralistic society, the government is formed by the people, for the people, and of the people. Here, the people have the freedom to join the decision-making process of the country. People formulate policies and plans for them because they have representation in the government. This system of government is considered the prettiest form of government.
People belonging to the middle class and lower class always tend to hear what the upper class tells. The community is the class that always tries to make good relations with the upper class. The people of the upper class and the corporate community join together to dominate the people belonging to the lower class. These two groups can together influence any part of the social system. They start the effort of domination from the school education system. The concept of boarding school is an example of this kind of effort. To make upper-class children educated about the way of this kind of dominations, study fees of the schools are increased massively. And they get an isolated environment to practice how to control lower-class people. But the ideology of the upper class is not only learned from schools and colleges. Clubs, parties, social gatherings, etc are used to spread this ideology. The upper class that includes the corporate community, politicians, etc try to make close relations with each other. For that purpose, they make an environment by which they can benefit from the relation they make between them. These benefits include social benefits; financial benefits political benefits etc. They also make sure that they can be benefited from this relation in the future too.
Class domination is very high in countries like America and England. In America, black people were the main victims of class domination. But now the situation has changed a lot.
Conclusion
This paper has highlighted two different concepts, namely pluralism and state autonomy. In a politically pluralistic society, people have freedom and representation in the political decision-making process. There will be representation from different groups, such as religious groups, political parties, and trade unions.
Assimilation is a term used to refer to different cultural groups moving into a new place or region for settlement. Immediately they settle on their new land, these ethnic groups normally acquire the customs and cultures of those they found in the region through communication.
They also normally contribute their own culture to the new society they have inhabited. Assimilation is, however, a gradual process which occurs in different levels: a person becomes fully assimilated when they cannot be differentiated from the original members of the new society. Full assimilation does not occur to the first generation, instead, it occurs to the second generation. There are three types of assimilation, which include cultural assimilation, social assimilation, and identity assimilation.
On the other hand, ethnic pluralism/multiculturalism is a term used to describe those people who have moved into new society but are not culturally assimilated; they normally retain their cultural differences. This is the main difference that exists between assimilation and ethnic pluralism.
Nevertheless, there is a similarity between the two since full assimilation normally occur to the second generation. This, therefore, means that the first generation in the process of assimilation usually retains their cultural differences just like ethnic pluralism/multiculturalism.
The first generation in the process of cultural assimilation is normally good at their native language as compared to the foreign language as they cannot speak fluent English. This is another similarity that exists between assimilation and ethnic pluralism. America is an example of a society with ethnic pluralism; it has multitude of different cultures and ethnic groups. There are two types of ethnic pluralism/multicultural societies, which include dominant majority culture and different persisting ethnic/immigrant cultures.
Lastly, transnationalism is any social process that occurs across different national boundaries. This, therefore, means that transnationalism refers to a social phenomenon which involves interconnectivity among the persons and the receding social and economic importance between different states. Transnational migrants are constantly on the move across national borders; they normally do not stay in one country like those who have been assimilated or in the case of ethnic pluralism.
This is the main difference that exists between transnationalism, assimilation, and ethnic pluralism. The process of assimilation and multiculturalism/ethnic pluralism involves people moving or migrating to new society, settling there for a long term or permanently and then later on eventually becoming socially and culturally assimilated. However, in transnationalism, individuals move from one nation to another for economic and social purposes.
Nevertheless, the main similarity between assimilation, ethnic pluralism and transnationalism is that they all involve movement from one location to another. Unlike the case of assimilation and ethnic pluralism, in transnationalism, migrants maintain social ties and connections with their home country.
The migrants usually send and receive things from their native countries. This process is similar to ethnic pluralism whereby individuals maintains contact with their native homes. They can receive and, at the same time, send things to their native country, especially to their loved ones and family. This, however, does not occur in assimilation process. There are two types of transnationalism which include economic transnationalism and political transnationalism.
In economic transnationalism, individuals do not only have an impact on their host country economically but also maintain economic ties with their home/native nations. This is whereby individuals send money home to support their family and also maintain business ties with their home country through imports and exports to immigrant communities. The best way for immigrants to adapt to host society is through transnationalism.
Immigration is the moving either to another country or setting within a country, where you have never been a native. People migrate for various reasons such as natural calamities, getting re-united with family, harsh political, social and economic conditions in the mother land, etc. It is triggered by the need and desire to seek a better life. For instance, economic migration is basically the migration of labor that makes people move when the new country or region provides better wages than the original place of living. Religious immigration is triggered by factors like persecution or genocides. There are many other causes of immigration but in most cases, immigrants are forced to go through harsh conditions while migrating. The cost of migrating in itself is stressful because there are both explicit expenses such as the price of tickets and implicit issues such as the lost of community ties, for example. Getting assimilated into the new place of residence is another major issue because one has to deal with issues of ethnic pluralism and transnationalism.
Assimilation, Ethnic Pluralism, and Transnationalism for Immigrants
The assimilation of immigrants is the gradual adaptation of the minorities into the environment of new customs and behaviours. A successful immigration to the host country or region is vital for an immigrant’s psychological well-being. Social and economic satisfaction of immigrants indicates a positive assimilation characterized by a situation where it is difficult to distinguish between the immigrants and the natives by a simple observing. Pluralism is exercising mutual respect between two or more groups that are diverse. Ethnic pluralism, therefore, involves exercising mutual respect between the natives and the immigrants. The world is becoming more ethically heterogeneous every day. While assimilation is more about the adaptation of the immigrants to the behaviours and customs of their new home, ethnic pluralism involves the development of mutual respect among people they get acquainted with there. The two aspects have similarities in the fact that they both involve accommodating as well as accepting new customs and traditions. Without ethnic pluralism, it is impossible to have assimilation because you have to respect the other group before adapting to their customs and behaviours.
Transnationalism is the transformation in the immigration patterns over years. Before the 1980’s, migrating to another country was not as easy as it is today. It used to be specific with a specific departure point and a specific arrival point. Nowadays, it has become an ongoing movement to and from different social spaces and geographic locations. Of course, this has been majorly facilitated by the advancement in technologies such as communication and transport networks; the improved assimilation and ethical pluralism over the years has contributed to transnatinalism as well. Earlier, such issues as racism could not allow people to respect each others’ diversity. When people migrated to a new place, the natives did not welcome them and they treated them like outcasts. In reaction, the immigrants feared and at the same time disliked the natives. They were not ready to embrace the community’sculture and beliefs and, therefore, the two or more groups could not assimilate. The tension between the groups also discouraged ethnic pluralism because each group considered itself superior to the other. Therefore, assimilation, ethnic pluralism, and transnationalism have different meanings implied but have numerous similarities when applied practically.