A Review of “William James’s Pluralism: An Antidote for Contemporary Extremism and Absolutism” by Wayne Viney

Human history is filled with examples of extremism and absolutism. In the present day, there’s no shortage of ideologues (religious, political, and otherwise) seeking to force their way of thinking and living on the rest of us. In the book under consideration, Wayne Viney, a former Psychology professor at Colorado State University, does a wonderful job concisely explaining what William James has to offer us for combatting extremism and absolutism of all kinds.

In describing James’s perspective in the preface, Viney states:

He argued against the idea that there is a single, universal, or total way of life adequate to the rich and boundless complexities encountered in the world or human experience. (Preface)

In contrast, James defends a…

…moderate pluralistic philosophy responsive to the growing multitude of perspectives, discoveries, methods, values, and causes encountered in the modern world. (Preface)

This pluralistic perspective stands counter to ideological purism and dogmatism.

The quest for ideological purity is ubiquitous and contributes to insensitive, colorless, and toxic monocultures where people dress alike and think alike and march in cult-like obedient rhythm to the related orientations of extremism, fundamentalism, absolutism, rigid certitudes, militarism, and narrow nationalisms. (Preface)

After the preface, the book begins by discussing monism vs pluralism.

The major characteristic of monism is the belief that there could be but one reality. (Page 1)

According to the pluralist, there is to date no adequate or comprehensive grasp of anything; yes, there is a great degree of order and the amount of order appears to be increasing over time, but there is also disorder, uncertainty, and even chaos. (Page 5)

…James’s battle was against the closedness of all single-principle imperialisms and for a more open optimistic and melioristic philosophy. (Page 12)

The pluralistic creed that James espoused is right in alignment with the dialectical project (“the art of context keeping”) sketched out by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. I have sought to build off of that project here and here. In both cases (pluralism and dialectics), the focus is on assessing an issue or phenomenon through various lenses/vantage points and modes of analysis, gaining a richer understanding in the process.

We live in an ever-changing world rather than a static one, so the pluralist and dialectician will adapt and adjust their perspectives accordingly. If the conditions on the ground change or our understanding of them changes, one’s views and actions should adjust. In contrast, the dogmatist/purist will keep the train going full speed ahead despite the bridge being out. Anything to maintain a conception of purity or absolute consistency. And it should be clear why that is not a good way of handling things.

After sketching out the monist-pluralist landscape, the book continues on contextualizing James’s life and explaining how he developed his perspectives. As Viney describes, James had to contend with both serious health issues early on and a strict Calvinistic father.

Henry was preoccupied with tensions between the rule-ridden Calvinistic theology of his father and his own love of freedom and the natural world. (Page 15)

Henry’s approach to life was clearly shaped by his compromised physical condition, his failure to find the warmth and love he craved and continued turbulent relations with his father. (Page 15)

Viney further describes how James used “philosophy” to save himself and saw it as much more than just some intellectual exercise (Page 18). For James, the field of philosophy has practical value (or at least it should). No surprise that he’s one of the founders of the American philosophical school of “Pragmatism”, which emphasizes “utility, practicality, and workability” (Page 23). And in keeping with the spirit of pluralism and anti-dogmatism, James embraced humility and a sort of contentment with unknowns.

His theory calls for a certain amount of epistemic humility about the reach of truth claims in any slice of time. (Page 24)

…we must be content with truths with a small “t”. (Page 24)

Subsequently, Viney explores moral monism and pluralism through myriad issues like abortion, birth control, and “death with dignity”. To go into each would exhaust the purposes of this article. However, the discussion is properly in alignment with the spirit of openness and contextuality.

If abstract intellectualism settles the entire question collectively with words such as “all,” “never,” or so-called “self-evident truths,” empiricism of the Jamesian variety requires a profoundly different approach, including the tedious work of looking at myriad individual cases that inevitably juxtapose competing sets of values. (Page 30)

He repeatedly railed against elaborate abstract intellectualist philosophical systems. (Page 30)

In the next section, “Methodological Singularities”, Viney examined the methodologies people employ to justify their beliefs. These methodologies included religious ones.

There is no sacred text, including the Bible or the Qur’an, that addresses all the detailed practical and theoretical problems associated with modern life. (Page 45)

What we believe is shaped partly by the methods we employ in defense of our beliefs. A singular approach to methodology contrasts sharply with pluralistic approaches that encourage critical scrutiny of all methods. (Page 45)

In short, perspectives that hold that everything important one needs to know is contained in a single space, whether a religious text or a political manifesto, are going to be problematic and opposed by James. There’s also a critique of science as the singular source of truth (Page 50).

The methods of discovery in historical sciences such as geology and paleontology differ from the wet lab manipulations of biochemists or microbiologists. (Page 50).

It is increasingly problematic to speak of “the scientific method” as if it were one thing. A case can be made that science itself is increasingly pluralistic. (Page 50)

Regardless of if we are speaking of religious literalism or an aggressive scientism, “[c]ommitment to radical singularities leaves little to no space for compromise” (Page 51).

…every singularity is sure to leave something out, and sure to suffer unexplained exceptions, and uncomfortable contradictions. (Page 52)

…methodologies should be under constant scrutiny. (Page 54)

And in the 5th chapter, “The Single Cause: God, Free Will, and the Reflex”, Viney warns us that:

In troubled or uncertain times there is a temptation to turn everything over to the great leader who boasts of stunning powers to single-handedly address almost any problem. (Page 61)

He goes on to discuss singular causality with issues surrounding God & theological determinism, monistic reflexology, and human free will. All valuable, but won’t be explored in detail in this article.

Chapter 6, “Ontological Monism and Pluralism”, covers the differences between monistic and pluralistic perspectives on the nature of the world, including perspectives like materialism and idealism. Viney also delves into Gestalt Psychology. Ultimately, the pluralistic approach isn’t going to reduce everything down to either a mechanistic material world or a woo woo immaterial or “idealist” world. In this sense, the approach that James and Viney take can be seen as anti-reductionist. Instead, the world is a complicated and dynamic place that has layers of complexity that operate in different ways. We can examine a chair and table on a macro-functional level or a more microscopic or quantum level. Both levels are important to examine, but they both operate very differently.

In the final chapter, “James Quarrels with Monism as He Embraces Pluralism”, we get a lot of the themes and issues addressed throughout the book coming back up and covered in more detail.

In covering the intellectualist origins of monism, Viney states that:

James argued that monistic philosophies are born in the abstractions of intellectual processes that tell believers what to count and what not to count, what to regard as truly important and relevant and what is unimportant or irrelevant, what to regard as primary and what is secondary, and what to appreciate and what to criticize. (Page 93)

There is a danger that concepts can become comfortable, lazy, shop-worn, and static unless they are continually refreshed and challenged by hard-core empirical facts and particulars. (Page 93)

On absolutism, he states:

He [James] argued that absolutistic philosophies undercut thoughtful deliberation and thus result in simplistic frontloaded, pre-fitted, pre-given categories. (Page 94)

In opposing monism and absolutism, James is directing us towards free inquiry, anti-authoritarianism, and tolerance of diverse perspectives. All things in alignment with the best of liberal thought.

Viney sums up James’s philosophy by stating that it can be understood in terms of “the interplay among pragmatism, radical empiricism, and pluralism” (Page 100).

He viewed pragmatism as a highly tolerant and open methodology consistent with pluralistic values but it was not an anything-goes philosophy. James understood that some types of investigations lead nowhere and once tried and unproductive, should be dropped. (Page 100)

Pluralism results in freer and more robust explorations, because it doesn’t have to yield to all the pre-set rules encountered in monistic schemes. (Page 101)

One of the final sentences in the book was especially lovely:

The pluralist, according to James, can never take an intellectual or moral vacation, cannot rely on the adequacy of some ancient doctrine to provide a knockdown explanation for a current technical or theoretical problem, and must forever manifest the humility associated with the partial perspectives of the past as well as the present. (Page 102)

In a time when extreme partisanship and tribal outrage culture are ruling the internet and various media airways (even seeping into our movies and shows), we could all benefit from the insights found in William James and throughout Dr. Viney’s book on James’s perspectives. We need a more cool and collected open-mindedness that is grounded in facts and not shackled by various political and religious dogmatisms. We need to be open to the possibility that we are wrong about any number of things and accept that we just don’t know on others (and may never know). By moving in an open pluralistic direction, we can shed ourselves of unnecessary baggage and truly live freely in the world, hopefully helping to make it a better place in the process.