On the Young Hirst: A Rejoinder to Jason Edwards and Kelvin Knight
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| Author | Mark Wenman |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00766.x |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
On the Young Hirst: A Rejoinder to Jason
Edwards and Kelvin Knight
Mark Wenman
The University of Nottingham
In a recent article in Political Studies I presented a critical overview of Paul Hirst’s
theory of ‘associative democracy’( Wenman, 2007).I emphasised his proximity to
English pluralism and especially to the work of G.D.H. Cole. I argued that – like
Cole – Hirst’s theory moves in a contradictory fashion between an advocacy of
pluralism and the assumption of a unified social purpose which is manifest in his
defence of functionalism and corporatism. In their response,also in this jour nal,
Jason Edwards and Kelvin Knight claim that I ‘overstate’ the ‘intellectual conti-
nuity between Hirst and the English pluralists’ and so my reading misrepresents
the ‘character’ and ‘intent’ of associative democracy (Edwards and Knight, 2008).
They make numerous substantive points in support of this view;I address each of
them in turn.
Hirst’s Deconstruction of Marxism
According to Edwards and Knight,my account of the inherent contradictions in
English pluralism is applicable to Cole’s theory, but not to Hirst. They offer a
number of reasons for this differentiation. Firstly, they emphasise that Hirst was
focused on the ‘conjuncture of political forces’ in the 1970s and 1980s and they
claim that I ‘underplay the importance’of these concerns in the development of
his theory (Edwards and Knight,2008, p.738). As a depiction of my argument this
is inaccurate. I made it clear that Hirst developed his theory in response to the
current challenges of the governance of large organisations, given the inadequacy
of both neoliberalism and state socialism (Wenman, 2007, p. 805). However,
Edwards and Knight go further than this and claim that the very ‘origins’ of
Hirst’s theory can be found in his observations about contemporary politics and
so he ‘was not looking to an earlier pluralism for some theoretical foundation for
contemporary political practice’ (Edwards and Knight, 2008, p. 737). This is a
strange assertion, which implies that Hirst was an empiricist, which he was not.
Instead, as I said, Hirst understood his theory as an explicit reworking of English
pluralism and guild socialism, and precisely because these theories spoke to
present-day concerns. As he put it, ‘the late twentieth century offers new
conditions in which [these] ideas marginalised for many decades can be redefined
... to serve as an alternative ... means of reforming and reorganising ... Western
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00766.x
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2008 VOL 56, 964–969
© 2008The Author.Jour nal compilation © 2008 Political StudiesAssociation
To continue reading
Request your trial