Abstract

In his recent essay, Mark Wenman highlighted parallels between Connolly’s theory of pluralism and earlier iterations of pluralism in the postwar period and the early twentieth century. Focusing on his account of postwar pluralism and especially his interpretation of Dahl, I argue that Dahl’s vision of democracy as polyarchy is fundamentally at odds with Connolly’s. A close reading of Dahl’s text and a consideration of the historical context suggest that Dahl’s theory effectively creates a depoliticized world where citizens are unresponsive to claims about alternative possibilities of democratic life