The moral and political philosophy of pluralism has become increasingly influential. To pluralists, when values genuinely conflict we should aim to strike an appropriate balance or trade-off between them, though this means accepting that compromise will be inevitable. Politics, as a result, appears as a thoroughly tragic affair. Drawing on a 'hermeneutical' conception of interpretation, the author develops an original account of practical reasoning, one which assumes that, though making compromises in the face of conflicts is indeed often unavoidable, there are times when reconciliation, as distinct from compromise, is feasible. For this to be so, however, citizens must strive to converse - and not just negotiate - with each other, thus fulfilling the good that is at the heart of their shared political community. This is the central message of the patriotic alternative to pluralist politics that the author defends here.
In his ground-breaking study, the author provides a critique of pluralist conceptions of political thought in favour of those approaches which assume that our thinking about politics should aim for a conception of practical reason which asserts that there are times when conflicts can be successfully overcome by reconciliation free from compromise.
