Toward an Overlapping Dissensus

• Published date: 01 December 2013
• Date: 01 December 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912913478197
• Author: J. Toby Reiner
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly

66(4) 756 –767

© 2013 University of Utah

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912913478197

prq.sagepub.com

Article

Ever since its establishment in 1954, Dissent magazine

has defined itself as advocating a type of democratic

socialist thought that emerges out of mainstream Ameri-

can political traditions. Following the negative reviews of

fellow New York Intellectuals1 Norman Podhoretz and

Daniel Bell in the 1950s, critics of the magazine have

held that, in trying to transcend both liberalism and Marx-

ist socialism, Dissent succeeded in transcending neither

and could not be taken to uphold a form of socialism

(Bell [1960] 2000, 311; Glazer 1954; Podhoretz 1958,

579; for discussion, see Bloom 1986, 285–90; Jumonville

1991, 83–86). Dissent, in this view, would be more accu-

rately titled Consent.

In this article, I take seriously Dissent’s claim to

espouse a form of democratic socialism, and detail the

development of that position over the life of the maga-

zine. For two reasons, Dissent’s position could equally

accurately be called liberal socialism. First, it develops

out of values common to liberalism and socialism alike,

such as tolerance, pluralism, decentralization, auton-

omy, and participation. Second, it seeks to incorporate

liberal elements into the radical movement, alongside

socialists and all radical groups other than Stalinists and

fellow travelers (Howe 1954). Dissent was from its

foundation a product of the post-Stalinist left, and most

of its work has been an attempt to develop a socialism

that avoids what it took to be the calamity of the Soviet

experiment. This socialism would incorporate liberal

insights, including pluralism and faith in the market,

and socialize them with communitarian elements.

Dissent’s advocacy of liberal values is, in my interpreta-

tion, the result of a belief that the American left’s tendency

toward sectarianism and factionalism has foiled any pos-

sibility of success, but for principled, not merely strategic,

reasons. The ideological Puritanism that the Dissent circle

ascribes to such rivals as the American Communist Party,

the New Left, and, in particular, Students for a Democratic

Society (SDS) ensured that American radicalism failed to

pay sufficient attention to the admirable features of main-

stream American political traditions. Such commentators

as Irving Howe, Lewis Coser, Michael Harrington, Ben

Seligman, and Michael Walzer spent their careers arguing

that, to be successful, an American radicalism must draw

on the real insights of American liberalism even as it

refuses to consent to the inequalities generated by American

capitalism. The radical movement must not seek to tear up

American society and start from scratch but must base

itself in the traditions that we live by, while attempting to

478197PRQXXX10.1177/106591291347819

7Political Research Quarterly XX(X)Reiner

1Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

J. Toby Reiner, Dickinson College,

P.O. Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013, USA.

Email: reinerj@dickinson.edu

Toward an Overlapping Dissensus: The

Search for Inclusivity in the Political

Thought of Dissent magazine

J. Toby Reiner1

Abstract

This article explores the connection between political theory and political commentary in the editorial stance of Dissent

magazine’s staff, especially Irving Howe, Lewis Coser, and Michael Walzer. It argues that central to the political thought

of the Dissent circle was a rejection of ideological Puritanism on the American left. Dissent’s theoretical contribution

was to develop a space for a policy-oriented social democratic platform that draws on both liberalism and communism

while transforming them. Thus, Howe sought a socialism that drew on valuable liberal insights, while Walzer looked for

a permanent uneasy coexistence between social democracy, liberalism, and communitarianism.

Keywords

Dissent, Howe, Walzer, social democracy, Coser