On the Young Hirst: A Rejoinder to Jason Edwards and Kelvin Knight

Abstract

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 journal, Jason Edwards and Kelvin Knight claim that I ‘overstate’ the ‘intellectual continuity 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.