There's an alternative that you haven't considered: a "patriotic" politics that's neither pluralist (Berlin, Weber) nor monist (political liberalism, as you described). It would have us, at least at first, respond to conflicts with conversation rather than negotiation (the pluralist's approach) or pleading (the monist's) in order to make reconciliation possible, not merely accommodation. And when a conflict is truly reconciled, those involved achieve much more than the "damage control" that's the height of the value pluralist's ambition. For the outcome is truly win-win for all concerned.
That you hate politics is understandable. So why not try a better politics?
Anti-vulgar Marxist sociologist, here. To keep things short I'll be more vulgar in my Marxism than I am. Capital's private property - designated for production, and workers' private property (rented or owned) designated as reproduction - your introverted private sphere, is and always has been produced by means of coercion, violence and destruction... whether in Western colonies, Northern industrialization, or by means of capitalist uneven development. Alienation andestrangement from the land, means of production, products, laborpower, productive self-activity, others, public space and the immanent potential for yet structural denial of prospective flourishing is violent at it's core, yes? Moreover, the character of capitalist and public access to and relations with natural resources/green spaces, labor markets/social reproduction, and built infrastructures/civil society is inescapably mediated by the state, by politics. For me, along these same lines, the state of the discourse on - and the social generation of the lived experience of/preference for - extroversion and/or introversion is a product of (sticking with variations on a theme by liberalism) social facts tied to the kinds of anomic, disequilibrated, meaningless, and instrumental-rational mode of modern capitalist bureaucratic living. Our individual social psychologies are sociopolitical all the way down. But it's even more than that, Jack Turner (2008) published an account of Democracy in America that emphasized the ways in which individualism - insular, if not introverted, liberalism - tends, overwhelmingly, to be blind to, and actively deny, structural inequalities (anti-racist Marx) and social interdependency (feminist Durkheim). Turner stressed the way in which individualists, for deTocqueville, were blind to the ways in which their "hard-earned, self-disciplined, morally-upstanding, independent, entrepreneurial" success was predicated in large part on not having to compete with any enslaved Africans or politically and economically disenfranchised women but also the unremunerated and devalued reproductive and domestic labor socializing children for roles around racism, patriarchy and class. All of this, of course, doesn't account for colonialism, indigenous genocide, forced migration, ecological devastation, military adventurism, etc when it comes to situating individualism on the frontier, on farms, in small businesses, among craft laborers, or the post-war middle class. (Keeping this short, I am sure, has it read like an angry polemic, I don't mean it to... my apologies because I am sure it did.) Are there philosophers addressing these assessments of liberalism as sociologists, geographers, feminists and environmental historians do?
There's an alternative that you haven't considered: a "patriotic" politics that's neither pluralist (Berlin, Weber) nor monist (political liberalism, as you described). It would have us, at least at first, respond to conflicts with conversation rather than negotiation (the pluralist's approach) or pleading (the monist's) in order to make reconciliation possible, not merely accommodation. And when a conflict is truly reconciled, those involved achieve much more than the "damage control" that's the height of the value pluralist's ambition. For the outcome is truly win-win for all concerned.
That you hate politics is understandable. So why not try a better politics?
Anti-vulgar Marxist sociologist, here. To keep things short I'll be more vulgar in my Marxism than I am. Capital's private property - designated for production, and workers' private property (rented or owned) designated as reproduction - your introverted private sphere, is and always has been produced by means of coercion, violence and destruction... whether in Western colonies, Northern industrialization, or by means of capitalist uneven development. Alienation andestrangement from the land, means of production, products, laborpower, productive self-activity, others, public space and the immanent potential for yet structural denial of prospective flourishing is violent at it's core, yes? Moreover, the character of capitalist and public access to and relations with natural resources/green spaces, labor markets/social reproduction, and built infrastructures/civil society is inescapably mediated by the state, by politics. For me, along these same lines, the state of the discourse on - and the social generation of the lived experience of/preference for - extroversion and/or introversion is a product of (sticking with variations on a theme by liberalism) social facts tied to the kinds of anomic, disequilibrated, meaningless, and instrumental-rational mode of modern capitalist bureaucratic living. Our individual social psychologies are sociopolitical all the way down. But it's even more than that, Jack Turner (2008) published an account of Democracy in America that emphasized the ways in which individualism - insular, if not introverted, liberalism - tends, overwhelmingly, to be blind to, and actively deny, structural inequalities (anti-racist Marx) and social interdependency (feminist Durkheim). Turner stressed the way in which individualists, for deTocqueville, were blind to the ways in which their "hard-earned, self-disciplined, morally-upstanding, independent, entrepreneurial" success was predicated in large part on not having to compete with any enslaved Africans or politically and economically disenfranchised women but also the unremunerated and devalued reproductive and domestic labor socializing children for roles around racism, patriarchy and class. All of this, of course, doesn't account for colonialism, indigenous genocide, forced migration, ecological devastation, military adventurism, etc when it comes to situating individualism on the frontier, on farms, in small businesses, among craft laborers, or the post-war middle class. (Keeping this short, I am sure, has it read like an angry polemic, I don't mean it to... my apologies because I am sure it did.) Are there philosophers addressing these assessments of liberalism as sociologists, geographers, feminists and environmental historians do?
I wrote a follow up along very related, Weberian lines that I find in (!) HAYEK!
https://open.substack.com/pub/digressionsimpressions/p/hayek-on-liberal-utopia-the-long?utm_source=direct&r=988vi&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web