Page 30 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 30 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
27
He states explicitly:
Much of traditional political theory either ignores the subject altogether or gives a misleading account of it. Broadly speaking it is dominated by two major strands of thought, one making human nature and the other culture the basis of political theory. Arguing rightly that political theory should be grounded in a theory of human beings, and wrongly equating the latter with a theory of human nature, the first group of writers, whom I shall call naturalists or monists, claimed to arrive at one true or rational way of understanding man and the world and leading the good life.(Parekh, 10)
Most major Greek and Christian philosophers, Locke, Mill, and Hegel fall under the category of the monists. Culturalism, which emerged as a reaction against naturalism, is represented by Vico, Montesquieu, Herder and the German Romantics. Their mistake, on Parekh's view, is that they ended up 'naturalizing' culture, seeing it as an immutable ahistorical fact of life. Neither of the two traditions gives a coherent account because the one ignores the fact that human nature is culturally mediated and the other overlooks the fact that we have a shared humanity. Parekh's claim is that his theory will break this polarity.
The important point to note here is the distinction Parekh makes between 'a theory of human beings' and 'a theory of human nature'. Much of his critique of classical and contemporary liberalism turns on the idea that it is grounded in a theory of human nature which assumes that human beings are basically the same in all societies. Parekh believes that the monist can only prove that one way of life is superior to all others by
Object Description
| Title | Negotiating pluralism and tribalism in liberal democratic societies |
| Author | Sadagopan, Shoba |
| Author email | sadagopa@usc.edu; shobasadagopan@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Philosophy |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-22 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-15 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Lloyd, Sharon |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Dreher, John Keating, Gregory |
| Abstract | My aim in this dissertation is to enquire whether toleration as a practice is achievable. It is prior to the question of how it can be grounded as a virtue. I argue that in liberal democratic societies where there are struggles for recognition on the part of ethnocultural groups, it is possible to negotiate pluralism and tribalism in a way that a stable pluralist society can be maintained. My core thesis rests on a theory of interdependence based both on a theory of human nature and on the material fact of globalization. Insofar as we affirm our nature as human beings engaged in productive activity with other human beings, insofar as we value a world that facilitates that activity, toleration is desirable. It is achievable because with globalization there is a tendency towards homogenization that erodes cultural differences. There is less reason for conflict because what we have in common, our interdependence, goes far deeper than culture. A further sufficient condition may be found in well thought-out policies that are executed through education and dialogue. |
| Keyword | toleration; value pluralism; liberalism; cultural homogenization; globalization; common citizenship |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1658 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Sadagopan, Shoba |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Sadagopan-2395 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Sadagopan-2395.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 30 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 27 He states explicitly: Much of traditional political theory either ignores the subject altogether or gives a misleading account of it. Broadly speaking it is dominated by two major strands of thought, one making human nature and the other culture the basis of political theory. Arguing rightly that political theory should be grounded in a theory of human beings, and wrongly equating the latter with a theory of human nature, the first group of writers, whom I shall call naturalists or monists, claimed to arrive at one true or rational way of understanding man and the world and leading the good life.(Parekh, 10) Most major Greek and Christian philosophers, Locke, Mill, and Hegel fall under the category of the monists. Culturalism, which emerged as a reaction against naturalism, is represented by Vico, Montesquieu, Herder and the German Romantics. Their mistake, on Parekh's view, is that they ended up 'naturalizing' culture, seeing it as an immutable ahistorical fact of life. Neither of the two traditions gives a coherent account because the one ignores the fact that human nature is culturally mediated and the other overlooks the fact that we have a shared humanity. Parekh's claim is that his theory will break this polarity. The important point to note here is the distinction Parekh makes between 'a theory of human beings' and 'a theory of human nature'. Much of his critique of classical and contemporary liberalism turns on the idea that it is grounded in a theory of human nature which assumes that human beings are basically the same in all societies. Parekh believes that the monist can only prove that one way of life is superior to all others by |
