Page 32 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 32 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
29
and Mill, was formed by Christianity, colonialism and the nation-state. “Monists take no account of the role of culture in shaping human beings and defining the nature and content of the good life, and have little appreciation of the sources and significance of cultural diversity.” (Parekh, 80)
When it comes to contemporary liberalism, Parekh seems to concede that some liberals have tried to avoid the mistakes of both monists and culturalists:
They appreciate both the shared human nature and the cultural embeddedness of human beings, and redefine liberalism to make it more hospitable to diversity than their classical predecessors without compromising its commitment to certain universal principles. (Parekh, 80)
I will consider in greater detail Parekh’s arguments against Will Kymlicka’s liberal pluralism in section III below. For the moment, I would simply like to note that with regard to contemporary liberals, Parekh holds that they too cannot accommodate cultural diversity in any meaningful sense. In the case of Rawls’ political liberalism, “although other ways of life are not prohibited, they live in the over-powering shadow of political liberalism.” (Parekh, 90) Political liberalism itself is culturally-embedded. Since Rawls is primarily interested in moral diversity, he does not seem overly concerned with cultural diversity, avers Parekh. With Joseph Raz, too, the emphasis on personal autonomy is a value grounded in the historical character of the modern Western
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 32 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 29 and Mill, was formed by Christianity, colonialism and the nation-state. “Monists take no account of the role of culture in shaping human beings and defining the nature and content of the good life, and have little appreciation of the sources and significance of cultural diversity.” (Parekh, 80) When it comes to contemporary liberalism, Parekh seems to concede that some liberals have tried to avoid the mistakes of both monists and culturalists: They appreciate both the shared human nature and the cultural embeddedness of human beings, and redefine liberalism to make it more hospitable to diversity than their classical predecessors without compromising its commitment to certain universal principles. (Parekh, 80) I will consider in greater detail Parekh’s arguments against Will Kymlicka’s liberal pluralism in section III below. For the moment, I would simply like to note that with regard to contemporary liberals, Parekh holds that they too cannot accommodate cultural diversity in any meaningful sense. In the case of Rawls’ political liberalism, “although other ways of life are not prohibited, they live in the over-powering shadow of political liberalism.” (Parekh, 90) Political liberalism itself is culturally-embedded. Since Rawls is primarily interested in moral diversity, he does not seem overly concerned with cultural diversity, avers Parekh. With Joseph Raz, too, the emphasis on personal autonomy is a value grounded in the historical character of the modern Western |
