Page 35 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 35 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
32
Barry’s defense of the Enlightenment and his own ‘liberal egalitarianism’ rests on the conviction that the concept of ‘culture’ and group identity is one that has historically been used to justify racial difference and the maintaining of privilege and hierarchy. He sees the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen as being a watershed in the development of democracy and egalitarianism. It swept away the privileges of the clergy and the nobility by introducing a uniform system of law and taxation based on the idea of a uniform common citizenship. Prior to the Revolution, the clergy and the nobility benefited from “traditionally sanctioned differences.” Thus the uniformity written into the Declaration could guarantee the aspiration that every citizen was equal.
While Barry’s concern is that an anti-Enlightenment position based on notions of cultural distinctness might lead to justification of genocide, national aggrandizement and other reactionary practices, his target in Culture and Equality is not the reactionary right. It is “those multiculturalists who would be happy to embrace the watchwords of the French Revolution: liberty, equality and (in some appropriately non-sexist rendition) fraternity.” (12) This point is of considerable importance because the multicultural critique of liberalism is not only that it is monist, but also that it fails to deliver on the Enlightenment promises of liberty
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 35 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 32 Barry’s defense of the Enlightenment and his own ‘liberal egalitarianism’ rests on the conviction that the concept of ‘culture’ and group identity is one that has historically been used to justify racial difference and the maintaining of privilege and hierarchy. He sees the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen as being a watershed in the development of democracy and egalitarianism. It swept away the privileges of the clergy and the nobility by introducing a uniform system of law and taxation based on the idea of a uniform common citizenship. Prior to the Revolution, the clergy and the nobility benefited from “traditionally sanctioned differences.” Thus the uniformity written into the Declaration could guarantee the aspiration that every citizen was equal. While Barry’s concern is that an anti-Enlightenment position based on notions of cultural distinctness might lead to justification of genocide, national aggrandizement and other reactionary practices, his target in Culture and Equality is not the reactionary right. It is “those multiculturalists who would be happy to embrace the watchwords of the French Revolution: liberty, equality and (in some appropriately non-sexist rendition) fraternity.” (12) This point is of considerable importance because the multicultural critique of liberalism is not only that it is monist, but also that it fails to deliver on the Enlightenment promises of liberty |
