Page 44 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 44 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
41
There are some national groups, according to Kymlicka, who seek group-differentiated rights solely for external protections, and in such cases, the claim for group-differentiated rights does not conflict with the individual rights of group members. The classical liberal objection to group rights assumes that the granting of group rights will automatically lead to oppression within the group. Such objections have been raised in the context of claims for self-government by indigenous peoples. In the context of North America, the Native American tribal councils or the self-governing band councils of Canada have been cited as examples where the self-government rights allow for sexual discrimination against women. (Kymlicka, 39)
As against this, many Native American leaders argue that this reflects a stereotyped prejudiced view of their culture. What they are asking for is the external protections from the larger societies. These indigenous groups have been incorporated into the larger society through conquest or occupation. Had a different balance of power existed, they may have retained or established their own sovereign governments. Therefore their claim for special rights, in the matter of land use or hunting and fishing rights is to reduce their vulnerability to the economic and political decision of the majoritarian culture. Their concern is that white judges or decision makers in the Supreme Court would view indigenous practices through their own culturally biased ways. For
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 44 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 41 There are some national groups, according to Kymlicka, who seek group-differentiated rights solely for external protections, and in such cases, the claim for group-differentiated rights does not conflict with the individual rights of group members. The classical liberal objection to group rights assumes that the granting of group rights will automatically lead to oppression within the group. Such objections have been raised in the context of claims for self-government by indigenous peoples. In the context of North America, the Native American tribal councils or the self-governing band councils of Canada have been cited as examples where the self-government rights allow for sexual discrimination against women. (Kymlicka, 39) As against this, many Native American leaders argue that this reflects a stereotyped prejudiced view of their culture. What they are asking for is the external protections from the larger societies. These indigenous groups have been incorporated into the larger society through conquest or occupation. Had a different balance of power existed, they may have retained or established their own sovereign governments. Therefore their claim for special rights, in the matter of land use or hunting and fishing rights is to reduce their vulnerability to the economic and political decision of the majoritarian culture. Their concern is that white judges or decision makers in the Supreme Court would view indigenous practices through their own culturally biased ways. For |
