Page 49 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 49 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
46
Parikh sees in it a liberal attempt at subverting an "inner balance and identity." Kymlicka does not respect the 'authentic otherness' of cultural minorities. Thus, Kymlicka would be a cultural imperialist on Parikh's view. For Barry, Kymlicka would be among those cultural relativists who accuse liberals (such as Barry) of being cultural imperialists.
There is much irony in the fact that such a major effort on the part of Kymlicka to provide a detailed account of minority rights that would be consistent with a liberal theory of universal human rights should be so easily dismissed by multiculturalists and liberals alike. I shall discuss the reasons that underlie such a rejection of Kymlicka's theory. Parekh objects to Kymlicka’s theory of minority rights on two grounds. One is that there is a hierarchy among the minorities and the rights they are supposed to enjoy on this account. The other objection is that ultimately there is an imposition of liberalism on the minorities in question.
In the passage I have cited above, Parekh states that he fails to see what principles inform this hierarchy. But there are principles involved. In the case of indigenous peoples, it is colonization and conquest that have put them at a disadvantage. Whether it is Native Americans in North America, or the aboriginals in Australia, ways of life have been destroyed with the peoples unable to adapt to the larger society. Likewise with Afro-Americans, slavery and involuntary immigration have placed them in the socially disadvantaged position they find themselves in. Obviously the
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 49 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 46 Parikh sees in it a liberal attempt at subverting an "inner balance and identity." Kymlicka does not respect the 'authentic otherness' of cultural minorities. Thus, Kymlicka would be a cultural imperialist on Parikh's view. For Barry, Kymlicka would be among those cultural relativists who accuse liberals (such as Barry) of being cultural imperialists. There is much irony in the fact that such a major effort on the part of Kymlicka to provide a detailed account of minority rights that would be consistent with a liberal theory of universal human rights should be so easily dismissed by multiculturalists and liberals alike. I shall discuss the reasons that underlie such a rejection of Kymlicka's theory. Parekh objects to Kymlicka’s theory of minority rights on two grounds. One is that there is a hierarchy among the minorities and the rights they are supposed to enjoy on this account. The other objection is that ultimately there is an imposition of liberalism on the minorities in question. In the passage I have cited above, Parekh states that he fails to see what principles inform this hierarchy. But there are principles involved. In the case of indigenous peoples, it is colonization and conquest that have put them at a disadvantage. Whether it is Native Americans in North America, or the aboriginals in Australia, ways of life have been destroyed with the peoples unable to adapt to the larger society. Likewise with Afro-Americans, slavery and involuntary immigration have placed them in the socially disadvantaged position they find themselves in. Obviously the |
