Page 50 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 50 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
47
situation of these two groups cannot be on a par with voluntary immigrants. Parekh objects to the criteria being “disparate”. But clearly they have to be disparate because the different minorities are disadvantaged for different reasons and in differing ways. Parekh's objection is that there is a hierarchy in the allocation of rights. Surely the question is less one of a hierarchy than of the nature of the rights. Indigenous peoples ask for rights pertaining to land use, fishing rights and some degree of self government or territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, in the case of Native Americans, a history of broken treaties led to the formation of an Indian Claims Commission. The criteria for adjudication of such claims will necessarily be different from those that involve claims by immigrant groups. A Sikh immigrant to the U.K. can hardly ask for fishing rights any more than a Native American could ask for an exemption to the mandatory wearing of helmets while riding motorcycles. If immigrant groups are disadvantaged vis-à-vis the majoritarian society, it is as immigrants that they are disadvantaged. 3 They cannot constitute a 'people' in the way that indigenous peoples do. Immigrants to liberal democracies come from different parts of the world. Even in the case of South Asians in the U.K. where there are some cultural similarities, the immigrants are heterogeneous, for they may consist of Immigrant Muslims, Immigrant Sikhs, and Immigrant Hindus with religious and
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 50 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 47 situation of these two groups cannot be on a par with voluntary immigrants. Parekh objects to the criteria being “disparate”. But clearly they have to be disparate because the different minorities are disadvantaged for different reasons and in differing ways. Parekh's objection is that there is a hierarchy in the allocation of rights. Surely the question is less one of a hierarchy than of the nature of the rights. Indigenous peoples ask for rights pertaining to land use, fishing rights and some degree of self government or territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, in the case of Native Americans, a history of broken treaties led to the formation of an Indian Claims Commission. The criteria for adjudication of such claims will necessarily be different from those that involve claims by immigrant groups. A Sikh immigrant to the U.K. can hardly ask for fishing rights any more than a Native American could ask for an exemption to the mandatory wearing of helmets while riding motorcycles. If immigrant groups are disadvantaged vis-à-vis the majoritarian society, it is as immigrants that they are disadvantaged. 3 They cannot constitute a 'people' in the way that indigenous peoples do. Immigrants to liberal democracies come from different parts of the world. Even in the case of South Asians in the U.K. where there are some cultural similarities, the immigrants are heterogeneous, for they may consist of Immigrant Muslims, Immigrant Sikhs, and Immigrant Hindus with religious and |
