Page 51 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 51 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
48
linguistic differences. Yet they face the same disadvantages as Afro-Caribbean immigrants.
It has to be asked, does Parekh believe that all minority groups should have the same rights? The implications of this position are serious. It would imply in the first place that there is no difference between one minority and another and this would undermine the very principle of multiculturalism and the politics of difference. Secondly, the parity that Parekh implicitly seeks suggests that there is an underlying assumption of difference-blind egalitarianism. So what is the quarrel with liberalism about? Parekh seeks the same operative principle among groups that a liberal such as Barry would seek among individuals: that everyone is entitled to the same rights, regardless of the particular cultural identity.
Parekh’s other objection, that Kymlicka’s theory absolutizes liberalism, takes us back to the heart of the liberalism-multiculturalism dispute. Is universalism ethnocentric? Can there be a principle of egalitarianism that is universal but not ethnocentric? Kymlicka’s theory rests on the idea of equality between groups and freedom and equality within groups. Parekh appears to desire the former and denies that Kymlicka’s theory of rights will guarantee such equality. He does not say much about the latter condition.
Much of the reason that Parekh rejects Kymlicka’s theory has to do with the fact that the latter identifies individual freedom with liberal
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 51 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 48 linguistic differences. Yet they face the same disadvantages as Afro-Caribbean immigrants. It has to be asked, does Parekh believe that all minority groups should have the same rights? The implications of this position are serious. It would imply in the first place that there is no difference between one minority and another and this would undermine the very principle of multiculturalism and the politics of difference. Secondly, the parity that Parekh implicitly seeks suggests that there is an underlying assumption of difference-blind egalitarianism. So what is the quarrel with liberalism about? Parekh seeks the same operative principle among groups that a liberal such as Barry would seek among individuals: that everyone is entitled to the same rights, regardless of the particular cultural identity. Parekh’s other objection, that Kymlicka’s theory absolutizes liberalism, takes us back to the heart of the liberalism-multiculturalism dispute. Is universalism ethnocentric? Can there be a principle of egalitarianism that is universal but not ethnocentric? Kymlicka’s theory rests on the idea of equality between groups and freedom and equality within groups. Parekh appears to desire the former and denies that Kymlicka’s theory of rights will guarantee such equality. He does not say much about the latter condition. Much of the reason that Parekh rejects Kymlicka’s theory has to do with the fact that the latter identifies individual freedom with liberal |
