Page 61 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 61 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
58
themselves except in a “double-hyphenated version,” that is, the culture of the group is American-Italian, something quite distinct from the original Italian, while its politics is Italian-American.
In addition to these regimes, Walzer writes of the “modernist” and “postmodernist” project, both of which may incorporate any one of the regimes listed above. The modernist project has two aspects. One is democratic inclusiveness which is predicated on individual assimilation, and has its source in the French Revolution. The individual is set free from the old communities and relates directly with the state, thus encouraging “cultural assimilation and political participation.” The individuals may form associations which would help preserve their collective identity, but “when they enter the city, they enter as individuals.” (Walzer, 84-85)
However, the modernist project also has another form of toleration, collective toleration:
The alternative to entry is separation. This is the second modernist project: to provide the group as a whole with a voice, a place, and a politics of its own. Now what is required is not a struggle for inclusion but a struggle for boundaries. The crucial slogan of this struggle is “self-determination,” which implies the need for a piece of territory or at least a set of independent institutions – hence, decentralization, devolution, autonomy, partition, or sovereignty. . . . Communal autonomy confirms the authority of traditional elites; consociation commonly takes the form of a power-sharing arrangement among those same elites; nation-states interact through their diplomatic corps and political leaders. (Walzer, 86)
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 61 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 58 themselves except in a “double-hyphenated version,” that is, the culture of the group is American-Italian, something quite distinct from the original Italian, while its politics is Italian-American. In addition to these regimes, Walzer writes of the “modernist” and “postmodernist” project, both of which may incorporate any one of the regimes listed above. The modernist project has two aspects. One is democratic inclusiveness which is predicated on individual assimilation, and has its source in the French Revolution. The individual is set free from the old communities and relates directly with the state, thus encouraging “cultural assimilation and political participation.” The individuals may form associations which would help preserve their collective identity, but “when they enter the city, they enter as individuals.” (Walzer, 84-85) However, the modernist project also has another form of toleration, collective toleration: The alternative to entry is separation. This is the second modernist project: to provide the group as a whole with a voice, a place, and a politics of its own. Now what is required is not a struggle for inclusion but a struggle for boundaries. The crucial slogan of this struggle is “self-determination,” which implies the need for a piece of territory or at least a set of independent institutions – hence, decentralization, devolution, autonomy, partition, or sovereignty. . . . Communal autonomy confirms the authority of traditional elites; consociation commonly takes the form of a power-sharing arrangement among those same elites; nation-states interact through their diplomatic corps and political leaders. (Walzer, 86) |
