Page 62 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 62 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
59
This has broadly been the pattern since the French Revolution. However, in the last few decades, there has emerged what Walzer calls the “postmodern project”:
In immigrant societies (and also now in nation-states under immigrant pressure), people have begun to experience what we think of as a life without clear boundaries and without secure or singular identities. Difference is, as it were, dispersed, so that it is encountered everywhere, every day. Individuals escape from their parochial entanglements and mix freely with members of the majority, but they don’t necessarily assimilate to a common identity. . . . The postmodern project undercuts every sort of common identity and standard behavior: it makes for a society in which the plural pronouns “us” and “them” (and even the mixed pronouns “us and me”) have no fixed reference; it points to the very perfection of individual liberty. (89)
Walzer is a little ambiguous in his evaluation of this model. He believes that the modernist project depends on a tension between the individual and the collective, and that likewise, the postmodern project requires a certain tension with modernity: “between citizens and members on the one hand and the divided self, the cultural stranger, on the other.” One is not clear where Walzer stands in relation to this, for he concludes the section by stating that “ the point of toleration is not, and never was, to abolish “us” and “them” (and certainly not to abolish “me”) but to ensure their continuing peaceful coexistence and interaction.” (92)
Walzer has come in for criticism from various quarters for inconsistencies in his political positions over the last three decades. As I have noted earlier, Barry has described him as a “chameleon”, whose
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 62 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 59 This has broadly been the pattern since the French Revolution. However, in the last few decades, there has emerged what Walzer calls the “postmodern project”: In immigrant societies (and also now in nation-states under immigrant pressure), people have begun to experience what we think of as a life without clear boundaries and without secure or singular identities. Difference is, as it were, dispersed, so that it is encountered everywhere, every day. Individuals escape from their parochial entanglements and mix freely with members of the majority, but they don’t necessarily assimilate to a common identity. . . . The postmodern project undercuts every sort of common identity and standard behavior: it makes for a society in which the plural pronouns “us” and “them” (and even the mixed pronouns “us and me”) have no fixed reference; it points to the very perfection of individual liberty. (89) Walzer is a little ambiguous in his evaluation of this model. He believes that the modernist project depends on a tension between the individual and the collective, and that likewise, the postmodern project requires a certain tension with modernity: “between citizens and members on the one hand and the divided self, the cultural stranger, on the other.” One is not clear where Walzer stands in relation to this, for he concludes the section by stating that “ the point of toleration is not, and never was, to abolish “us” and “them” (and certainly not to abolish “me”) but to ensure their continuing peaceful coexistence and interaction.” (92) Walzer has come in for criticism from various quarters for inconsistencies in his political positions over the last three decades. As I have noted earlier, Barry has described him as a “chameleon”, whose |
