Page 64 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 64 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
61
clergy. Multiculturalists such as Parekh see liberal universalism as embodying the monism of the French Revolution. What they overlook is that the phenomenon known as globalization, a more appropriate term to describe the world we live in, has made inroads into any fixed notion of culture. Walzer's postmodern model opens up new perspectives on the question of pluralism. Before I consider these, I would like to comment briefly on certain ambiguities in Walzer’s account of immigrant societies.
The regimes of the nation-state and immigrant societies are too tidily demarcated. My concern here is with the fact that Walzer overlooks the strong nationalist underpinnings of most societies today. Walzer seems to recognize this when he discusses the nation-state. He is, however, over-optimistic in his account of the USA as an immigrant society: “The state, once it is pried loose from the grip of the first immigrants, who imagined in every case that they were forming a nation-state of their own, is committed to none of the groups that make it up.”(31) Elsewhere, Walzer supports this claim to neutrality by pointing to the fact that there is no official language in the US Constitution. (Walzer, 1992a) But this is clearly not the case. As Will Kymlicka puts it:
There is growing recognition. . . that this idea of ethnocultural neutrality is simply a myth. Indeed, the claim that liberal-democratic states – or ‘civic nations’ – are ethnoculturally neutral is manifestly false, both historically and conceptually. The religion model, with its strict separation of church and state, is altogether misleading as an account of the relationship between the liberal-democratic state and ethnocultural groups.
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 64 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 61 clergy. Multiculturalists such as Parekh see liberal universalism as embodying the monism of the French Revolution. What they overlook is that the phenomenon known as globalization, a more appropriate term to describe the world we live in, has made inroads into any fixed notion of culture. Walzer's postmodern model opens up new perspectives on the question of pluralism. Before I consider these, I would like to comment briefly on certain ambiguities in Walzer’s account of immigrant societies. The regimes of the nation-state and immigrant societies are too tidily demarcated. My concern here is with the fact that Walzer overlooks the strong nationalist underpinnings of most societies today. Walzer seems to recognize this when he discusses the nation-state. He is, however, over-optimistic in his account of the USA as an immigrant society: “The state, once it is pried loose from the grip of the first immigrants, who imagined in every case that they were forming a nation-state of their own, is committed to none of the groups that make it up.”(31) Elsewhere, Walzer supports this claim to neutrality by pointing to the fact that there is no official language in the US Constitution. (Walzer, 1992a) But this is clearly not the case. As Will Kymlicka puts it: There is growing recognition. . . that this idea of ethnocultural neutrality is simply a myth. Indeed, the claim that liberal-democratic states – or ‘civic nations’ – are ethnoculturally neutral is manifestly false, both historically and conceptually. The religion model, with its strict separation of church and state, is altogether misleading as an account of the relationship between the liberal-democratic state and ethnocultural groups. |
