Page 76 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 76 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
73
Victorian era. Not only was this a gross misreading of Darwin, but it was matched by an even more crude attempt to map a similar misreading of Hobbes on to evolutionary theory. The 'struggle for existence' was a 'law of nature' and the condition of progress. 7 On this reading of Darwin, the animal species and savage man were engaged in this bitter competition for survival and only the fittest would survive. 'Moralist' man, however, embodied in the civilized Victorian gentleman, had 'evolved’ to a stage beyond that. The moral and social order of Victorian England represented the highest stage in evolution:
[S]ociety differs from nature in having a definite moral object; whence it comes about that the course shaped by the ethical man–the member of society or citizen–necessarily runs counter to that which the non-ethical man–the primitive savage, or man as a mere member of the animal kingdom–tends to adopt. The latter fights out the struggle for existence to the bitter end, like any other animal; the former devotes his best energies to the object of setting limits to the struggle.(331)
And it was precisely to counter such views that Peter Kropotkin wrote Mutual Aid. Kropotkin points out that contrary evidence indicates that all species are capable of mutual aid. Ethnological studies indicate that this is true of human beings. Sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life and is not opposed to it:
Therefore, while fully admitting that force, swiftness, protecting colours, cunningnesss and endurance to hunger and cold which are mentioned by Darwin and Wallace, are so many qualities making the individual, or the species, fittest under certain circumstances, we maintain that under any circumstances sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life. Those species which willingly or unwillingly abandon it are doomed to decay; while those animals
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 76 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 73 Victorian era. Not only was this a gross misreading of Darwin, but it was matched by an even more crude attempt to map a similar misreading of Hobbes on to evolutionary theory. The 'struggle for existence' was a 'law of nature' and the condition of progress. 7 On this reading of Darwin, the animal species and savage man were engaged in this bitter competition for survival and only the fittest would survive. 'Moralist' man, however, embodied in the civilized Victorian gentleman, had 'evolved’ to a stage beyond that. The moral and social order of Victorian England represented the highest stage in evolution: [S]ociety differs from nature in having a definite moral object; whence it comes about that the course shaped by the ethical man–the member of society or citizen–necessarily runs counter to that which the non-ethical man–the primitive savage, or man as a mere member of the animal kingdom–tends to adopt. The latter fights out the struggle for existence to the bitter end, like any other animal; the former devotes his best energies to the object of setting limits to the struggle.(331) And it was precisely to counter such views that Peter Kropotkin wrote Mutual Aid. Kropotkin points out that contrary evidence indicates that all species are capable of mutual aid. Ethnological studies indicate that this is true of human beings. Sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life and is not opposed to it: Therefore, while fully admitting that force, swiftness, protecting colours, cunningnesss and endurance to hunger and cold which are mentioned by Darwin and Wallace, are so many qualities making the individual, or the species, fittest under certain circumstances, we maintain that under any circumstances sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life. Those species which willingly or unwillingly abandon it are doomed to decay; while those animals |
