Page 105 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 105 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
102
literary and artistic debate soon evolved into political discourse. From the literary salon there emerged the Jacobin clubs. The new space that was created thus mediated relations between the state and the individual. According to Habermas, in the twentieth century, however, with the rise of the welfare state, the lines between the state and society were blurred. The state intervened directly in the lives of individuals and public discourse was replaced by political interest groups lobbying within state structures. (Habermas, 1989, p 176)
Habermas has been criticized for, among other things, idealizing rational discourse and not taking sufficient account of the repressive origins of state institutions. The historian Geoff Eley, for instance, remarks that
by using a model of communicative rationality to mark the rise of liberalism and the constitutionalizing of arbitrary authority and by stressing the transition to a more interventionist state under advanced capitalism, he strongly implies a weak state during the classical public sphere's period of initial formation." (Eley, “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures,” 321).
Eley affirms that it was not so, and cites the case of eighteenth century Britain, where the rise of parliamentary liberty and the rule of law were inseparable from the attack on popular liberties. The ambiguities of the liberal position can only be grasped by extending the idea of the public sphere to the larger public domain, to include subaltern groups who not only submit to authority but contest and modify the terms of its legitimacy.4
In response to such criticism, Habermas has modified his theory to extend the idea of the public sphere to include a plebian public sphere. This plebian public sphere is in collision with the dominant bourgeois public sphere. The bourgeois public sphere is no longer the model today. Instead, "the modern public sphere
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 105 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 102 literary and artistic debate soon evolved into political discourse. From the literary salon there emerged the Jacobin clubs. The new space that was created thus mediated relations between the state and the individual. According to Habermas, in the twentieth century, however, with the rise of the welfare state, the lines between the state and society were blurred. The state intervened directly in the lives of individuals and public discourse was replaced by political interest groups lobbying within state structures. (Habermas, 1989, p 176) Habermas has been criticized for, among other things, idealizing rational discourse and not taking sufficient account of the repressive origins of state institutions. The historian Geoff Eley, for instance, remarks that by using a model of communicative rationality to mark the rise of liberalism and the constitutionalizing of arbitrary authority and by stressing the transition to a more interventionist state under advanced capitalism, he strongly implies a weak state during the classical public sphere's period of initial formation." (Eley, “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures,” 321). Eley affirms that it was not so, and cites the case of eighteenth century Britain, where the rise of parliamentary liberty and the rule of law were inseparable from the attack on popular liberties. The ambiguities of the liberal position can only be grasped by extending the idea of the public sphere to the larger public domain, to include subaltern groups who not only submit to authority but contest and modify the terms of its legitimacy.4 In response to such criticism, Habermas has modified his theory to extend the idea of the public sphere to include a plebian public sphere. This plebian public sphere is in collision with the dominant bourgeois public sphere. The bourgeois public sphere is no longer the model today. Instead, "the modern public sphere |
