Page 113 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 113 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
110
over. Stormfront, which claims to be the largest “world-wide White Pride” website has links in several countries in Europe. In the case of the German neo-Nazi websites that were banned recently, Stormfront.com was one of the websites cited and it was found that the websites originated in Ohio.6
On the face of it then, the Internet facilitates this kind of tribalism. However, these initial gains in publicity actually make such groups vulnerable. I argue that the Internet does not facilitate tribalism but integration. This is because it is the Internet. My argument turns on the Internet constituting a new kind of public space. There are several correctives built into the intrinsic features of the Internet that neutralize attempts at propagating tribalism. One of these is the fact that the very accessibility of these web-sites also increases their visibility. Most extremist groups need secrecy for fear of a clamp-down by authorities. In order to incite hatred, the groups would have to communicate in secret. The FBI had to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan in the 1950s and 1960s, and later, skinhead groups, through individual agents in order to conduct raids and make arrests. If these groups today rely on the Internet to spread propaganda, they also make themselves more visible and hence vulnerable to the authorities. The Internet does not facilitate secrecy. It may be more difficult for governments to impose censorship because of the procedures involved, but technologically governments have the capacity to track down hate-groups through their websites and identify the perpetrators. The neo-Nazis are the object of electronic surveillance on both sides of the Atlantic. It has now become easier for governments to identify the sources of intolerance/extremism and then take legal action. 7
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 113 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 110 over. Stormfront, which claims to be the largest “world-wide White Pride” website has links in several countries in Europe. In the case of the German neo-Nazi websites that were banned recently, Stormfront.com was one of the websites cited and it was found that the websites originated in Ohio.6 On the face of it then, the Internet facilitates this kind of tribalism. However, these initial gains in publicity actually make such groups vulnerable. I argue that the Internet does not facilitate tribalism but integration. This is because it is the Internet. My argument turns on the Internet constituting a new kind of public space. There are several correctives built into the intrinsic features of the Internet that neutralize attempts at propagating tribalism. One of these is the fact that the very accessibility of these web-sites also increases their visibility. Most extremist groups need secrecy for fear of a clamp-down by authorities. In order to incite hatred, the groups would have to communicate in secret. The FBI had to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan in the 1950s and 1960s, and later, skinhead groups, through individual agents in order to conduct raids and make arrests. If these groups today rely on the Internet to spread propaganda, they also make themselves more visible and hence vulnerable to the authorities. The Internet does not facilitate secrecy. It may be more difficult for governments to impose censorship because of the procedures involved, but technologically governments have the capacity to track down hate-groups through their websites and identify the perpetrators. The neo-Nazis are the object of electronic surveillance on both sides of the Atlantic. It has now become easier for governments to identify the sources of intolerance/extremism and then take legal action. 7 |
