Page 137 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 137 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
135
society is plural, and identity has “multiple affiliations,” an abstract idea of equal citizenship would result in these affiliations being marginalized and privatized resulting in “a ghettoized pattern of social life.” These were exactly the findings of the Cantle Commission but the causal factors were attributed to the multiculturalist policies in the councils. I discuss these in a later section. The suggestion that aspects of Sharia law could be introduced in the system earned the archbishop the ire of the Church of England, the liberal press and the feminists, Muslim and non-Muslim. Calls for his resignation came from within the Church, his most vocal critic being the Pakistani-born Bishop of York. Thus, conservatives, liberals and feminists found themselves on the same side, ranged against the Archbishop.
Yet, as one or two analysts have pointed out, none of Rowan Williams’ critics paid much attention to the lecture itself. For the lecture itself has deep philosophical implications. I believe that the Archbishop inadvertently threw a spanner into the works of received wisdom about British identity and the result has led to a lot of soul-searching, particularly among secularists. The most serious claim made by the Archbishop is that he has laid a foundation for a universal principle of legal right which requires a) a valuation of the human being as such and b) a recognition that the human subject is “endowed” with some freedom over actual systems of social life. These are historically rooted in Christian theology. In other words, the Enlightenment principles are of Christian origin. The Archbishop is explicit on this. These themes have been strongly emphasized by the ‘Abrahamic’ faiths and without them, the Enlightenment would not have taken
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 137 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 135 society is plural, and identity has “multiple affiliations,” an abstract idea of equal citizenship would result in these affiliations being marginalized and privatized resulting in “a ghettoized pattern of social life.” These were exactly the findings of the Cantle Commission but the causal factors were attributed to the multiculturalist policies in the councils. I discuss these in a later section. The suggestion that aspects of Sharia law could be introduced in the system earned the archbishop the ire of the Church of England, the liberal press and the feminists, Muslim and non-Muslim. Calls for his resignation came from within the Church, his most vocal critic being the Pakistani-born Bishop of York. Thus, conservatives, liberals and feminists found themselves on the same side, ranged against the Archbishop. Yet, as one or two analysts have pointed out, none of Rowan Williams’ critics paid much attention to the lecture itself. For the lecture itself has deep philosophical implications. I believe that the Archbishop inadvertently threw a spanner into the works of received wisdom about British identity and the result has led to a lot of soul-searching, particularly among secularists. The most serious claim made by the Archbishop is that he has laid a foundation for a universal principle of legal right which requires a) a valuation of the human being as such and b) a recognition that the human subject is “endowed” with some freedom over actual systems of social life. These are historically rooted in Christian theology. In other words, the Enlightenment principles are of Christian origin. The Archbishop is explicit on this. These themes have been strongly emphasized by the ‘Abrahamic’ faiths and without them, the Enlightenment would not have taken |
