Page 140 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 140 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
138
with the intemperate tone of Finklestein’s and other reactions? The more serious issue, for the purposes of this thesis, is that secularists do not have the monopoly on liberalism and toleration. The Archbishop, a man of faith, is far more liberal and multiculturalist than most secularists have proved to be. The other issue, which is the focus of this chapter, is that no matter how well-meaning the agent, ill-conceived or inadequately thought out initiatives can actually harm the process of building pluralist tolerant societies. The principle of the Archbishop’s very subtle lecture is laudable: individuals and communities have needs and allegiances that cannot be adequately fulfilled by appeals to an abstract notion of citizenship. Social identity is largely determined by the family and community, and this may involve faith-based values. While this is tangibly true, to suggest that some self-governance be introduced through religious authorities is to produce the opposite effect. I do not intend to get into a discussion of Sharia law or the Roman Catholic policies on gay rights. It is clear however, that to vest power in the hands of conservative bodies is to further segregation. The conservative Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the call while the extremist Hizb-ut Tahrir set up a petition campaign to support the Archbishop. These were the only organizations that were in favour of Sharia law being adopted in any form. These are the very organizations who desire segregation. Many Muslim Labour MPs were quick to say that a majority of Muslims did not want Sharia law to govern their lives.
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 140 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 138 with the intemperate tone of Finklestein’s and other reactions? The more serious issue, for the purposes of this thesis, is that secularists do not have the monopoly on liberalism and toleration. The Archbishop, a man of faith, is far more liberal and multiculturalist than most secularists have proved to be. The other issue, which is the focus of this chapter, is that no matter how well-meaning the agent, ill-conceived or inadequately thought out initiatives can actually harm the process of building pluralist tolerant societies. The principle of the Archbishop’s very subtle lecture is laudable: individuals and communities have needs and allegiances that cannot be adequately fulfilled by appeals to an abstract notion of citizenship. Social identity is largely determined by the family and community, and this may involve faith-based values. While this is tangibly true, to suggest that some self-governance be introduced through religious authorities is to produce the opposite effect. I do not intend to get into a discussion of Sharia law or the Roman Catholic policies on gay rights. It is clear however, that to vest power in the hands of conservative bodies is to further segregation. The conservative Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the call while the extremist Hizb-ut Tahrir set up a petition campaign to support the Archbishop. These were the only organizations that were in favour of Sharia law being adopted in any form. These are the very organizations who desire segregation. Many Muslim Labour MPs were quick to say that a majority of Muslims did not want Sharia law to govern their lives. |
