Page 154 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 154 of 166 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
152
However, when such initiatives occur under the aegis of local and national governments, the question of the separation of religion and state does arise. In the U.K., as I have stated at the outset, there is no official separation of religion and state so the matter would be unproblematic. However, it does pose a dilemma for secularists and those Britons who would like a separation of religion and state and those who are avowedly atheist. I discuss this question in the last section.
V: Dilemmas of Secularism
If inter-faith dialogue can promote tolerance, certain dilemmas arise for secularism and atheism. If an individual atheist values secularism, she can live consistently by that value and disregard religion. It is quite other for those secularists who are socially committed. By social commitment I mean a commitment to creating conditions in a given society that make human flourishing possible. Those conditions would include toleration and human rights. If the social fabric of a given society were torn apart by conflict between ethnocultural groups some of whom have religious affiliations, how would those groups and associations committed to secularism as a value but also to social justice pursue those goals without engaging with religion?
Here again the U.K. experience raises issues that instantiate some of the issues I have raised in Chapter 1. I have argued, following Isiah Berlin, that out of value pluralism, toleration can emerge. If one recognizes that human goals are many and may be incommensurable but not necessarily hostile, then toleration is
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 154 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 152 However, when such initiatives occur under the aegis of local and national governments, the question of the separation of religion and state does arise. In the U.K., as I have stated at the outset, there is no official separation of religion and state so the matter would be unproblematic. However, it does pose a dilemma for secularists and those Britons who would like a separation of religion and state and those who are avowedly atheist. I discuss this question in the last section. V: Dilemmas of Secularism If inter-faith dialogue can promote tolerance, certain dilemmas arise for secularism and atheism. If an individual atheist values secularism, she can live consistently by that value and disregard religion. It is quite other for those secularists who are socially committed. By social commitment I mean a commitment to creating conditions in a given society that make human flourishing possible. Those conditions would include toleration and human rights. If the social fabric of a given society were torn apart by conflict between ethnocultural groups some of whom have religious affiliations, how would those groups and associations committed to secularism as a value but also to social justice pursue those goals without engaging with religion? Here again the U.K. experience raises issues that instantiate some of the issues I have raised in Chapter 1. I have argued, following Isiah Berlin, that out of value pluralism, toleration can emerge. If one recognizes that human goals are many and may be incommensurable but not necessarily hostile, then toleration is |
