Suchergebnisse

Argues that it is necessary to decide if political theory (PT) should be strictly interpretive or whether it should also involve criticism & normative recommendations intended to influence political decision-makers. PT is generally considered a reflection on democracy & liberalism associated with the self-understandings of a particular community. As such, it "attempts to give meaning to political actions." Special attention is given to the growing chasm between the democratic values proclaimed by a society & solutions adopted to deal with new political situations. A hypothetical "PT Practitioner's Guide" focuses on three key components: the kind of activity; the epistemological premises on which the activity must be based; & the context in which the activity is performed. The recent incorporation into the PT agenda of the new issue of multiculturalism & its impact on democracy is addressed. Consideration is also given to liberalism as the dominant frame of reference for PT; the normative & institutional approach as distinguishing features of PT; ethnocentrism; & current problems facing PT research. References. J. Lindroth

Practically almost all the basic matters that make up the political and social agenda of this decade are related to two basic categories: citizenship and multiculturalism. The way in which the connection between these two basic pillars is managed constitutes the principal factor in the social, political and cultural transformation of our epoch. This work has two aims: on one hand, and in relation to the general subject of this monograph it is argued that the question of immigration is part of a wider dynamic of discussions on the basic foundations of our modern era, resulting from the double process of State-building and Nation-building; on the other hand it underlines that the first victim of this process of contextual change is precisly the product of this double historical movement: the traditional notion of citizenship, which has difficulties in finding resources to administer the new phenomena tied to multiculturalism. In this framework, we propose the basic question: in what sense does multiculturalism pose problems to the tradition of citizenship? We start from the following situation: what happens when the traditional notion of citizenship is used in multicultural contexts?I structure my argumentation in five sections. In the first section, I set out the conceptual framework within which present-day arguments are situated, composed of three basic elements: the State, the Nation and Citizenship. In the second section, we enter into the discussion on the traditional concept of citizenship, focusing on its normative and empirical basis from a comparative perspective. In the third section, we are concerned with the concept of multiculturalism. In the fourth section I deal with what I have called the contexts of multiculturalism., that is, the different dimensions that call into question the indivisible (and sacred) character of the State, the Nation and Citizenship. We introduce, in succesion, the pluralism of cultural identities, the pluralism of national identities, immigration, the political construction of the European Union and, finally globalisation. In the fifth and last section we draw up a final balance giving a historical sense to our arguments. ; Prácticamente casi todos los temas básicos que conforman la agenda política y social de esta década están relacionados con dos categorías básicas: la ciudadanía y la multiculturalidad. La forma en cómo se gestiona el vínculo de estos dos pilares básicos constituye el principal factor de transformación social, política y cultural de nuestra época. El objetivo de este capítulo es doble: por un lado, y en relación al tema general de este monográf ico, argumentar que el tema de la inmigración forma parte de una dinámica más amplia de discusiones sobre los fundamentos básicos de nuestra época moderna, resultado del doble proceso de State-Building y de Nation-building; por otro lado, subrayar que la primera "víctima" de este proceso de cambio contextual es precisamente el producto de este doble movimiento histórico: la noción tradicional de ciudadanía, que tiene dificultades en encontrar recursos para gestionar los nuevos fenómenos ligados con la multiculturalidad. En este marco, nos plantearemos como pregunta básica: ¿en qué sentido el multiculturalismo plantea problemas a la tradición de la ciudadanía? Partiremos de la situación siguiente: ¿qué ocurre cuando se usa la noción tradicional de la ciudadanía en contextos de multiculturalidad? Estructuré mi argumentación en cinco secciones. En la primera sección, introduciré el marco conceptual dentro del cual se ubican las discusiones actuales, compuesto de tres elementos básicos: el Estado, la Nación y la Ciudadanía. En la segunda sección, entraremos en la discusión sobre el concepto tradicional de la ciudadanía, centrándonos en su base normativa y empírica desde una perspectiva comparativa. En la tercera sección, nos ocuparemos del concepto de multiculturalismo. En la cuarta sección me ocuparé de lo que he titulado como los "contextos de la multiculturalidad", esto es, las diferentes dimensiones que ponen en entredicho el carácter indivisible (y sagrado) del Estado, la Nación y la Ciudadanía. Introduciremos, sucesivamente, el pluralismo de identidades culturales, el pluralismo de identidades nacionales, la inmigración, la construcción política de la Unión Europea y, por último, la globalización. Finalmente, en una quinta y última sección, haremos un balance final dando un sentido histórico a nuestros razonamientos.

Since the Treaty on European Union in 1992, there have been two contrasting conceptions of how one should approach the EU political union. From the EU standpoint, this process is a gain, but from the States' point of view it is a loss. There is a third logic that makes up the EU: that of third-country immigrants residing in the Member States ( Euro-immigrants). For this population the process is neither a gain nor a loss, but simply something that is being discussed and carried out without taking them into consideration. This lack of attention shows that at present the treatment of Euro-immigrants is following a state fundamentalist logic and not a multicultural logic as would be historically appropriate for the EU. In the interest of fostering discussion, this paper presents relevant considerations in four sections. The first section presents the theoretical framework for the discussion; the second section discusses state fundamentalism, with a brief historical review of how the European States have treated immigrants politically; the third section sums up how the EU dealt with immigration from the Trevi Group of 1975 until the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997; and the fourth and final section, concludes with a discussion on the normative dilemmas and institutional challenges deriving from the relationship between the EU and the Euro-immigrants. I argue that the EU can only be politically constructed if it takes the presence of immigrant residents into account.

This is a book review essay devoted to recent immigration studies in political theory with the objective to familiarize the reader with principal trends in this field of scientific inquiry. Institutional & normative perspectives on immigration in political theory are differentiated, & the foci & interests of each are specified. Studies representing both trends are mentioned, noting that the institutional viewpoint addresses the question of how the presence of immigrants affects the traditional political system of modern liberal democracies & investigates how their structure needs to be modified to prevent social, political, & economic tensions caused by the influx of immigrants. Normative treatments concentrates on value systems that undergo changes in face of the challenges posed by immigration. Issues of political access & coexistence present the liberal dilemma of open vs closed borders & the democratic dilemma of inclusion vs exclusion. Studies devoted to the relationship between immigration & justice are also included into this survey, discussing, among others, J. F. Hollifield's (1992) exploration of the criteria of nationality & economic market in admission of immigrants. References. Z. Dubiel

In this second decade of the twenty-first century, interculturalism is emerging as a new policy paradigm to deal with diversity dynamics. It is basically viewed as a set of policies sharing one basic idea: that the interaction among people from different backgrounds matters. Its concerns are to intervene politically and to propose a way to manage the dynamics of diversity, based on exchange and interpersonal relations. I propose exploring a foundational internal debate, based on the premise there are at least three different, but complementary, normative strands: contractual, cohesion and constructivist strands. My ultimate purpose is to defend a comprehensive view, grounded on the argument that no one can have the sole authority to define intercultural policy, since the three strands can be applied at different moments, according to different purposes. The challenge is for policy managers to be able to achieve a balance between the three policy drivers. ; This article is a dissemination of Diversidad project, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [Ref.: CSO2011-28885].

Within the emerging policy debate on interculturalism we critically review two recent books in 2012: Bouchard's L'interculturalisme: un point de vue quebecois, and Cantle's Interculturalism: The New Era of Cohesion and Diversity. In my view, both contribute very directly to open a foundational debate on interculturalism. In addressing the point of convergence and the dividing lines of these two contributions, I will claim that in spite of having one core concept of interculturalism, there are, however, at least two basic conceptions that have to be interpreted in complementary ways: Bouchard's essay represents the contractual strand, Cantle's book the cohesion strand. At the end I would also suggest that these two strands do not manage to express explicitly that diversity can also be seen as a resource of innovation and creativity, and so can drive individual and social development. This view is based on the diversity advantage literature already informing most of the diversity debate in Europe and elsewhere. This is what I will call the constructivist strand. My ultimate purpose is to defend a comprehensive view, grounded on the argument that no one can have the sole authority to define intercultural policy, since the three strands can be applied at different moments, according to different purposes and policy needs. The challenge now is that policy managers be able to achieve a balance between these three policy drivers.

The ways in which the dominant cultural majority frames the educational/nsystem determine perceptions of its own identity and understandings of/nthe 'other.' In this article I take a political approach, by examining the/nmanagement of cultural diversity within Spanish education policies, treating/n"education as the mirror of society". This article analyzes Spanish challenges/nand policies approaches towards the management of immigration/nrelated diversity in education. The main finding is that there is not one approach,/nbut several, due to both the decentralized character of the education/nsystem and the multiplicity of diversity that is at stake (i.e. language,/nreligion, culture etc.)