Suchergebnisse

Ever since the 1960s, the cultural diversity of civil society has been the subject of public controversy, on account of pressures exerted by three forces of contestation, that are still active: feminism, nationalism & ethnic movements, in which the latter relates to immigrant minorities & black & aboriginal movements. What has followed has been a large-scale debate in political philosophy, sociology, anthropology, & political science, on the status of cultural differentiation in a modern political system. This text attempts to examine this debate through an analysis of the proposed responses to calls by these groups for genuine equality. 150 References. Adapted from the source document.

The article deals with the problem becoming postmodern concept of cultural pluralism in the discourse of social philosophy. Reveals the contradiction of the concept of cultural pluralism, and its conditionality paradigmatic transformations in the philosophy of the XX–XXI centuries.

What insights can the literature on legal pluralism and cultural pluralism written by ethnographers of courts provide to ethnographers of legislatures? Focusing on Anglo‐American legal systems, I explore how analyses of cultural pluralism can change when one moves from courts to legislatures. Three analytical shifts can occur when switching institutional perspectives. First, in Anglo‐American courts, contexts are often made cultural as one technique among many to create a suitable interpretation that will lead to resolution. In the corresponding legislatures, contexts are often made cultural through a form of quantification. Second, in these courts, outsiders (not court officials) tend to embody culture, contributing to an ahistorical account of what culture is. In the legislatures, anyone, even representatives themselves, can be cultural, transforming being cultural into a political tactic that renders historical and social connections visible. Therefore, people are made cultural in different ways in the two settings. Third, in Anglo‐American legislatures, law is always a compromise. As laws travel out of legislatures and into courts, the agonism at laws' origin is forgotten, and laws are seen as acontextual. Thus, I suggest, cultural difference has the potential to lead to systemic transformation more easily at legislative levels than it can in courts.

AbstractLiterary narratives offer their audience opportunities to surpass existing monolithic social and cultural identities through reflecting on and representing the past from new perspectives. This article aims to elaborate this argument by a discussion of multi-ethnicity, multiculturalism, reflective nostalgia, and cultural intimacy in the portrayals of Diyarbakir's "Infidel Quarter" in two literary works: Mıgırdiç Margosyan's Gavur Mahallesi and Mehmed Uzun's Nar Çiçekleri. Both works, the former as a short story collection and the latter as a collection of essays, share autobiographical features and reflect the multiculturalism of Diyarbakır in the 1940s and 1950s from the point of view of an Armenian and a Kurd with similar sensitivities. Margosyan and Uzun's works indicate a cultural pluralism in Diyarbakır where different religious cultures used to exist side by side. The intermingling of languages in this neighborhood shows a kind of "inclusive multiculturalism." Svetlana Boym's differentiation and discussion of two kinds of nostalgia as restorative and reflective, the former as nationalist and the latter as individual or collective memory oriented, help us to evaluate Margosyan and Uzun's works as alternatives to nationalist narratives. Both of these works, dealing with reflective nostalgia through the depiction of cultural intimacy between ethnic groups, provide their audience with possibilities for the future.

In this wide ranging interview, Professor Richard A. Shweder from the Department of Comparative Human Development at the University of Chicago, discusses whether it is or is not possible to be a robust cultural pluralist and a dedicated political liberal at the same time. In this discussion, Professor Shweder offers his insights - based on over 40 years of research - on issues related to the history and re-emergence of cultural psychology; moral anthropology and psychology; the experimental method in psychological investigation and its philosophical basis; contemporary and historical cultural collisions – most notably conflicting representations of female genital surgeries; cultural diversity and inequality; and the dissemination of ideas through open access publishing and Twitter. Professor Shweder ends by offering valuable advice to young researchers in the field of cultural psychology as well as a glimpse into the larger themes of his forthcoming book, which seeks to provide answers to the question of what forms of political liberalism are most compatible with robust cultural pluralism and which are not.

In this wide ranging interview, Professor Richard A. Shweder from the Department of Comparative Human Development at the University of Chicago, discusses whether it is or is not possible to be a robust cultural pluralist and a dedicated political liberal at the same time. In this discussion, Professor Shweder offers his insights - based on over 40 years of research - on issues related to the history and re-emergence of cultural psychology; moral anthropology and psychology; the experimental method in psychological investigation and its philosophical basis; contemporary and historical cultural collisions – most notably conflicting representations of female genital surgeries; cultural diversity and inequality; and the dissemination of ideas through open access publishing and Twitter. Professor Shweder ends by offering valuable advice to young researchers in the field of cultural psychology as well as a glimpse into the larger themes of his forthcoming book, which seeks to provide answers to the question of what forms of political liberalism are most compatible with robust cultural pluralism and which are not. ; notReviewed ; publishedVersion

A review article on a book by David Miller, Market, State and Community: Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976 [see listing in IRPS No. 64]). Miller's aim is to demonstrate that market socialism is both more efficient & truer to our "underlying value-commitments" than its chief contemporary rival, libertarianism. His main argument is that markets, when suitably regulated but not dominated by the state, are conducive to distributive justice, political democracy, & the avoidance of exploitation. When coupled with the institutions of the welfare state, a market system can bring about an ethical distribution of income while retaining economic efficiency & promoting tolerance & cultural pluralism. His argument is convincing only if several questionable assumptions are accepted, ie, that: (1) the people in modern society share common values & regard themselvs as members of a national community, because this is supposed to be the glue holding market socialism together; & (2) the only real alternative to socialism is libertarianism, an incoherent philosophy even by its own standards. Miller portrays nations as hermetically sealed bubbles interacting only minimally with each other. It is unclear what would happen to the theory of market socialism if Miller recognized that modern states face transnational markets & an international bureaucracy without real democratic accountability. K. Pizer

PurposeThe purpose of this analysis is to collect and classify the most important diversity indices, outline the logical connections between them and answer the following question: How much will the results differ if the authors use different indices for explaining the same dependent variable (attitude toward cultural pluralism), and what kind of relationships are observable in the European societies?Design/methodology/approachThe diversity indices are good for compressing information on the number and shares of ethnic groups in a given setting into single numbers in order to use them as independent variables. However, it matters which index the authors choose because it can make a meaningful difference in the assessment of the potential impacts of diversification. Our empirical study (based on 43 European countries and 160 regions) concluded that the correlation coefficients between the most important indices are above 0.8. Thus, in practice, none of them gives a fundamentally different answer to the question: how does diversity/diversification influences people's attitudes toward multiculturalism.FindingsBy linking these results with the European Social Survey database the authors concluded that the more diverse a population in 2014 was, a more positive attitude toward multiculturalism was expressed. However, if the authors focus on the dynamics of diversification, the spread of points is much greater and polynomial (U-shaped curvilinear) trendlines are better suitable to grasp the relationships. It means that people tend to react very differently to similar societal changes in those regions where a moderate degree of diversification took place.Originality/valueInternational migration and ethno-cultural diversification are hotly debated issues in contemporary Europe, and there is a growing interest in understanding their possible social, economic and political outcomes. A question of key importance for the social sciences to adequately answer the challenges is the capability to measure these processes in a quantitative way as well. This paper helps decide which diversity index might be the optimum solution for a given research project.

In this examination of the political implications of the use of the Ottoman view of pluralism to curb the demands of various social identities in Turkey in the 1990s, the author argues that the idea of Ottoman pluralism was constructed as a neo-Ottomanism combination of pluralism with liberal multiculturalism. The rise of a new identification process & the emergence of new historigraphies about Ottomanism are contextualized in a narrative on Turkish nationalist ideology through the Turkish revolution, the Kemalist political culture, the religio-ethnic Ottomanism of Turget Ozal, the political parties retraditionalization of identity through Islam, & the multi-judiciary model of society. The author concludes that the neo-Ottomanist challenges to the Turkish secular state revealed the problems with Kemalist ideology, & the reality of the differences as the symbolic & local centers of authority.