Search results

Intro -- Emancipating Cultural Pluralism -- Contents -- Preface -- Part 1. Introduction -- 1. Overview and Critique of the Present Research into the Politics of Cultural Pluralism by Cris Toffolo -- Part 2. Transforming the Conceptual, Theoretical, and Methodological Terrain -- 2. A Propaedeutic to the Theorizing of Cultural Pluralism by Jeff Hoover -- 3. The Ethnic State: The Structural Generation of Ethnic Conflict by the International System by Virginia Q. Tilley -- 4. Cleansing Ethnicity: Taking Group Harms Seriously by Thomas W. Simon -- Part 3. Interrogating the Logic of Cultural Politics -- 5. Forjando Patria: Anthropology, Criminology, and the Post-Revolutionary Discourse on Citizenship by Robert Buffington -- 6. The Shari'a State The Case of the Islamists in the Sudan by Ismail H. Abdalla -- 7. Mahatma Gandhi on Indian Self-Rule: An Instrumentalist, an Ethno-Symbolic, or a Psychological Discourse of Nationalism? by Manfred B. Steger -- 8. Here We Do Not Speak Bhojpuri: A Semantics of Opposition by Beth Simon -- 9. Reclaiming Sacred Hindu Space at Ayodhya: The Hindu Right and the Politics of Cultural Symbolism in Contemporary India by Ellen Christensen -- Part 4. Transforming the Institutional Framework -- 10. Self-Government in the Darjeeling Hills of India by Selma K. Sonntag -- 11. Politics of State Creation and Ethnic Relations in Nigeria: The Case of Former Bendel State by Paul G. Adogamhe -- 12. Ethnicity and Constitutionalism in Ethiopia by Assefaw Bariagaber -- Part 5. Conclusion -- 13. Afterword: Interrogating the Emancipation of Cultural Pluralism by Crawford Young -- Contributors -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y -- Z.

A central argument of this article is that Isaiah Berlin's notion of cultural pluralism can be described as relativistic, and that he should not have repudiated the relativism, but simply defended it as part of the reality of the global constellation of cultures. Berlin's relativism emerges into a more generous light, in which radical differences among cultures occupy centre stage. Focusing on cultural relativism and its possible sources in Berlin unveils the neglected role that his famed concept of 'negative' liberty plays in assuring the distinctiveness of individual cultures and shared humanity, both of which constitute cultural pluralism. I conclude that Berlin's notion of cultural pluralism is relativistic based not only on substantive evidence, but also on a more realistic definition of the concept. Moreover, his conception of cultural pluralism and in particular its relativism highlight the subjects of cultural identity and autonomy in a world of immense power imbalances among nations and peoples.

W. E. B. Du Bois's idea of the role race plays in the general progress of humankind is outlined & defended. Du Bois's conception of race is argued to be historical & cultural, rather than biological, allowing him to construe civilization advances as the result of the collective cultural contributions of multiple races within a single society. Du Bois's theory of progress is defended against economic determinism, which could undermine the possibility of racial harmony. His notion of the "Talented Tenth" in every race was designed to ensure that whatever cultural contribution a race might make would be moral & beneficial for the larger civilization. Du Bois observed that the greatest threat to this vision of racially driven progress is the propensity of the Talented Tenth to be corrupted by capitalist social orders. H. von Rautenfeld

The globalization process is not reducible to its international dimension, i.e., to international, or even, to transnational relationships. In many states, it also consists of domestic phenomena, such as an increasing cultural pluralism, that does not result solely from a domestic and gradual evolution, but, to a significant extent, either from migrations or from radical changes of mind made possible by cultural globalization. This kind of cultural pluralism is what one can call multiculturalism, in the descriptive sense of the characteristics of a multicultural society (as distinguished from the normative meaning, i.e., from the policies that aim at either maintaining or promoting multiculturalism in the descriptive meaning). This paper aims to discuss the articulation between deliberative democracy and cultural pluralism.

For liberalism, values such as respect, reciprocity, and tolerance should framecultural encounters in multicultural societies. However, it is easy to disregardthat power differences and political domination also influence the culturalsphere and the relations between cultural groups. In this essay, I focus onsome challenges for cultural pluralism. In relation to Indian political theoristRajeev Bhargava, I discuss the meaning of cultural domination and epistemicinjustice and their historical and moral implications. Bhargava argued thatas a consequence of colonialism, "indigenous cultures" were inferiorized,marginalized, and anonymized. Although cultures are often changing dueto external influences, I argue that epistemic injustice implies that a cultureis forced to subjection, disrespected, and considered as inferior and that itthreatens the dominated people's epistemic framework, collective identity,and existential security. Finally, I refer to John Rawls's theory of politicalliberalism as a constructive approach to avoid parochialism and Westerncultural domination.

Classical liberalism, as opposed to traditional concepts, has established a notion of justice that envisages the equality of individual (negative) freedoms & (tutelary) rights. Under the influence of socialist criticism, modern-day liberals have been trying to include within the concept of justice the problem of the distribution of positive freedoms & rights. The already classic attempt of solving this problem is the theory of justice by John Rawls. Rawls defines justice as fairness, whose basic principles are the equality of basic freedoms of individuals compatible with the freedom of other individuals; the distribution of goods that will most benefit the least privileged; & the primacy of freedom over social equality & justice over economic efficiency. In a pluralist society these principles should facilitate the establishment of the "overlapping consensus" among divergent social groups on the issues of the basic social structure. In his attempt to solve the problems of social equality that Rawls's theory leaves open-ended, Michael Walzer postulates the principle of complex equality, which requires different ways of distribution for different types of goods. These types cannot be specified in advance; however, their distribution is the most remarkable skill of liberal politics. Finally, the author claims that the problem of a just political organization of multicultural societies can be solve by applying Rawls's principle of fairness on the negotiating processes & on achieving consensus among divergent cultural groups on certain issues. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractFor liberalism, values such as respect, reciprocity, and tolerance should frame cultural encounters in multicultural societies. However, it is easy to disregard that power differences and political domination also influence the cultural sphere and the relations between cultural groups. In this essay, I focus on some challenges for cultural pluralism. In relation to Indian political theorist Rajeev Bhargava, I discuss the meaning of cultural domination and epistemic injustice and their historical and moral implications. Bhargava argued that as a consequence of colonialism, "indigenous cultures" were inferiorized, marginalized, and anonymized. Although cultures are often changing due to external influences, I argue that epistemic injustice implies that a culture is forced to subjection, disrespected, and considered as inferior and that it threatens the dominated people's epistemic framework, collective identity, and existential security. Finally, I refer to John Rawls's theory of political liberalism as a constructive approach to avoid parochialism and Western cultural domination.

An analysis of Sir Isaiah Berlin's concept of liberal cultural pluralism considers George Kateb's charges that Berlin's views are chiefly aesthetic & anti-universalist. The author characterizes Berlin as a "liberal rationalist" yet aware of rationalism's limits. Arguing that Berlin espoused the notion of minimal individual rights -- a position held throughout history well before the emergence of the modern notion of "human rights" -- the author concludes that Berlin's liberal pluralism is not far from Mill's notion of utilitarian liberalism. K. Coddon