Suchergebnisse

Research into the rights of minority groups to preserve their culture and identity has tended to focus on claims for cultural recognition made by indigenous peoples or other socio-economically disadvantaged groups. By contrast, this article examines the political appeals to culture and identity made by campaigners in the United Kingdom seeking to defend the sport of hunting with hounds in the lead up to the creation of the Hunting Act (2004). Opponents of the hunting ban consciously echoed arguments about cultural survival and cultural diversity made by indigenous hunters with the goal of fighting animal welfare legislation. These cultural arguments had little persuasive force when deployed by this relatively powerful and affluent group. I argue that the moral force of appeals to culture derive not from a vital human need for cultural recognition but from the imperative of redressing longstanding patterns of social, economic and political disadvantage.

The political philosopher Michael Sandel (2012) has recently argued compellingly for more attention to the moral limits of markets, arguing that market values can crowd out other values we should care about. Meanwhile, conservative advocates for welfare reform, such as the Australian Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson, have raised concerns about the impact of long-term welfare receipt on community values. Pearson's argument about welfare can be articulated in similar terms to Sandel's argument about markets. Pearson maintains that in heavily disadvantaged communities – such as the Aboriginal communities of Cape York Peninsula – the state's provision of non-contributory welfare can crowd out important values such as trust, respect, care for the weak and mutual help as well as self-reliance and hard work. Though Sandel's and Pearson's arguments find receptive audiences on different ends of the political spectrum, the parallels between their arguments are striking. The article seeks to promote greater scholarly engagementwith Pearson'smoral critique ofwelfarewhile expressing scepticism about one of the key correctives he proposes.

Noel Pearson is one of Australia's most prominent and influential Aboriginal intellectuals. This article examines a major idea in his writing: the "quest for a radical centre". Through the concept of the radical centre, Pearson articulates both his desire to transcend existing policy paradigms and an ethics of partisanship which emphasizes the importance of listening to and negotiating with one's political adversaries. Pearson's development of this concept is explored in light of the role Pearson has played as leading advocate for Indigenous welfare reform, and especially his pivotal contribution to the public debate over the introduction of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Intervention by the Howard government in 2007

Noel Pearson is one of Australia's most prominent and influential Aboriginal intellectuals. This article examines a major idea in his writing: the "quest for a radical centre". Through the concept of the radical centre, Pearson articulates both his desire to transcend existing policy paradigms and an ethics of partisanship which emphasizes the importance of listening to and negotiating with one's political adversaries. Pearson's development of this concept is explored in light of the role Pearson has played as leading advocate for Indigenous welfare reform, and especially his pivotal contribution to the public debate over the introduction of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Intervention by the Howard government in 2007.

Feminists have fiercely debated whether it is wrong for outsiders to criticise gendered customs and practices identified with cultural minorities. This article explores the ethics of criticising other cultures by analysing the reaction to public criticism of Māori ceremonial protocol by two Pākehā women. It argues that the response to outsiders' criticism does not depend in a simple and direct way on whether insiders have resisted the criticised practice. There is a history of Māori women formulating critiques of the gender roles in Māori ceremonies, but the public response from Māori women to the Pākehā women's criticism was overwhelmingly negative. The outsiders' criticism was understood as an attack on the incorporation of Māori cultural expression into the public sector, rather than as a gesture of support or solidarity.

Noel Pearson is one of Australia's most prominent and influential Indigenous intellectuals. This article examines a major idea in Pearson's writing, the 'quest for a radical centre'. It examines this idea from the perspective of both its usefulness in understanding the deficiencies in public conversation about Indigenous affairs, and its persuasiveness in legitimating the role that Pearson has played nationally as a champion of the Indigenous responsibility discourse. The article argues that conceptualising public debate as a quest for a radical centre resonates strongly with the theory of deliberative democracy. Similar to Dryzek and Niemeyer's work on 'discursive representation', the idea of the radical centre reveals the legitimacy possessed by unelected champions of discourses.

Feminists have fiercely debated whether it is wrong for outsiders to criticise gendered customs and practices identified with cultural minorities. This article explores the ethics of criticising other cultures by analysing the reaction to public criticism of Māori ceremonial protocol by two Pākehā women. It argues that the response to outsiders' criticism does not depend in a simple and direct way on whether insiders have resisted the criticised practice. There is a history of Māori women formulating critiques of the gender roles in Māori ceremonies, but the public response from Māori women to the Pākehā women's criticism was overwhelmingly negative. The outsiders' criticism was understood as an attack on the incorporation of Māori cultural expression into the public sector, rather than as a gesture of support or solidarity.

Noel Pearson is one of Australia's most prominent and influential Indigenous intellectuals. This article examines a major idea in Pearson's writing, the 'quest for a radical centre'. It examines this idea from the perspective of both its usefulness in understanding the deficiencies in public conversation about Indigenous affairs, and its persuasiveness in legitimating the role that Pearson has played nationally as a champion of the Indigenous responsibility discourse. The article argues that conceptualising public debate as a quest for a radical centre resonates strongly with the theory of deliberative democracy. Similar to Dryzek and Niemeyer's work on 'discursive representation', the idea of the radical centre reveals the legitimacy possessed by unelected champions of discourses.