Suchergebnisse

AbstractPolitical theorists have barely addressed whether migrants have the right to use their original language(s) in the public sphere. My goal in this article, then, is to test what does it mean or imply to say that A has a right to use her language. Making use of Hohfeld's scheme of rights and considering Kloss' idea that language rights are closely dependent upon which sphere is at stake (either public or private sphere), I propose a basic scheme of language rights and liberties. In this work, I argue for two main points. First, that speaking one's own language should be considered both a liberty and a right in the private sphere as a tolerance‐oriented right. Second, that using one's own language should neither be considered a right, nor a liberty enjoyed by everyone in the public sphere. To recognise such a thing would suppose supporting a universal promotion‐oriented language right. In this regard, I distinguish between migrant and long‐settled national language groups. I argue that only members of the latter should be prima facie entitled to a right and liberty to use their own languages in public settings. Finally, I offer a preliminary approach to permissible language policies to secure migrant's language rights and liberties.

Politics is about managing conflict, about how we should live together (Arendt, 2015, p. 131). Many traditions of thought and political thinkers have nonetheless taken this shared space of conflict, this we the people, as a given. The people is considered as a necessary precondition for politics. What happens when a part of this we disagrees with that? When, for some, this shared community is not taken as a given and claim their right to secede and build their own independent political community. Such claims bear on the fundamental questions: who is the "demos"? who are the people entitled to self-government?'

Anna Stilz es profesora Laurance S. Rockefeller de Política en el Centro Universitario de Valores Humanos de la Universidad de Princeton. Es una figura importante en la filosofía política contemporánea, especialmente en ramas relacionadas con la autoridad política, membresía y obligación, derechos territoriales, nacionalismo, autodeterminación y derechos lingüísticos, entre otros. En esta entrevista pretendemos dilucidar con ella los principales argumentos y reclamos normativos de su libro Soberanía Territorial, especialmente sobre el controvertido tema de la autodeterminación y la secesión.

Politics is about managing conflict, about how we should live together (Arendt, 2015, p. 131). Many traditions of thought and political thinkers have nonetheless taken this shared space of conflict, this we the people, as a given. The people is considered as a necessary precondition for politics. What happens when a part of this we disagrees with that? When, for some, this shared community is not taken as a given and claim their right to secede and build their own independent political community. Such claims bear on the fundamental questions: who is the "demos"? who are the people entitled to self-government?' ; La política se ocupa de gestionar el conflicto, de cómo deberíamos vivir juntos (Arendt, 2015, p. 131). No obstante, muchas tradiciones de pensamiento y pensadores políticos han tomado este espacio compartido de conflicto, este «nosotros, el pueblo», como un hecho. El pueblo se considera una condición previa necesaria para la política. ¿Qué sucede cuando una parte de este «nosotros» no está de acuerdo con eso? Cuando, para algunos, esta comunidad compartida no se da por hecha y reclaman su derecho a separarse y construir su propia comunidad política independiente. Tales afirmaciones tienen que ver con las preguntas fundamentales ¿quién es el «demos"? ¿quiénes tienen derecho al autogobierno?

Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. She is an important figure in contemporary political philosophy, especially in branches related to political authority, membership and obligation, territorial rights, nationalism, self-determination and language rights, inter alia. In this interview, we aim to elucidate the main arguments and normative claims of her book Territorial Sovereignty, especially the controversial topic of self-determination and secession. ; Anna Stilz es profesora Laurance S. Rockefeller de Política en el Centro Universitario de Valores Humanos de la Universidad de Princeton. Es una figura importante en la filosofía política contemporánea, especialmente en ramas relacionadas con la autoridad política, membresía y obligación, derechos territoriales, nacionalismo, autodeterminación y derechos lingüísticos, entre otros. En esta entrevista pretendemos dilucidar con ella los principales argumentos y reclamos normativos de su libro Soberanía Territorial, especialmente sobre el controvertido tema de la autodeterminación y la secesión.

Abstract
Should English be promoted as a worldwide lingua franca for justice-related reasons? Philippe Van Parijs answers affirmatively in order to promote global distributive justice. In contrast, I argue that a rapid expansion of English could lead to one undesirable consequence that ought to be prevented: the globalization of an Anglo-American life-world that impoverishes democratic-deliberative debates. Inspired by John Stuart Mill, I will defend the idea that the more dominant the Anglo-American life-world is, the less diversity of life-worlds and, therefore, the less diversity of substantial voices in the global democratic-deliberative process there will be. It might be that more voices could be heard (because of the lingua franca), but with less substantial diversity of opinions. In that sense, the life-worlds (and language as an access key to them) have an instrumental value that enables plurality and better deliberative discussion. For that reason, I contend that there is a pro tanto reason to prevent the expansion of English as a lingua franca.

Abstract
The global spread of English and its impact on the pursuit of linguistic justice has been a topic of concern for scholars in a wide range of different fields in the humanities and social sciences. Firmly convinced of the usefulness of cross-field collaboration to advance our understanding of the expansion of English globally, in this special issue we bring together experts in sociolinguistics and political theory with two goals in mind: (1) to illustrate, empirically, its consequences for speakers in situated contexts; and (2) to propose potential normative responses to the global spread of English. In order to frame the overarching theme of the special issue, and to show our stance as guest editors in connection to global English, in this opening piece we develop a critique to Philippe Van Parijs' notion of linguistic justice. In particular, we take issue with his vision that promoting English as a global lingua franca is a good idea in order to enhance everyone's equality of opportunities (e.g., in the labour market). We question such an assumption from both a theoretical and empirical point of view, and argue that having equal access to English is not sufficient to equalize everyone's opportunities.

Language conditions our socio-political world in fundamental ways. How public institutions deal with linguistic diversity, and how they distribute linguistic benefits, has an important impact on an individuals' life. This article studies the value of language in multilingual environments by evaluating the debate on linguistic justice through the capabilities approach. It studies the value of language to assess what principles of justice are required to secure individual freedom. First, we explore the value of language within the framework proposed by the capabilities approach. Second, we assess the role of language in enabling the development of certain capabilities. As a first attempt to comprehensively address the relationship between linguistic justice and the capabilities approach, it evaluates how linguistic justice theories fare in fostering four capabilities from Martha Nussbaum's list. We provide a conceptually sound normative assessment of the role played by language within the capabilities framework, and how it translates into policy.