Suchergebnisse

The paper poses the question: is multiculturalism, in the situation of posttraditional social pluralization, an appropriate theoretical & practical model of integration in multiethnic & multicultural societies? In order to provide an answer, the author first analyzes the social processes responsible for speeding up contemporary social & cultural changes. The starting point of the analysis are the key insights of the theory of reflexive modernization. This is followed by an outline of the model of multiculturalism; the author explains why the demands for the group-specific protection of cultural minorities are focal to it. Particular attention is given to the ideas of C. Taylor & W. Kymlicka, & J. Habermas' criticism. The assumption is that in the posttraditional social conditions, juxtaposing collective vs. individual rights misses the point because in the circumstances of constant change & growing social reflexivity only the cultures capable of reflexive self-transformation can survive. Each project of culture protection that is comparable to the protection of "endangered species," which presupposes collective rights & duties, saps culture of its vitality & hinders the individuals in their critical reflexion of their identities. & contrary, in case of radical multiculturalism & rigid assimilationism -- in both cases cultures are understood as natural species outside social context -- posttraditional/reflexive reconstruction of identity can assume fundamentalist character. The author claims that the recognition of cultural minorities remains one of the central issues of present-day liberal democracies; however, the recognition of diversity ought to be based on democratic public debate through which individuals can work out their relationship towards different cultural traditions. 25 References. Adapted from the source document.

The paper poses the question: is multiculturalism, in the situation of posttraditional social pluralization, an appropriate theoretical & practical model of integration in multiethnic & multicultural societies? In order to provide an answer, the author first analyzes the social processes responsible for speeding up contemporary social & cultural changes. The starting point of the analysis are the key insights of the theory of reflexive modernization. This is followed by an outline of the model of multiculturalism; the author explains why the demands for the group-specific protection of cultural minorities are focal to it. Particular attention is given to the ideas of C. Taylor & W. Kymlicka, & J. Habermas' criticism. The assumption is that in the posttraditional social conditions, juxtaposing collective vs. individual rights misses the point because in the circumstances of constant change & growing social reflexivity only the cultures capable of reflexive self-transformation can survive. Each project of culture protection that is comparable to the protection of "endangered species," which presupposes collective rights & duties, saps culture of its vitality & hinders the individuals in their critical reflexion of their identities. & contrary, in case of radical multiculturalism & rigid assimilationism -- in both cases cultures are understood as natural species outside social context -- posttraditional/reflexive reconstruction of identity can assume fundamentalist character. The author claims that the recognition of cultural minorities remains one of the central issues of present-day liberal democracies; however, the recognition of diversity ought to be based on democratic public debate through which individuals can work out their relationship towards different cultural traditions. 25 References. Adapted from the source document.

Dass der Mensch qua Erziehung, Bildung und Gewöhnung eine 'zweite' bzw. 'andere' Natur ausprägen könne oder vielmehr müsse, um den Anforderungen und Normen der Gemeinschaft zu entsprechen, ist eine Vorstellung, die bis auf die Theoriebildungen der klassischen Antike zurückreicht. Spätestens seit Cicero erlangt die Formel 'zweite Natur' dann eine semantische Erweiterung, indem sie nicht mehr nur zur näheren Bestimmung der inneren (Um-)Bildungsprozesse von Individuen, sondern darüber hinaus auch der Ergebnisse/Objektivationen menschlichen, die äußere Natur formierenden Tuns (Arbeit) herangezogen wird. Es ist die fundamentale Einsicht in die schier unendliche Ausprägungsdynamik und Plastizität der menschlichen wie außermenschlichen Natur, die Hegels Überlegungen zum Begriff der zweiten Natur durchgängig bestimmt und trägt. Der Begriff der zweiten Natur begegnet uns in Hegels Werk nur vereinzelt, aber wo er auftaucht, ist er von systematisch entscheidender Bedeutung – so etwa im Übergang zwischen Natur (Irreflexivität) und Geist (Reflexivität) im Rahmen seiner anthropologischen Reflexionen zur Wirkungs- und Funktionsweise der Gewohnheit in der Enzyklopädie oder im Übergang von der "Moralität" (subjektiver Geist) zur "Sittlichkeit" (objektiver Geist) im Rahmen seiner rechtsphilosophischen Überlegungen. Hegel unterscheidet mithin zwi-schen einer subjektiven Dimension 'zweiter Natur' (die innere Konstitution des Individuums als das Ergebnis eines Bildungs- und Sozialisationsprozesses) und einer objektiven Dimension 'zweiter Natur' (die Welt des Sozialen und deren Regeln, Gesetze und Institutionen). Damit schafft Hegel nicht nur Platz für beide Bedeutungen, sondern er vereinigt sie zudem – wenn auch nicht explizit – in einer dialektischen Konzeption, deren Rekonstruktion sich diese Studie zum Ziel gesetzt hat.

The economy based on the exploitation of fossil fuels has entered the phase of disappearance, and a new one is being formed under the influence of the third industrial revolution. The third industrial revolution is developing from the process of the resolution of serious problems that have appeared in the ecosystem, and demands a new platform of interaction between the world's governments, civil society and the business world [Stigson 2008]. The consumer society that was developing until the beginning of the 21st century started from the premise that we cannot expect charity from nature. Regardless of their renewability and speed of renewal, natural resources should have been used in the measure in which humanity needed it. Needs rose uncontrollably, damaging the basic principle by which the balance of the biosphere was maintained - the parity of community members' insignificance. The man with the technosphere prevailed over the biosphere. Since nothing is provided for free and nature knows best, the beginning of the 21st century is seeing renewed attempts to establish a co-evolution of nature and society. This necessitates radical changes in people's work, lifestyle and thinking. The problem of waste requires a total break with previous practices. The existing 6.6 billion people annually produce between 2.5 and 4 billion tons of waste (The Millennium Development Goals Report 2008). Developed countries such as, e.g., the US, annually produce about 700 kilograms of waste per person, while poor countries, such as, e.g., the urban parts of India, produce only 150 kilograms per person annually. Each resident of the EU leaves behind 500 kg of waste per year. Serbia has the same civilization problems. In addition, as a transition country, it is in a position to decide the extent to which this problem will be in the hands of state companies and how much will be left to private capital owners. Moreover, Serbia is creating a development strategy that also includes food production. The agricultural-food production sector, which is one of the biggest environmental polluters, has always made up a significant part of Serbia's GDP. This paper attempts to emphasize the complexity of the problem of waste and the necessity of cooperation between all organizations within the decision-making process.