Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article argues that Karl Renner's multinational model for the Austrian‐Hungarian Empire is an alternative model for contemporary a‐territorial, multinational and federal arrangements. Nations, in his view, should act as intermediary bodies between the relevant communities and the state. His concept of 'subjective public law' combines principles that most authors find mutually exclusive: individual rights, choice over one's national cultural membership, non‐territorial administration of national communities and overseeing of equal collective rights by the state. Neither Staatsnation nor Kulturnation, the model is a combination of the two under the auspices of a federal state combined with a strong theory of individual and collective rights. I provide the reader with a comprehensive intellectual biography of Karl Renner, as I argue that an understanding of the man himself, his political pragmatism and his statism are crucial to comprehending this theoretical position. Throughout his life, Renner was a German nationalist, held a strong nostalgia for the Habsburg Empire and voted in favour of the Anschluß. His concurrent careers as a scholar and as a politician account for a series of contradictions. I argue however that these can be reconciled and explained by a careful comparative reading of his scholarly work and his political statements.

[.] This chapter aims to clarify why language policies are the substructure of a variety ofimportant democratic requirements and hence why fair and ethical language policiesmatter for democratic polities. In a nutshell: without language skills, access to variousspheres - political as well as socio-economic – is hindered. Without access to thesespheres of citizenship, no political, social and economic rights and duties can beproperly exercised, and no rights claims can be properly voiced. [.]

[.] This chapter aims to clarify why language policies are the substructure of a variety ofimportant democratic requirements and hence why fair and ethical language policiesmatter for democratic polities. In a nutshell: without language skills, access to variousspheres - political as well as socio-economic – is hindered. Without access to thesespheres of citizenship, no political, social and economic rights and duties can beproperly exercised, and no rights claims can be properly voiced. [.]

[.] This chapter aims to clarify why language policies are the substructure of a variety ofimportant democratic requirements and hence why fair and ethical language policiesmatter for democratic polities. In a nutshell: without language skills, access to variousspheres - political as well as socio-economic – is hindered. Without access to thesespheres of citizenship, no political, social and economic rights and duties can beproperly exercised, and no rights claims can be properly voiced. [.]

[.] This chapter aims to clarify why language policies are the substructure of a variety ofimportant democratic requirements and hence why fair and ethical language policiesmatter for democratic polities. In a nutshell: without language skills, access to variousspheres - political as well as socio-economic – is hindered. Without access to thesespheres of citizenship, no political, social and economic rights and duties can beproperly exercised, and no rights claims can be properly voiced. [.]

Résumé Cet article propose trois paradigmes pour comprendre les politiques de la langue : l'utilité, la domination, la passion. Chacun de ces paradigmes correspond à des préférences politiques en France, en Europe, aux États Unis. La situation linguistique idéale ou juste est une situation de non-domination : elle peut être obtenue par une conjugaison sensible entre les paradigmes de l'utilité et de la passion, et notamment par une gestion multilingue dans les institutions intermédiaires : l'école, l'entreprise, les associations citoyennes. La démocratie linguistique demande que la parité de participation, quelle que soit la langue, l'emporte sur l'exigence d'apprentissage de la langue nationale ou officielle.

This article explores three approaches to language policies. Utility, domination, passion. Each paradigm matches policy preferences and political contexts in France, the US and the EU. (Linguistic) non-domination is assumed to be the ideal linguistic situation ; my claim is that it can be achieved through a mindful balance between utility and passion, in particular through a multilingual management in intermediary institutions (schools, workplace, civic associations). Linguistic democracy requires that parity of participation trumps unifying language policies. ; Cet article propose trois paradigmes pour comprendre les politiques de la langue : l'utilité, la domination, la passion. Chacun de ces paradigmes correspond à des préférences politiques en France, en Europe, aux États Unis. La situation linguistique idéale ou juste est une situation de non-domination : elle peut être obtenue par une conjugaison sensible entre les paradigmes de l'utilité et de la passion, et notamment par une gestion multilingue dans les institutions intermédiaires : l'école, l'entreprise, les associations citoyennes. La démocratie linguistique demande que la parité de participation, quelle que soit la langue, l'emporte sur l'exigence d'apprentissage de la langue nationale ou officielle.

This article explores three approaches to language policies. Utility, domination, passion. Each paradigm matches policy preferences and political contexts in France, the US and the EU. (Linguistic) non-domination is assumed to be the ideal linguistic situation ; my claim is that it can be achieved through a mindful balance between utility and passion, in particular through a multilingual management in intermediary institutions (schools, workplace, civic associations). Linguistic democracy requires that parity of participation trumps unifying language policies. ; Cet article propose trois paradigmes pour comprendre les politiques de la langue : l'utilité, la domination, la passion. Chacun de ces paradigmes correspond à des préférences politiques en France, en Europe, aux États Unis. La situation linguistique idéale ou juste est une situation de non-domination : elle peut être obtenue par une conjugaison sensible entre les paradigmes de l'utilité et de la passion, et notamment par une gestion multilingue dans les institutions intermédiaires : l'école, l'entreprise, les associations citoyennes. La démocratie linguistique demande que la parité de participation, quelle que soit la langue, l'emporte sur l'exigence d'apprentissage de la langue nationale ou officielle.

This article offers three paradigms for understanding the language policy: the utility, domination, passion. Each of these paradigms is a political preferences in France, in Europe, the United States. The ideal or just linguistic situation is a situation of non-domination: it can be obtained in a significant combination between the paradigms of utility and passion, and in particular a multilingual management in intermediate institutions: the school, the company, citizen associations. Linguistic democracy calls for parity of participation, regardless of the language, outweighs the requirement of learning the national or official language. Adapted from the source document.

This article proposes three paradigms for understanding language policies: utility, domination, passion. Each of these paradigms corresponds to political preferences in France, Europe and the United States. The ideal or just language situation is a situation of non-domination: it can be achieved by a sensitive combination of the paradigms of utility and passion, and in particular by multilingual management in intermediate institutions: school, business, citizens' associations. Language democracy calls for parity in participation, regardless of language, to override the requirement to learn the national or official language. ; This article explores three approaches to language policies. Utility, domination, passion. Each paradigm matches policy preferences and political contexts in France, the US and the EU. (Linguistic) non-domination is assumed to be the ideal linguistic situation ; my claim is that it can be achieved through a mindful balance between utility and passion, in particular through a multilingual management in intermediary institutions (schools, workplace, civic associations). Linguistic democracy requires that parity of participation trumps unifying language policies. ; This article proposes three paradigms for understanding language policies: utility, domination, passion. Each of these paradigms corresponds to political preferences in France, Europe and the United States. The ideal or just language situation is a situation of non-domination: it can be achieved by a sensitive combination of the paradigms of utility and passion, and in particular by multilingual management in intermediate institutions: school, business, citizens' associations. Language democracy calls for parity in participation, regardless of language, to override the requirement to learn the national or official language. ; Cet article propose trois paradigmes pour comprendre les politiques de la langue : l'utilité, la domination, la passion. Chacun de ces paradigmes correspond à des préférences politiques en France, en Europe, ...

In international politics as in the domestic management of collective claims, everything today is a question of 'identity': identity-based demands, identity-based mobilizations, ethnic, religious, social and professional identity, etc. Recourse to the term 'identity', whether by the group concerned or from distant analysts, is the most immediately evocative and the most effective packaging in its appeal to common sense. It is as if there were a legitimacy immediately attached to identities: 'oppressed identities' (oppressed by the state, by the big and powerful, by the West, by globalization or by market liberalism) always fit the bill. Martyrs or liberators, opponents of the order in power and self-proclaimed holders of an alternative identity are all situated in a face-to-face situation that at once ensures them if not sympathy, then at least understanding. The only clear dividing line between perceptions of 'identity-based movements' is the recourse to violence: if one recognizes the legitimacy of working for a community-based culture and an identity that is shielded from the great process of global homogenization, then the use of (terrorist) violence must be condemned.