Suchergebnisse

Classical liberalism as opposed to traditional concepts has established a notion of justice which envisages the equality of individual (negative) freedoms and (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 and 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 which will most benefit the least privileged; the primacy of freedom over social equality and justice over economic efficiency. In a pluralist society 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 which Rawls' theory leaves open-ended Michael Walzer postulates the principle of complex equality which requires different ways of distribution for different ways of distribution for different types of goods. These types cannot he 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 solved by applying Rawls' principle of fairness on the negotiating processes and on achieving consensus among divergent cultural groups on certain issues. (SOI : PM: S. 147)

This article offers a critical assessment of some recent liberal perfectionist arguments for the value of cultural identity & cultural membership, in particular the arguments of Joseph Roz & Will Kymlicka. Because these writers ask how cultural membership & identity may contribute to good lives -- & think this a proper question for political philosophy to address -- it seems possible that they may more readily contribute to strategies for securing respect & recognition for cultural minorities than other liberals. But although their acknowledgment of the value of cultural identity & membership represents an advance over neutral or political liberal approaches, liberal perfectionists are mistaken in viewing these features as important primarily insofar as they furnish agents with the capacities & contexts necessary for personal autonomy. While this argument may supply reasons for protecting vulnerable cultures that are liberal in character, it precludes the prospect of accommodating nonliberal cultural groups whose practices & beliefs conflict with liberal ideals & sensibilities. Adapted from the source document.

This paper assesses the special difficulties faced by a liberal democratic system which seeks to maintain its democratic credentials when governing a culturally diverse society. The argument focuses upon the analysis of cultural pluralism developed in two recent pieces of Bhikhu Parekh. After clarifying the nature of Parekh's culturally pluralistic society, the cultural specificity of liberal democracy is examined Finally, Parekh's attempt to reconcile the two through 'operative public values' is shown to be inadequate in such a manner that the ability of a liberal democratic system to ever bring lasting well-being in a situation of cultural diversity is thrown into doubt.

This article examines the impact of poly-ethnicity on political communities, by focusing on the symbolic aspect of citizenship. What are the symbolic 'anchors' that frame and define sentiments of belonging in a democratic polity? How do we evaluate such criteria in the light of the challenge of poly-ethnicity? Such questions are explored through a comparative conceptual assessment of the Canadian policy of multiculturalism and the Quebec's model of interculturalism.
Keywords: Сitizenship, self-identification, constitutional state, migration policy, migrant, integration, cultural diversity, minority cultures, interculturalism, multiculturalism