scholarly journals Contextualist political theory about multiculturalism in a post-multiculturalist context

Ethnicities ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 146879682096430
Author(s):  
Sune Lægaard
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
General Problem ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Critical Distance ◽  
Political Opposition ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
Contextualist Approach ◽  
Political Principles ◽  
Point Of Departure

Many theorists of multiculturalism have proposed contextualism as an approach particularly suited for theorizing multiculturalism. The so-called Bristol School of Multiculturalism (BSM) is characterized by a ‘bottom up’ and claims-based approach eschewing appeal to abstract political principles. Tariq Modood has articulated this contextualist approach as a version of Michael Oakeshott’s idea of politics as ‘the pursuit of intimations’. The question is how such an approach fares when applied to the specific political and social context characteristic of, especially European, political reality of the last 10–15 years. Political opposition to multiculturalism at ideological and rhetorical levels has characterized this context. At the legal level, many of the laws and rules in place actually protecting minority groups have furthermore not had the form of group rights or policies of recognition proposed by multiculturalist theories. The question therefore arises whether a contextualist approach that takes its point of departure in the facts of such a context can deliver a justification of a recognizable multiculturalist political theory. This is a version of the general problem of critical distance facing contextualism. Modood’s version of the approach appeals to the internal diversity of traditions to answer this problem. However, this leads to additional questions about the nature of the theory and the way in which it is action-guiding. Consideration of these questions qualifies the understanding of in which sense the BSM approach is contextual.

The Political Theory of the Disruption

1916 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold J. Laski
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Authority ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Reformation ◽  
Secular Society ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Political Principles ◽  
The Church

“Of political principles,” says a distinguished authority, “whether they be those of order or of freedom, we must seek in religious and quasi-theological writings for the highest and most notable expressions.” No one, in truth, will deny the accuracy of this claim for those ages before the Reformation transferred the centre of political authority from church to state. What is too rarely realised is the modernism of those writings in all save form. Just as the medieval state had to fight hard for relief from ecclesiastical trammels, so does its modern exclusiveness throw the burden of a kindred struggle upon its erstwhile rival. The church, intelligibly enough, is compelled to seek the protection of its liberties lest it become no more than the religious department of an otherwise secular society. The main problem, in fact, for the political theorist is still that which lies at the root of medieval conflict. What is the definition of sovereignty? Shall the nature and personality of those groups of which the state is so formidably one be regarded as in its gift to define? Can the state tolerate alongside itself churches which avow themselves societates perfectae, claiming exemption from its jurisdiction even when, as often enough, they traverse the field over which it ploughs? Is the state but one of many, or are those many but parts of itself, the one?

scholarly journals The “Absence of Chance” and the “Serving of Ends”

Spectrum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quah Say Jye
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Scholarly Literature ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Principles

Aristotle’s concept of nature, captured in quotations such as “nature does nothing in vain” and “man by nature is a political animal,” is a topic consistently discussed within scholarly literature. This paper’s primary aim is to demonstrate how Aristotle’s concept of nature underpins his political theory. It first uncovers Aristotle’s concept of nature, then it demonstrates how this concept underpins his political principles. Aristotle’s concept of nature is first broken down to two ideas: the “absence of chance,” which describes the regularity and permanence of phenomena, and the “serving of ends,” which explains Aristotle’s teleological approach. As such, Aristotle’s nature is used both to describe and explain phenomena, and therefore it shows both how and why certain phenomena occur. Armed with this understanding of nature, this paper shows how Aristotle applies this concept of nature to derive two political principles - the “principle of rulership” and the “social instinct.” These political principles in turn underpin his political theory and approach to political science. This paper shows that, through an understanding of Aristotle’s concept of nature, we can better understand the foundation of his politics.

Class Ideology & Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Social Context.

1980 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
J. Dybikowski ◽  
Ellen Meiksins Wood ◽  
Neal Wood
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Political Theory

Minority Rights, Multiculturalism and the Roma of Europe

2007 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Barth
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Normative Claim ◽  
Roma Population

AbstractIn this article, I review legal initiativaes to improve conditions for the Roma peoples who live in the states of Europe. The question is timely given the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union on 1 January 2007. Romania contains the largest concentration of the Roma population in Europe. My article uncovers a schism between political theory and international law on the question of minority rights. I distinguish how the conclusions of Will Kymlicka, one of the most prolific writers on the subject of multiculturalism in political theory, differ from the international jurisprudence that protects minority groups. In this essay, I analyse Kymlicka's claim that multicultural policies are contextually dependent, and an inappropriate subject for a common legal regime of international human rights treaties. To determine the implications of human rights jurisprudence for this normative claim, I also research court cases filed by the Roma under the European Framework Convention for the Protection of Minorities and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I contrast the international treaties that protect minority groups from political theorist accounts of multiculturalism in three areas. First, my article discusses jurisdictional issues concerning whether the particular groups defined by minority rights, irrespective of their geographical location or contextual experience, are proper subjects for protection by a common rights regime. Next, I illustrate how cultural rights are distinguishable from traditional civil rights laws. Finally, I examine how the historic persecution of the Roma violates human rights standards that protect minorities. The Roma have a long and unique relationship with the European states, which serves to demonstrate whether or not a common regime of minority rights safeguards the cultural development of the Roma.

scholarly journals How to do realistic political theory (and why you might want to)

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Hall
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
Political Opposition ◽  
Political Thinking ◽  
Political Values ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
Basic Features ◽  
Political Value

In recent years, a number of realist thinkers have charged much contemporary political theory with being idealistic and moralistic. While the basic features of the realist counter-movement are reasonably well understood, realism is still considered a critical, primarily negative creed which fails to offer a positive, alternative way of thinking normatively about politics. Aiming to counteract this general perception, in this article I draw on Bernard Williams’s claims about how to construct a politically coherent conception of liberty from the non-political value of freedom. I do this because Williams’s argument provides an illuminating example of the distinctive nature of realist political thinking and its attractions. I argue that Williams’s account of realist political thinking challenges the orthodox moralist claim that normative political arguments must be guided by an ideal ethical theory. I then spell out the repercussions Williams’s claims about the significance of political opposition and non-moralised accounts of motivation have for our understanding of the role and purpose of political theory. I conclude by defending the realist claim that action-guiding political theory should accordingly take certain features of our politics as given, most centrally the reality of political opposition and the passions and experiences that motivate them. On this reading political realism offers a viable way of thinking about political values which cannot be understood in terms of the categories of intellectual separation – ideal/nonideal or fact-insensitive/fact-sensitive – that have marked political theory in recent years.

The Philosophical Roots of the Bill of Rights: The Federalists' and Anti-Federalists' Conceptions of Rights

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Thomas Pangle
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Short Biography ◽  
Considerable Controversy ◽  
Political Principles ◽  
Concrete Statement

The overall aim of the seminar on “The Philosophical Roots of the Bill of Rights” was to gain a better understanding of the basic presuppositions and implications of our Constitutional commitments as expressed in the Bill of Rights, especially as viewed from the perspective of the original debates and compromises that led finally to the enactment of the Bill of Rights. That original perspective was, of course, riven by considerable controversy, above all between the Federalists who supported, and the Anti-Federalists who opposed, the ratification of the original Constitution. The latter were the primary instigators of the movement for a Bill of Rights amending the proposed Constitution, but at the end of the day it was the Federalist outlook, articulated above all by Congressman James Madison, that most fully determined the actual character of the rights that were given Constitutional recognition. Still, this very fact, that an eventual compromise was reached which was at least as satisfying to most leading Federalists as it was to the leading Anti-Federalists who had originally insisted on the amendments—points to the very large measure of agreement on fundamental principles that underlay the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.This agreement on basic moral and political principles becomes most apparent when one contrasts the republicanism of the Americans, the republicanism rooted in a commitment to individual rights, with earlier and alternative forms of republican political theory. This contrast was the theme of the first seminar. I asked the participants to read Plutarch's life of Lycurgus, not only because Plutarch is an author, and this particular short biography is a text, well-known to the American Founders, but even more because the life of Lycurgus contains a vivid and concrete statement of the classical republican ideal that brings out some of the most alien features of that ideal.

scholarly journals When the people are not reasonable: Multiculturalism and realistic normative theory in the contemporary era

Ethnicities ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-292
Author(s):  
Phil Parvin
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
First Century ◽  
Political Reality ◽  
The People ◽  
Early Twenty ◽  
Twenty First Century ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Feasible Solutions

In this piece, I offer an original and fundamental critique of a range of approaches to multiculturalism that have dominated the field of Anglo-American political theory since first-wave debates conducted in the 1990s/2000s. I suggest that the politics of the early twenty-first century, and especially the widespread rise of anti-immigrant and anti-minority sentiments among citizens of liberal democratic states throughout the world, requires political theorists who seek feasible solutions to real-world political problems to reject these theories. I focus on two approaches in particular: political liberalism and the politics of difference. Neither offers a vision of politics that is tenable in the early twenty-first century, I argue, as they both require citizens to deliberate about political matters in ways that they cannot. In discussing these approaches, and finding them wanting, it is revealed that political theorists face a choice. They can present a theory which is realistic in the sense that it takes account of political reality and offers a strategy which might be used to genuinely inform a process of reform. Alternatively, they can abandon realism and also the desire to produce an operational normative theory which can resolve real problems in actually existing states. I lay out the nature and importance of this choice and explain some of its implications for the discipline and for our current political predicament. I suggest that the choice is unavoidable and that making it requires political theorists to make a more fundamental decision about the purposes of normative political theory itself.

Democracy and The Federalist: A Reconsideration of the Framers' Intent

1959 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Diamond
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Development ◽  
American Political Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Contrary View ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
Political Principles

It has been a common teaching among modern historians of the guiding ideas in the foundation of our government that the Constitution of the United States embodied a reaction against the democratic principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence. This view has largely been accepted by political scientists and has therefore had important consequences for the way American political development has been studied. I shall present here a contrary view of the political theory of the Framers and examine some of its consequences.What is the relevance of the political thought of the Founding Fathers to an understanding of contemporary problems of liberty and justice? Four possible ways of looking at the Founding Fathers immediately suggest themselves. First, it may be that they possessed wisdom, a set of political principles still inherently adequate, and needing only to be supplemented by skill in their proper contemporary application. Second, it may be that, while the Founding Fathers' principles are still sound, they are applicable only to a part of our problems, but not to that part which is peculiarly modern; and thus new principles are needed to be joined together with the old ones. Third, it may be that the Founding Fathers have simply become; they dealt with bygone problems and their principles were relevant only to those old problems. Fourth, they may have been wrong or radically inadequate even for their own time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document