Political theory and the multicultural society. Bhikhu parekh. Cultural diversity in modern societies takes many forms, of which three are most common. First. Bhikhu Parekh’s Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory sets out to design paths for multiculturalism understood both as political. Kelly, Paul () Situating Parekh’s multiculturalism: Bhikhu Parekh and twentieth-century British political theory. In: Uberoi, Varun and.
||23 December 2007
|PDF File Size:
|ePub File Size:
||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Bhikhu Parekh, What is multiculturalism
Each culture was a well-knit and selfcontained whole, and entailed its own distinct form of moral and political life. It is, however, neither unusual nor impossible to meet, for traditional political philosophy at its best has always refused bhikh remain trapped within the terms of discourse set by the contending ideologies of the marketplace and attempted to go behind and above them in its search for a more universal and less positivist theoretical framework.
Request removal from index. Examining the Politics of Recognition.
Bhikhu Parekh: Political theory and the multicultural society / Radical Philosophy
The political theories, muoticulturalism, vocabulary, virtues and skill that we have developed in the course of consolidating and conducting the affairs of a culturally homogeneous state during the past three centuries are of limited help, and sometimes even a positive handicap, in dealing with multicultural societies.
Multiculturaliism of 3 reviews. First, human beings are culturally embedded in the sense that they grow up and live within a culturally structured world and organize their lives and social relations in terms of a culturally derived system of meaning and significance. While his approach is always balanced, his first impulse is to explain and, where defensible, defend viewpoints that Western liberals have traditionally found suspect.
Rethinking Multiculturalism Cultural Diversity and Political Theory
Parekh is fair, thoughtful, fastidious and inventive in his theorizing of multiculturalism, but his viewpoint is rooted in an attempt to understand and convey a non-Western outlook. Multinationals introduce new industries and systems of management and require the societies concerned to create their cultural preconditions.
Each of them — be it liberalism, conservatism, socialism or nationalism — is embedded in a particular culture, represents a particular vision of the good life, and is necessarily narrow and partial. Almost all past political theorists took the whole of humankind as their intended audience and claimed universal validity for their theories.
It must, therefore, value and cherish them all equally and reflect this in its structure, policies, conduct of public affairs, self-understanding and self-definition.
Rejecting naturalism, which posits that humans have a relatively fixed nature and that culture is an incidental, and “culturalism,” which posits that they are socially and culturally constructed with only a minimal set of features in common, he argues for a dialogic interplay between human commonalities and cultural differences.
And, thanks to the spread of democratic ideas, they refuse to accept an inferior civic status and demand not only equal rights but also an equal opportunity to participate in and shape the collective mukticulturalism of the wider society. Many accused the text of having no real world use, and only theory to back it up.
Political theory and the multicultural society
In additon, he considers whether one is able to deduce certain universal human rights from these shared features.
The latter need to find ways of reconciling the legitimate demands of unity and diversity, of achieving political unity without cultural uniformity, and cultivating among its citizens both a common sense of belonging and a willingness to respect and cherish deep cultural differences.
This does not mean that it is devoid of coherence and identity, but that its identity is plural, fluid and open. In some multicultural societies, differences between their cultural communities run much deeper than in others; for example, those between whites and aborigines in Australia compared to those between the Tamils and the Sinhalese in Bhi,hu Lanka.
Nor let us be resentful when others differ from us.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University’s proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy. A similar danger exists in a culturally plural society, in which the allegedly neutral state can easily become a vehicle of enshrining the domination of a particular cultural community.
Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Difference Recognition, National Cohesion and Equality. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go.
Neither naturalism nor culturalism, then, gives a coherent account of human life. Nor does it mean that all cultures are equally rich and deserve equal respect, that each of them is good for its members, or that they cannot be compared and critically assessed. Andrew Shorten – – Educational Philosophy and Theory 42 1: Such a society, especially when its diverse cultural communities are territorially concentrated, might even call for a different and asymmetrical kind of political formation to that represented by the modern state.
Are Religious Beliefs Special? The individuals and groups involved share and are happy with the wider culture, and are only concerned to open up appropriate spaces within it to express and live by their choices in the relevant areas of life.
When the dominant culture defines the minorities in a demeaning way and systematically reinforces it by all the institutional and other means at its disposal, they consciously or unconsciously internalize the negative self-image, lack hhikhu, and feel alienated from the mainstream society. Parekh challenges the continuing legacy of moral monism in contemporary liberalism. This is a formidable theoretical and political task and no multicultural society has so far succeeded in tackling it.