|
Showing 1 - 5 of
5 matches in All Departments
Multiculturalism has become a political touchstone in many
countries around the world. While many of those on the right oppose
it, and many of those on the left embrace it, things are not this
simple. For those who defend them, multicultural policies are
generally seen as key to the fair and successful integration of
minorities, many of whom are immigrants, into diverse democratic
societies. For those who oppose multiculturalism, who have become
part of the so-called "backlash" against multiculturalism, they are
charged with generating segregation rather than inclusion,
undermining national cultures, reinforcing difference, and
privileging minority groups. Around the world, we see failing
attempts at migrant integration, persistent religious intolerance
and racial and ethnic discrimination, resurgent national
minorities, emboldened majorities, permanent minorities, continuing
social isolation, and increasing extremism, including in the form
of white nationalism. But is multiculturalism the solution to these
problems or does it just make them worse? In this for-and-against
book, two prominent scholars of multiculturalism put forward
different answers to this important question. While Patti Tamara
Lenard argues for minority rights as both the consequence of a
right to culture and a way to redress the effects of
nation-building, Peter Balint rejects minority rights altogether,
instead arguing for a re-imagined liberal neutrality. This
theoretical disagreement plays out in real-world policy
disagreement. Lenard, for example, argues strongly in favor of
exemptions from general rules for minority cultures including the
right of Sikhs to be exempt from helmet laws, and for Jews and
Muslims to be exempt from bans on male circumcision. She also
defends the right of minority cultures to have government-supported
separate spaces. Balint, on the other hand, argues directly against
these types of exemptions and government support. He is opposed to
any form of differentiation based on culture, religion, or
ethnicity. The book uses a wide range of real-world examples to
demonstrate their significant theoretical disagreement, and to
recommend very different policy proposals.
Multiculturalism has become a political touchstone in many
countries around the world. While many of those on the right oppose
it, and many of those on the left embrace it, things are not this
simple. For those who defend them, multicultural policies are
generally seen as key to the fair and successful integration of
minorities, many of whom are immigrants, into diverse democratic
societies. For those who oppose multiculturalism, who have become
part of the so-called "backlash" against multiculturalism, they are
charged with generating segregation rather than inclusion,
undermining national cultures, reinforcing difference, and
privileging minority groups. Around the world, we see failing
attempts at migrant integration, persistent religious intolerance
and racial and ethnic discrimination, resurgent national
minorities, emboldened majorities, permanent minorities, continuing
social isolation, and increasing extremism, including in the form
of white nationalism. But is multiculturalism the solution to these
problems or does it just make them worse? In this for-and-against
book, two prominent scholars of multiculturalism put forward
different answers to this important question. While Patti Tamara
Lenard argues for minority rights as both the consequence of a
right to culture and a way to redress the effects of
nation-building, Peter Balint rejects minority rights altogether,
instead arguing for a re-imagined liberal neutrality. This
theoretical disagreement plays out in real-world policy
disagreement. Lenard, for example, argues strongly in favor of
exemptions from general rules for minority cultures including the
right of Sikhs to be exempt from helmet laws, and for Jews and
Muslims to be exempt from bans on male circumcision. She also
defends the right of minority cultures to have government-supported
separate spaces. Balint, on the other hand, argues directly against
these types of exemptions and government support. He is opposed to
any form of differentiation based on culture, religion, or
ethnicity. The book uses a wide range of real-world examples to
demonstrate their significant theoretical disagreement, and to
recommend very different policy proposals.
The question of toleration matters more than ever. The politics of
the twenty-first century is replete with both the successes and,
all too often, the failures of toleration. Yet a growing number of
thinkers and practitioners have argued against toleration. Some
believe that liberal democracies are better served by different
principles, such as respect of, or recognition for, people's ways
of life. Others argue that because the liberal state should be
entirely neutral or indifferent towards people's ways of life, it
can no longer be tolerant - it has no grounds on which it can
object, and so there is nothing left to tolerate. Respecting
Toleration provides a new, original, and provocative take on the
question of toleration and its application to the politics of
contemporary diversity. Peter Balint argues for both the conceptual
coherence and normative desirability of toleration and neutrality.
He argues that it is these principles which best realise the basic
liberal good of people living their lives as they see fit, rather
than appealing to principles of recognition or respect for
difference. While those who criticised liberalism's failings in
dealing with the claims of diversity had justification, it is the
tenets of traditional liberalism that hold the answer. Respecting
Toleration argues that if one cares about people living divergent
lives, then it is liberal toleration that should be respected by
legislators and policy makers, and not people's differences.
Imports pour into the United States, up by 79 percent in six years.
The trade deficit more than doubles. The House of Representatives
solidly rejects a bill that would liberalize global and regional
trade and endorses import quotas for a major manufactured product
by a two-to-one margin. Although at first glance these events of
the 1990s might sound like past chapters of US trade politics, in
fact the political dynamics have changed in significant ways. As
the impact of globalization comes into focus, politically important
constituencies have begun to resist trade liberalization. Labor and
environmental groups in particular, demanding that their concerns
be addressed, have succeeded in fracturing the long-standing,
bipartisan, protrade coalition in Congress, and in the process have
undercut US leadership in liberalizing global trade. This new study
reexamines the landscape of trade politics. It shows how trade
advocates and labor and environmental skeptics differ significantly
in both their substantive views and their political and
organizational cultures. The authors demonstrate how this new
challenge differs from that of traditional trade protectionism,
likening it instead to the debate a century ago over whether and
how to regulate American capitalism for social purposes. The
analysis leads to a set of recommendations aimed at constructive
compromise and a new political foundation for US trade policy
leadership.
|
You may like...
Tenet
John David Washington, Robert Pattinson
Blu-ray disc
(1)
R54
R45
Discovery Miles 450
|