Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Social Democracy by Olssen Mark;

Author:Olssen, Mark;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Education
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Published: 2009-08-06T00:00:00+00:00

As such, both multiculturalism, and the politics of difference, with respect to students of colour, or of disability have, at their basis, the principle of universal human potential, a capacity that all humans share, and which underpins moral equality and equal dignity. As far as education is concerned, then, we must devise citizenship education strategies that (1) treat all people the same to the extent that they are the same, yet, (2) recognizes difference in its particularity, as entailed in Taylor’s (1993, 1994) concept of ‘deep diversity’ as a positive basis for unity and a dimension of shared identity. As Taylor (1994: 50) puts it, “the struggle for recognition can find only one satisfactory solution, and that is a regime of reciprocal recognition among equals”. Although the notion of ‘deep diversity’ has been criticized for conflicting with the needs for social unity and the possibility of a common legal framework, I don’t believe Taylor intends to deny a necessary social and legal minimum required for national and global citizenship, but claims that in certain cases the forms that such a minimum takes can be adapted to express particular cultural requirements. His central point is that we don’t belong to our countries in the same way. A society that is open to multiplicity and difference will be able to reconcile different forms of self-government, and different styles of life, with the broader requirements of national, and global citizenship. As many nations are constituted by multiple cultural and ethnic groups, and as the necessary social and ethical minimum constitutes the democratic rules for life continuance within an increasingly global world, there is no requirement for strong nationalistic attachments to countries. There will be a point, of course, where differentiated citizenship breaks with the requirement of relationality and democracy presupposed in an interconnected and interdependent world. Beyond a certain point, divisions will merely promote conflict. Yet, sameness and difference, as we have seen, are two sides of the same coin. As Joseph Carens (2000: 194) states, “[p]aradoxically, greater respect for difference is more likely to generate more genuine unity than any attempt to manufacture the unity directly.”

On this conception, our model of society still cherishes common values, and does not equate with the Rousseauian or Hegelian monological communities where all individual elements are subordinated to the general will, or to the totality. In addition, it maintains a commitment to liberal democratic principles in that it holds that the schedule of individual democratic goods and rights must apply the same to all cultural groups, and be adapted to different collective goals only in ways that protect the essential bases of a group’s right to exist, and yet in a way that does not inhibit exit. Yet, we must go beyond liberalism and not merely insist on the uniform application of rules without exception. Liberalism in this sense is ‘difference-blind’. The aim is not to treat people identically, but equitably. The idea of equal citizenship needs to be based upon a set of culturally differentiated rights.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.