Thursday, October 1, 2009
Once An Immigrant, Always An Immigrant?
Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of my arrival in Israel. I immigrated on 30 September 1969 and arrived to a hot and humid Tel-Aviv in the early afternoon hours. It has been 40 years since....
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Reflections on Writing
Joske (Prof. Agassi) tells me that I should write, write, and write without thinking. Put thoughts on paper and not look back. Now that I have my M.A. in Democracy Studies and the Open University framework has ended, what to do? Continue with a thesis so that I may enroll in a Ph.D. studies, or just write articles and try to have them published. In this age of cyberspace, though, I do not even need a peer-reviewed journal to publish what i wrote. I can just publish them myself, or send them to a more sophisticated and academic blog. The important thing seems to write, however.
What interests me?
Globalization -- mostly the endless movement of people and the changing loyalties of these people when it comes to culture, nation, and language. Do we have to belong to one country? Do we have to identify ourselves? To what extent can we identify ourselves by country and nation? I am not a world citizen as I do know what that means. How can I be a world citizen when I do not even know what goes on in Zimbabwe? Perhaps we should first try to find out about the place we live before we can branch out to larger avenues. That was my goal when I first started studying at the Open University. Try to explore and find out more about Israel, its past, and the different views guiding its people.
What interests me?
Globalization -- mostly the endless movement of people and the changing loyalties of these people when it comes to culture, nation, and language. Do we have to belong to one country? Do we have to identify ourselves? To what extent can we identify ourselves by country and nation? I am not a world citizen as I do know what that means. How can I be a world citizen when I do not even know what goes on in Zimbabwe? Perhaps we should first try to find out about the place we live before we can branch out to larger avenues. That was my goal when I first started studying at the Open University. Try to explore and find out more about Israel, its past, and the different views guiding its people.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Question for Thesis
To what extent can cosmopolitanism bring solutions to the problems faced by nation-states?
To what extent can cosmopolitanism deal with the issued faced by nation-states with regard human security, human rights, and illegal immigration in the era of globalization?
Under what conditions can cosmopolitanism bring solutions to nation-states and the challenges they face in the era of globalization?
challenges:
human security
pandemics
environmental
Can we say that the nation-state is still the best administrative entity to face the challenges of the 21st century?
According to David Held and Anthony Mc Grew, the nation-state system is still the best way to fight global problems, because it is only if states collaborate together that such problems be tackled. (The Global Transformations Reader"
To what extent is the nation-state still the best administrative entity to provide human security for its citizens and face the challenges of the 21st century?
To what extent can cosmopolitanism deal with the issued faced by nation-states with regard human security, human rights, and illegal immigration in the era of globalization?
Under what conditions can cosmopolitanism bring solutions to nation-states and the challenges they face in the era of globalization?
challenges:
human security
pandemics
environmental
Can we say that the nation-state is still the best administrative entity to face the challenges of the 21st century?
According to David Held and Anthony Mc Grew, the nation-state system is still the best way to fight global problems, because it is only if states collaborate together that such problems be tackled. (The Global Transformations Reader"
To what extent is the nation-state still the best administrative entity to provide human security for its citizens and face the challenges of the 21st century?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
HumanSecurity by Mary Kaldor
Remarks of Professor Mary Kaldor
Director of the Centre for the Study of Global Governance,
London School of Economics and Political Science at Finlandia Hall,
Helsinki, 1 August 2005, 30th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act
Click here to view article in .pdf
Friday, July 17, 2009
The EU and Its Challenge 'To Act Like One'
ABSTRACT
"Zollverein' ce n'est pas un patrie"
The EU is working toward social unity and cohesion. Her efforts are bound to become more challenging with new members from east Europe and perhaps Muslim Turkey. The EU claims, in the Lisbon Treaty, that the only way Europe can meet the challenges of globalization, demographic shifts, climate change, the need for sustainable energy sources and new security threats in the 21st century is by "acting as one." That is, by acting like a nation in solidarity, unity, and accord. The question is to what extent can the EU member states act like a nation? In other words, the question is to what extent can we talk about the formation of an EU nation?
This study explores three answers to the question of the extent that we can talk about the formation of an EU nation: The first one is that we can talk of the formation of an EU nation to a great extent because it has a lingua franca, a flag, a monetary unit, and decision-making institutions. We can say that the EU is like India, which incorporates a multitude of nations, religions, and languages under one roof.
The second answer is that we cannot really talk about the formation of an EU nation in its classical meaning since the EU community of peoples will never feel like they belong to a nation because of their heterogeneous character, undefined borders, and diverse cultures. Moreover, the different peoples making up the EU will never act in unison and solidarity expected of a nation.
The third answer is that we can talk about the formation of an EU nation to some extent if we consider that the EU may be laying the grounds of a new form of political formation in the era of globalization. This answer integrates the ambivalence prevailing in the "nation-state" outlook on society and politics and the possibility of another alternative. I describe here a nation as a modern democratic nation-state with relatively developed market economies. I opt for the third answer.
The plan of the work is as follows: The study is in three parts and the first part consists of an overview of the European Union and the Lisbon Treaty and different approaches to what makes a nation. The second part explores the various answers to the question of the extent that we can talk about the formation of an EU nation, and the third part is the conclusion, where the answer deemed most suitable is explained.
Esther Tina Pesah
2009
"Zollverein' ce n'est pas un patrie"
The EU is working toward social unity and cohesion. Her efforts are bound to become more challenging with new members from east Europe and perhaps Muslim Turkey. The EU claims, in the Lisbon Treaty, that the only way Europe can meet the challenges of globalization, demographic shifts, climate change, the need for sustainable energy sources and new security threats in the 21st century is by "acting as one." That is, by acting like a nation in solidarity, unity, and accord. The question is to what extent can the EU member states act like a nation? In other words, the question is to what extent can we talk about the formation of an EU nation?
This study explores three answers to the question of the extent that we can talk about the formation of an EU nation: The first one is that we can talk of the formation of an EU nation to a great extent because it has a lingua franca, a flag, a monetary unit, and decision-making institutions. We can say that the EU is like India, which incorporates a multitude of nations, religions, and languages under one roof.
The second answer is that we cannot really talk about the formation of an EU nation in its classical meaning since the EU community of peoples will never feel like they belong to a nation because of their heterogeneous character, undefined borders, and diverse cultures. Moreover, the different peoples making up the EU will never act in unison and solidarity expected of a nation.
The third answer is that we can talk about the formation of an EU nation to some extent if we consider that the EU may be laying the grounds of a new form of political formation in the era of globalization. This answer integrates the ambivalence prevailing in the "nation-state" outlook on society and politics and the possibility of another alternative. I describe here a nation as a modern democratic nation-state with relatively developed market economies. I opt for the third answer.
The plan of the work is as follows: The study is in three parts and the first part consists of an overview of the European Union and the Lisbon Treaty and different approaches to what makes a nation. The second part explores the various answers to the question of the extent that we can talk about the formation of an EU nation, and the third part is the conclusion, where the answer deemed most suitable is explained.
Esther Tina Pesah
2009
Thursday, May 15, 2008
To what extent can modern nation-states accomodate multicultural societies in the era of globalization?
My question is under what conditions can modern states accomodate multicultural societies?
My answers are as follows:
Under the condition of cultural homogeneity (Gellner)
Under the condition of strong multiculturalis/communitarians (Kymlicka, Taylor)
Under the condition of hands-off aproach (Kukathas)
It is not that multicultural societies did not exist before nation-states came into being, it is that multicultural societies started seeking their rights within the framework of modern nation-states with the advent of globalization. The conflict in my mind with regard to the multicultural societies is the extent that they can exist peacefully within the dominant culture. Perhaps, even the extent that the nation-state enables them not to exist only but to flourish and contribute to their environment.
It seems to me that all literature on multiculturalism focuses on how to manage, govern, and accomodate multicultural societies within the nation-state. I have yet to read an article on the contribution of these societies to the nation-state and perhaps on the extent that this diversity is a richness.
The strain of the democratic change brought about by the forces of globalization is felt in modern nation-states as the culturally diverse people are no longer striving for homogeneity with the dominant culture. And yet, there is another homogeneous culture emerging with the information revolution brought about by globalization.
One of the tasks of the modern state, therefore, is how to maintain social peace among the various cultures, identities, and subcultures which demand their voice to be heard and their rights to be recognized. The question of this work, therefore, is under what conditions can modern states enable their different identities and diverse cultures to flourish?
Most modern states today are, at least to some degree, culturally diverse. Trade, tourism, and the movement of labor – as well as migration – have ensured that few countries do not contain within them significant numbers of people from other cultures. Many societies today are multicultural because they are open to a diversity of peoples who come and go and, sometimes, stay.
I explore the following three answers to this question: Modern states enable different entities to flourish under the condition of imposing homogeneity on minorities. Modern states enable different cultures to flourish under the condition of the establishment of rights and duties for the minorities. Modern states enable a mixture of identities to flourish by holding to the principle of multiple loyalties within a liberal democratic political system – a system based on pluralism.
An impact of globalization is the enhancement of democratic rights in liberal states. This enhancement led, in turn, to the questioning of the conservative and traditional order upon which the modern nation is built. Earlier, one aspect of nation-state building was that one-identity was imposed on its citizens. Thisimposition, however, lost its meaning once the forces of globalization connected people of different identities, cultures, and languages worldwide. The modern state, therefore, is faced with the task of satisfying the needs of its multicultural societies, govern them while maintaining social peace.
When I talk about multicultural societies, I mean everything from ethnic to cultural identities. I am not only referring to differences based on religion and ethnicity, I am also referring to cultures of secularism vs religiosity, patriarchial societies vs open societies, agrarian vs urban cultures. Modern nations may face the challenge of having to manage multicultural societies, which do not share the same values, in order to maintain social peace.
Why is it important to explore the conditions under which a modern state can successfully manage a multicultural society without causing social unrest? I believe that a modern state, which does not provide social peace for its citizens is bound to break up. If Israel had successfully managed its multicultural society, perhaps a two-state solution would not have come up. If Serbia had successfully managed its multicultural society, Kosovo would not have demanded independence. What about Turkey? Is it successfully managing its multicultural society?
1) (Functionalist) Nation states can manage their multicultural societies only by imposing homogeneity. As Gellner says, in industrial societies, the changing nature of work demands cultural homogeneity and a high culture, therefore, pervades the whole of society, defines it, and needs to be sustained by the polity. According to Gellner, in the modern world, in contrast to pre industrial society, the nation state is functionally necessary and egalitarianism can be achieved through education, which defines the status of the individual. The state, which fulfills this need, fuses the state and culture together; in this way, national homogeneity enables political and economic development.
2) (strong multiculturalism) According to Kymlicka, cultural diversity generated by a plurality of national groups within one state should be accommodated, minority and self-government rights granted to national groups. Kymlicka notes that the liberal state should take active steps to ensure that groups have the resources they need to sustain themselves. This means not simply subsidizing their activities but also ensuring that legal and political arrangements do not discriminate against or disadvantage cultural minorities. Kymicka prefers that the state take stronger measures to ensure that minorities can be secure in their effort to maintain their cultural independence.
3) (Taylor, Laitin) Diversity should not only be tolerated but also fostered or promoted, and supported – both financially (if necessary) and by special rights for minority cultures. A good polity ought to welcome diversity by admitting outsiders readily; but it ought positively to encourage them to preserve their own traditions. Far greater recognition needs to be given to the importance of cultural identity to minority groups struggling to maintain a worthwhile life in modern political society. Such groups need to be included as members of political society, but also helped to preserve their identities as independent cultural communities.
Taylor: Charles Taylor's recent account of multiculturalism is based on what I shall call the cultural recognition thesis, which claims that cultural recognition is an important and necessary constituent of the value of treating individuals with equal respect.[3] Taylor stresses the fact that cultural identities are things we negotiate through dialogue with others. Thus, he says, cultural recognition is important because its "refusal can inflict damage on those who are denied it, according to a widespread modern view...The projection of an inferior or demeaning image on another can actually distort or oppress, to the extent that the image is internalized." On this view, to withhold recognition from others, or to impose misrecognition on them, "can be a form of oppression."[4] For Taylor, socio-political and educational policies must evince cultural recognition because cultural misrecognition, or withholding recognition altogether, may prevent individuals from being capable of finding value in their identity. And when it does, cultural misrecognition constitutes a form of disrespect to the extent that it prevents others from being able to have a sense of self-respect. So respecting others requires that we recognize the cultural identity that constitutes them.
It follows from this view that a liberal society dedicated to the value of equal respect must also recognize the multiplicity of cultural sub-groups that constitute it. That is because multicultural societies are made up of a range of distinct cultural groups, whose members' identities are constituted by the particular groups to which they belong; and thus members of each sub-group require cultural recognition.
According to Taylor the need for cultural recognition requires state support for multicultural education programs designed to foster cultural survival and flourishing. For example, he says that the aim of multicultural policies, including policies of multicultural education, is "to maintain and cherish distinctness, not just now but forever. After all, if we're concerned with identity, then what is more legitimate than one's aspiration that it never be lost."[8] It follows that Taylor's version of the cultural recognition requires support for cultural survival in a particularly strong sense. It entails the conclusion that the value of equal respect requires a state to preserve not just the cultural structure that is available for existing cultural members, in the way that a group of people might wish to have their local community swimming pool maintained as a facility for themselves. Rather, Taylor says that "[p]olicies aimed at [cultural] survival actively seek to create members of the community, for instance, in their assuring that future generations continue to identify as French-speakers. There is no way that these policies could be seen as just providing a facility to already existing people."[9] Thus, according to Taylor's view, the value of equal respect demands state support for multicultural education policies to the extent that those policies are effective and necessary means of assuring the ongoing survival of an existing group's cultural identity.
So far, I have tried to show that Taylor's version of the cultural recognition thesis is based on two claims. First, cultural misrecognition can be a form of oppression when it causes individuals to internalize a demeaning image of their ancestral cultural identity. Second, rectification of cultural misrecognition and its demeaning effects on personal identity require educational policies aimed at ensuring the survival and flourishing of the ancestral culture.
4) Kukathas, in turn, solves this question by arguing that the diversity problem can be solved by adopting a hands-off approach to cultures as the extent to which anyone assimilates should be determined by the desire and capacity of each individual to do so. This approach is even willing to accept that, in a multicultural society, there may be groups or communities of people whose basic traditions or beliefs or practices are not only disapproved of by the majority but are even hostile to liberal values. In short, this approach is even tolerant of illiberal values. His main contention is that a free society is an open society whose fundamental principle is the principle of freedom of association. A society is free to the extent that it is prepared to tolerate in its midst associations which differ or dissent from its standards or practices (classical liberalism)
My question is under what conditions can modern states accomodate multicultural societies?
My answers are as follows:
Under the condition of cultural homogeneity (Gellner)
Under the condition of strong multiculturalis/communitarians (Kymlicka, Taylor)
Under the condition of hands-off aproach (Kukathas)
It is not that multicultural societies did not exist before nation-states came into being, it is that multicultural societies started seeking their rights within the framework of modern nation-states with the advent of globalization. The conflict in my mind with regard to the multicultural societies is the extent that they can exist peacefully within the dominant culture. Perhaps, even the extent that the nation-state enables them not to exist only but to flourish and contribute to their environment.
It seems to me that all literature on multiculturalism focuses on how to manage, govern, and accomodate multicultural societies within the nation-state. I have yet to read an article on the contribution of these societies to the nation-state and perhaps on the extent that this diversity is a richness.
The strain of the democratic change brought about by the forces of globalization is felt in modern nation-states as the culturally diverse people are no longer striving for homogeneity with the dominant culture. And yet, there is another homogeneous culture emerging with the information revolution brought about by globalization.
One of the tasks of the modern state, therefore, is how to maintain social peace among the various cultures, identities, and subcultures which demand their voice to be heard and their rights to be recognized. The question of this work, therefore, is under what conditions can modern states enable their different identities and diverse cultures to flourish?
Most modern states today are, at least to some degree, culturally diverse. Trade, tourism, and the movement of labor – as well as migration – have ensured that few countries do not contain within them significant numbers of people from other cultures. Many societies today are multicultural because they are open to a diversity of peoples who come and go and, sometimes, stay.
I explore the following three answers to this question: Modern states enable different entities to flourish under the condition of imposing homogeneity on minorities. Modern states enable different cultures to flourish under the condition of the establishment of rights and duties for the minorities. Modern states enable a mixture of identities to flourish by holding to the principle of multiple loyalties within a liberal democratic political system – a system based on pluralism.
An impact of globalization is the enhancement of democratic rights in liberal states. This enhancement led, in turn, to the questioning of the conservative and traditional order upon which the modern nation is built. Earlier, one aspect of nation-state building was that one-identity was imposed on its citizens. Thisimposition, however, lost its meaning once the forces of globalization connected people of different identities, cultures, and languages worldwide. The modern state, therefore, is faced with the task of satisfying the needs of its multicultural societies, govern them while maintaining social peace.
When I talk about multicultural societies, I mean everything from ethnic to cultural identities. I am not only referring to differences based on religion and ethnicity, I am also referring to cultures of secularism vs religiosity, patriarchial societies vs open societies, agrarian vs urban cultures. Modern nations may face the challenge of having to manage multicultural societies, which do not share the same values, in order to maintain social peace.
Why is it important to explore the conditions under which a modern state can successfully manage a multicultural society without causing social unrest? I believe that a modern state, which does not provide social peace for its citizens is bound to break up. If Israel had successfully managed its multicultural society, perhaps a two-state solution would not have come up. If Serbia had successfully managed its multicultural society, Kosovo would not have demanded independence. What about Turkey? Is it successfully managing its multicultural society?
1) (Functionalist) Nation states can manage their multicultural societies only by imposing homogeneity. As Gellner says, in industrial societies, the changing nature of work demands cultural homogeneity and a high culture, therefore, pervades the whole of society, defines it, and needs to be sustained by the polity. According to Gellner, in the modern world, in contrast to pre industrial society, the nation state is functionally necessary and egalitarianism can be achieved through education, which defines the status of the individual. The state, which fulfills this need, fuses the state and culture together; in this way, national homogeneity enables political and economic development.
2) (strong multiculturalism) According to Kymlicka, cultural diversity generated by a plurality of national groups within one state should be accommodated, minority and self-government rights granted to national groups. Kymlicka notes that the liberal state should take active steps to ensure that groups have the resources they need to sustain themselves. This means not simply subsidizing their activities but also ensuring that legal and political arrangements do not discriminate against or disadvantage cultural minorities. Kymicka prefers that the state take stronger measures to ensure that minorities can be secure in their effort to maintain their cultural independence.
3) (Taylor, Laitin) Diversity should not only be tolerated but also fostered or promoted, and supported – both financially (if necessary) and by special rights for minority cultures. A good polity ought to welcome diversity by admitting outsiders readily; but it ought positively to encourage them to preserve their own traditions. Far greater recognition needs to be given to the importance of cultural identity to minority groups struggling to maintain a worthwhile life in modern political society. Such groups need to be included as members of political society, but also helped to preserve their identities as independent cultural communities.
Taylor: Charles Taylor's recent account of multiculturalism is based on what I shall call the cultural recognition thesis, which claims that cultural recognition is an important and necessary constituent of the value of treating individuals with equal respect.[3] Taylor stresses the fact that cultural identities are things we negotiate through dialogue with others. Thus, he says, cultural recognition is important because its "refusal can inflict damage on those who are denied it, according to a widespread modern view...The projection of an inferior or demeaning image on another can actually distort or oppress, to the extent that the image is internalized." On this view, to withhold recognition from others, or to impose misrecognition on them, "can be a form of oppression."[4] For Taylor, socio-political and educational policies must evince cultural recognition because cultural misrecognition, or withholding recognition altogether, may prevent individuals from being capable of finding value in their identity. And when it does, cultural misrecognition constitutes a form of disrespect to the extent that it prevents others from being able to have a sense of self-respect. So respecting others requires that we recognize the cultural identity that constitutes them.
It follows from this view that a liberal society dedicated to the value of equal respect must also recognize the multiplicity of cultural sub-groups that constitute it. That is because multicultural societies are made up of a range of distinct cultural groups, whose members' identities are constituted by the particular groups to which they belong; and thus members of each sub-group require cultural recognition.
According to Taylor the need for cultural recognition requires state support for multicultural education programs designed to foster cultural survival and flourishing. For example, he says that the aim of multicultural policies, including policies of multicultural education, is "to maintain and cherish distinctness, not just now but forever. After all, if we're concerned with identity, then what is more legitimate than one's aspiration that it never be lost."[8] It follows that Taylor's version of the cultural recognition requires support for cultural survival in a particularly strong sense. It entails the conclusion that the value of equal respect requires a state to preserve not just the cultural structure that is available for existing cultural members, in the way that a group of people might wish to have their local community swimming pool maintained as a facility for themselves. Rather, Taylor says that "[p]olicies aimed at [cultural] survival actively seek to create members of the community, for instance, in their assuring that future generations continue to identify as French-speakers. There is no way that these policies could be seen as just providing a facility to already existing people."[9] Thus, according to Taylor's view, the value of equal respect demands state support for multicultural education policies to the extent that those policies are effective and necessary means of assuring the ongoing survival of an existing group's cultural identity.
So far, I have tried to show that Taylor's version of the cultural recognition thesis is based on two claims. First, cultural misrecognition can be a form of oppression when it causes individuals to internalize a demeaning image of their ancestral cultural identity. Second, rectification of cultural misrecognition and its demeaning effects on personal identity require educational policies aimed at ensuring the survival and flourishing of the ancestral culture.
4) Kukathas, in turn, solves this question by arguing that the diversity problem can be solved by adopting a hands-off approach to cultures as the extent to which anyone assimilates should be determined by the desire and capacity of each individual to do so. This approach is even willing to accept that, in a multicultural society, there may be groups or communities of people whose basic traditions or beliefs or practices are not only disapproved of by the majority but are even hostile to liberal values. In short, this approach is even tolerant of illiberal values. His main contention is that a free society is an open society whose fundamental principle is the principle of freedom of association. A society is free to the extent that it is prepared to tolerate in its midst associations which differ or dissent from its standards or practices (classical liberalism)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
