Online classroom of Ronald Castillo y Maglaqui, Professor of Political Science at the University of Santo Tomas - Faculty of Arts and Letters. But for the time being, starting 2022, this blog serves as a student's public notebook of thoughts while he undertakes his international PhD in Asia Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. Reach him through rmcastillo@ust.edu.ph
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Normative Debate on the Theory of Nationalism (2POL2)
Comprehensive and insightful outlining of the various normative arguments on nationalism:
Reminders:
1. Only the best 3 will be given pts.
2. First to upload gets copyright of that submission (Hence no repetition of ideas).
3. Deadline is December 15, 2012 (8:00 p.m.).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
De Villa, Bien Anthony
ReplyDeleteBisco, Jodelyn
Ramos, Renz Paolo
1. The Intrinstic Value Arguement
1.1 Claims that cultural pluralism has an intrinsic value, that the world will be a better place if it contains a diversity of cultures
2.Justifications
2.1 It appeals to the familiar liberal claim that there is no single best way of living.
2.2 Individuals will not be able to exercise their right to make autonomous choices unless they live in a culturally plural environment.
2.2.1 Tamir argues that human beings can only reflect critically on their culture if there are others to which they can compare their own, from which they might learn or borrow, and into which they might assimilate.
2.3 cultural diversity is itself an impersonal value
2.3.1 McMahan - individual cultures are worth preserving both because of their own intrinsic value and because of the contribution they make to the independent value of cultural diversity.
3.Problems
3.1 It is the question of what exactly we should be protecting
3.1.1 Lichtenberg - what sort of entity do we have to promote if our aim is to encourage the existence and flourishing of cultures?
3.2 How should we interpret preservation?
3.2.1 Waldron - there is something artificial about a commitment to preserve cultures.
3.3 Problem on preservation
3.3.1 Levy - in order for the project of preservation to succeed, the culture in question must have a sufficient number of strong devotees.
3.4 What kind of diversity?
3.4.1 Brighthouse - a diversity of authoritarian and fundamentalist cultures; coexisting uneasily only because of the heroically well-constructed design of the institutions governing their interactions; might not mean much.
3.5 Hurka - Cultural survual is generally valued by nationalist themselves
THE CULTURAL CONTEXT ARGUMENT
ReplyDelete1. The cultural context argument alleges three assumptions as well as situations for the individuals.
1.1 It draws on the liberal assumption that people are capable of making autonomous choices about their goals in life but this capability is not absolute because they could not disregard the presence of the cultural context which gives the norms and standards of the society.
1.2 The said argument also depicts individuals as reflective and autonomous based on the context that permits them to do such choice.
1.3 The last assumption was about the people, most probably the liberals, who protect the rich and flourishing culture that helps the people to have their autonomy.
2. There are different sustaining arguments on regards with the cultural context.
2.1 Margalit and Raz laid two claims about the said argument.
2.1.1 “Encompassing groups” was their first consideration about the nations saying that individuals find in them ‘a culture which shapes to a large degree their tastes and opportunities, and which provides an anchor for their self-identification and the safety of effortless secure belonging’. Relations and activities with other people especially within a group are indeed so important to consider the well-being of a human.
2.1.2 Division of the world was also an assertion of Margalit and Raz in connection also with their first claim. It says that if people’s self-respect is affected by the esteem in which these groups are held, then the groups, membership of which contributes to one’s sense of identity, should be generally respected and ‘not be made a subject of ridicule, hatred, discrimination or persecution’.
2.2 MacCormick puts forward the concept of ‘contextual individuals’ telling that human beings are not extra-social atoms. Our feelings, attachments and commitments especially to other people are essential parts of being a human.
3. Although there are supporting views about the cultural context argument, there are also objections to this.
3.1 Lichtenberg cited three reasons for the first objection which is conceptual.
3.1.1 It is not always easy to distinguish one culture from another.
3.1.2 Cultures are never pure, they contain elements of other cultures.
3.1.3 There is multiplicity of subcultures within each culture.
3.2 There is a problem on the link between culture and autonomy explaining that the cultural context argument does not explain why it is important to retain one’s existing culture.
3.2.1 It does not show that what people need is ‘a rich and secure cultural structure’.
3.2.2 Also, it does not show the importance of membership in a culture.
3.3 The last objection to the said argument relates to the issue of the preservation of cultures.
3.3.1 According to Johnson, culture will sustain practices that range from reprehensible to admirable.
3.3.2 Parekh: Culture both opens up and closes options, both stabilizes and circumscribes the moral and social world, creates the conditions of choice but also demands conformity.
4. Indeed, there are solutions/reminders that are intended to the objections presented to the argument. Thus, the author suggests also several situations to conclude this argument by citing certain people that remind us about our consideration when it comes to the cultural context in our human well-being as well as in our society.
4.1 Culture can also cause damage to some so to remain critically watchful is necessary for the individuals.
4.2 Johnson: We should focus more on the origins and works of certain norms, practices and institutions than on its value.
4.3 Buchanan: “What is important is that an individual be able to belong to a culture, some culture or other, not that he be able to belong, indefinitely, to any particular culture”.
GALVEZ, JEAN CLAUDETTE L.
DE CASTRO, MAIRELL CLAIRE F.
RUIZ, PRIME MARTIN E.
1. The Normative Claims of Nationalism
ReplyDelete1.1 The Liberation Argument
1.1.1 Post-colonial accounts seek to demonstrate nationalism has been a transformative and emancipatory power in the post-colonial context.
1.1.1.1 Berlin’s Observation
1.1.1.1.1 Importance of the principle self-determination for people’s sense of their own worth.
1.1.2 The Problems of Liberation Argument
1.1.2.1 Obliged to defend imperialism when rejecting nationalist principles.
1.1.2.2 The double standards of nationalism and is best exemplified by the historical record of the post-colonial nationalisms.
1.1.2.2.1 O’Connor PJ
1.1.2.2.1.1 Self-determinations of nations were factors for political independence and depend on the borders that control the sovereignty.
1.1.2.2.2 Formation of multinational states.
1.1.2.2.2.1 Civil Wars.
1.1.2.2.2.2 New kinds of repression.
1.1.2.2.2.3 Ensuing problems prolonging the initial conflicts.
1.1.3 Margaret Canovan
1.1.3.1 Colonizing and being colonized somehow emanates the nationhood that thru the struggle of liberation.
1.1.3.2 Enthusiasts redrawing of state limitations in their corresponding l lines cannot contend that the benefits will outweigh the instantaneous costs.
1.1.4 Craig Dunn
1.1.4.1 The birth of nations is often ghastly matters, periods drenched in violence, leaving behind the snags that are afar from any ethically reasonable political solution; hereafter we should be cautious of sentimentalizing this progression.
1.1.5 Grips with oppression
1.1.5.1 Oppose subjugation by more universal values without capitulating inducements of nationalism.
1.1.5.1.1 Justice, Freedom and Solidarity.
1.1.5.2 Cause of domination is a new nationalism.
1.1.5.2.1 Concern the interest of the preponderance at the expense of the peripheral groups.
INOCENTES, CARLO LUIGI B.
1.The Cultural Context Argument
ReplyDelete1.1. Individuals are capable of making autonomous choices but it depends on the presence of cultural context that allow them.
1.2.Supporting Arguments from Margalit and Raz.
1.2.1.Culture shapes members of the individuals in the society.
1.2.2.Culture shapes the identity and security of the society.
1.2.3.Being a part of the culture creates an imaginable boundaries between feasible actions.
1.3.Opposing Arguments
1.3.1.Lichtenberg’s assumption that nations are cultures.
1.3.1.1.Cultures cannot be classified easily from other cultures.
1.3.1.2.Cultures are influenced by other cultures
1.3.1.3.Presence of factions inside a culture.
1.3.2. Relation of culture and autonomy.
1.3.2.1.Individuals broadens the range of options that nourishes their culture
1.3.3.Preservation of culture
1.3.3.1.Preservation depends on those who protect and value the autonomy of the culture
1.4.The importance of cultural membership is that it gives identity to individuals.
1.4.1. It gains character and personality of its own which could be shared.
1.4.2.It dictates members' roles and responsibilities toward one another, how members relate to one another, how decisions are made within groups, how resources are distributed, and how problems are defined.
Maragay, Dave Alexander
Regencia, Lyle Ariane
Tolentino, Mon Francis
1.Liberation Argument
ReplyDelete1.1 The historical basis of the liberation argument is explained.
1.1.1 In the 3rd world countries nationalism is an important factor in connection to anti-colonial struggles.
1.1.2 Concerning the legitimacy if nationalist principles of the 20th century, European colonialism as well as the process of decolonization have both made great impact.
1.2 The meaning of the liberation argument was given.
1.2.1 All of which emphasizes that the principles of the self-determination was used for the people’s sense of their own worth, which is in sync with Berlin’s observation.
1.2.2 There is a moral dilemma where those against nationalism tolerate those oppressed persons who aim for autonomy; all if which is in spite of the reason the oppressed are fighting for the very nationalistic principle in which those anti-nationalists are against.
1.3 The two reasons why the liberation argument is problematic are explained.
1.3.1 We defend imperialism yet we reject nationalist principles.
1.3.2 We have double standards of nationalism.
1.4 The conclusion of the liberation argument is stated.
1.4.1 We should use universal values instead of using nationalism against our oppressors.
1.4.2 The cause of oppression is another nationalism that gives more concern to the majority in comparison to the minority.
Atienza, Willda R.
Corpuz, Ena P.
Public Good Argument
ReplyDelete1. Nationalism is Required to Provide the Public Good
1.1. National Identity is necessary in order to achieve political goals such as democracy and social justice,National Identity is instrumental in achieving and delivering the Public Good (Miller, 1995).
1.2. Miller tells us that a Common National Identity leads to Solidarity which he says is the triumph over social atomization or the situation where each person is acting for their own interests.
1.3. Tamir tells us that we are better equipped to promote the welfare of the members of our own society and that we would give priority to this idea than the idea of helping those outside our society.
2. The Issues and Topics concerning the Argument that Nationalism provides Public Good.
2.1. On the Issue of the Lessening of Social Atomization through collective solidarity which is provided by national identity.
2.1.1. Apology
2.1.1.1. Tamir in 1993 says that we are simply better equipped to uphold and preach the welfare of the members of our own society.
2.1.2. Critiques
2.1.2.1. However according to Tamir in 1999 the Thatcher government was able to boost British National Identity, however this led to gaining more support for the wars Britain was waging than actually leading to redistribution of socio-economic resources.
2.1.2.2. According to Moore in 2001, The United States has a strong sense of patriotism but possesses a weak record on social justice.
2.2. On the Issue of how Nationalism provides commitment to a democratic state which then leads to a healthy and good state.
2.2.1. Apology
2.2.1.1. According to Taylor in 1999, National Identity increases the commitment of its people to the democratic state, National Identity provides the trust and amity among people which will lead to a healthy democracy.
2.2.2. Critiques
2.2.2.1. Political Participation in the United States is low despite their high sense of patriotism, on the other hand Canadian National Identity is relatively weaker in contrast with the case of the United States, however it has the best Health Care Services for the People. (Ozkrimli,2005)
2.2.2.2. Nations are not the only source that defines solidarity and mutual trust among nations.(Tamir, 2000)
2.2.2.3. Parekh in 1999 shows that identification with nationhood does not always lead to concrete action for the benefit of all, the feeling of nationalism varies in levels and intensity, some may do actions for the well-being of their fellow people within their nations or it may end with a diffused love of country.
2.2.2.4. Brighouse in 1996 tells us that Capitalist democracies uses national identities to further their agendas in which Dahbour shows the ways on how states like these use national identity to undermine the real bases of communities.
2.3. On the Issue on multiple nations within a single state and the mutual trust and solidarity stems from national identity.
2.3.1. Apology
2.3.1.1. Miller in 1996 says National Identity plays a large part in strengthening Mutual Trust within the Nation which should then lead to the preceding issue.
2.3.2. Critiques
2.3.2.1. Tamir points out that there would be very few states that would be able to sustain a democratic regime and that the most vulnerable states would be those who had multiple nations within them due to the phenomenon of migration.
2.3.2.2. Parekh says that a nationally diverse society can developed the same sense of solidarity and trust necessary to maintain a healthy democracy especially in this age of globalization.
MENDOZA, Agripino Luiz R.
MIGUEL, Nicole kenneth C.
ROMANO, Harvey Leo
Laurel, Anne Medlyn
ReplyDeleteMakabali, Avon Cherie
1. The Public Good Argument
1.1 This argument assumes that the necessary condition for achieving political goals such as democracy and social justice is a shared national identity.
2. Arguments that support The Public Good Argument
2.2 Taylor argues that a democratic state requires from it citizens a strong sense of commitment, identification with the polity and the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the state's sake.
2.3 Miller claims that for a democratic government to function, it needs its citizens to have mutual confidence and trust one another.
2.4 Moore argues that the one that equates more nationalism with more and better democracy is the one that points out national identity has a tendency of promoting a smooth functioning democracy through facilitating the vertical dialogue between representative and constituent.
2.5 A shared national identity does not only generate mutual trust that is needed in a stable democracy but it also creates collective solidarity.
2.5.1 Miller argues that Nationality is de facto the main source of solidarity.
2.5.2 Tamir points out that the liberal power state is predicted on particular national beliefs.
3. Arguments against The Public Good Argument
3.1 The evidence for the claim that a firm sense of national identity facilitates redistribution is far from clear.
3.2 Parekh argues that a shared sense of common belonging leads to redistribution only when it is fuelled by astrong social conscience, and then much of the credit for the redistribution should be given to the latter.
3.3 The alleged link between social justice and nationhood.
3.3.1 Parekh states that there is little evidence to support the view that a strong sense of national identity produces a strong sense of fellow feeling or a willingness to make sacrifices.
3.4 The idea that the nation is the main source of solidarity and mutual trust.
4. Conclusion
4.1. As a conclusion, following Tamir, nationhood may be an effective way of creating solidarity and mutual trust but it is certainly not the only one.
4.2 For Parekh, there is no apparent reason why a culturally plural society should not developthe sense of solidarity and trust necessary for a broad moral and political consensus.
4.3 The only choice open to any society today is to manage and draw on the creative potential of its diversity.
ALONZO, Carol Anne A.
ReplyDeleteVILLEGAS, Angelica Bianca R.
1. There are five Normative Arguments in Defense of Nationalism. One of which is the Public Good Argument.
1.1 It is stated in this argument that in order to attain political goals particularly democracy and social justice, a shared national identity is needed to serve as the essential stipulations in achieving such goals.
2. There are different claims that support this particular argument.
2.1 According to Taylor, there is a great need for a reasonably strong allegiance on the part of the citizens through their personal contributions in the society may it be in monetary terms or civil service in times of war.
2.1.1 He also said that patriotism which is your willingness to offer oneself for your country is greatly needed in a democratic state.
2.2 On the other hand, Miller said that the most important aspect in a democratic government is to maintain trust between and among the citizens but he also stated that this might be a problem in a society with a huge population.
2.3 In contrast to what Taylor and Miler said, Moore argues that in attaining a shared national identity we should not only maintain mutual trust nevertheless we also need a collective solidarity in a society.
2.4 Tamir then again has a similar point of view with that of Moore that national beliefs serve as the foundation of a liberal welfare state.
2.4.1 He also said that Communal solidarity binds the nation through their common beliefs and fate which are basically the qualifications in having a liberal welfare state.
3. Despite of the claims supporting this argument there still arise some problems.
3.1 The first problem mentioned was the point of Parekh wherein he said that countries may vary in terms of their beliefs and customs and that strong social conscience is needed in order to have redistribution through their shared commonalities.
3.1.1 He also mentioned that people only take part in political life for their own personal benefit and agenda and that shared national identity should not be considered as the most important aspect but only as one of those important aspects in bringing up a democratic state.
3.2 The second problem was that the claims presented are too complex and formless to be tested. Parekh then again said that it is not easy to eliminate the influences of the various factors of social life.
3.2.1 For him, solidarity may be defined as the love for country but not as the love of one’s countrymen to his fellow. It is not enough to look on their preferred interests to guarantee social conscience but rather look deeper into its nature ad main concern.
3.3 The third and last problem in this argument is about the idea that the nation is the main source of solidarity and mutual trust.
3.3.1 Brighouse reminds us the national identity is often used to influence working people to restrain their demands in society.
3.3.2 Same goes with the idea of Dahbour regarding the ways on how nation-states weaken the main foundations of their local, urban and regional communities.
4. We can conclude that mutual trust and solidarity may not be the only result of nationhood but still it is considered to be part of the important features in a building up a democratic state.
4.1 In today’s modern set-up one cannot simply avoid the influences around us but one must not stop developing within oneself the true essence of nationhood.
4.2 In a culturally diverse society, one may speak up or represent the whole as to how will they be able to support the advocacy of the society in preserving a democratic state with a unified people regardless of their ethnic, racial and religious groups.
Castillo, Jocel
ReplyDeleteMendoza, Mia Cielo
Oliva, Pauch
1. The Cultural Context Argument
1.1 Importance Of Cultural Membership
1.1.1 Individual are capable of making autonomous choices about their goals in life.
1.1.2 Allows the individuals to become strong evaluators.
1.1.3 It protects the particular cultures to which people are attached.
1.2 Claims that support the Argument
1.2.1 Margalit and Raz
1.2.1.1 Nations are encompassing groups in that individuals find
in them ‘a culture which shape to a large degree their taste and opportunities, and which provides an anchor for their self-identification and safety of effortless secure belonging’
1.2.1.1.1 Familiarity with a culture determines the boundaries of the imaginable. Sharing in a culture, being part of it, determines the limits of the feasible
1.2.1.2 Divisions of the world into number of encompassing groups with persuasive cultures has far reaching consequence.
1.2.1.2.1 Membership of groups is of great importance to individual well-being, as it greatly affects one’s opportunities, one’s ability to engage in the relationship and pursuits marked by the culture.
1.2.1.2.2 Prosperity of the culture is important to the well-being of its members.
1.2.1.2.2.1 The culture is decaying or if it is persecuted or discriminated against the option and opportunities open to its members will shrink.
1.2.1.2.3 If people’s self respect is affected by the esteem in which these groups are held, then the groups, membership of which contributes to one’s sense of identity, should be respected, not be made to subject of ridicule, hatred, discrimination and persecution.
1.2.2 MacCormick
1.2.2.1 Our feelings and attachments, and commitments to other people are part of what makes us human.
1.3 Claims that object the Arguments
1.3.1 Litchenberge
1.3.1.1 Nations are viewed as cultures.
1.3.1.1.1. It is not always easy to distinguish one culture from another.
1.3.1.1.1.2 There are two groups that share the same language and have broadly similar culture values
1.3.1.1.2. Cultures are never pure; they contain elements of other cultures.
1.3.1.1.3 Within a culture we can find a multiplicity of subculture and between the current loyalties of the members may be subtle and complicated.
1.3.1.2. Concerns the link between culture and autonomy.
1.3.1.2.1 For Margalit and Raz, encompassing culture provides option from wich individuals can choose. Familiarity with more than culture will provide us more option. If we are after meaningful options, then one’s inherited culture may not necessarily be the best or the only one to have.
1.3.1.1.2 The cultural argument does not explain why it is important to retain one’s existing culture.
1.3.2 Moore
1.3.1.2 The cultural context argument relates to the issue of the preservation of cultures.
1.3.1.2.1 If culture is valuable in so far as it contributes to the exercise of autonomy, then rights to the protection of culture should extends only to those cultures that value autonomy.
1.4 Conclusions
1.4.1 We should focus attention less on the value of culture as such than on the origins and workings of particular norms, practices, and institutions. (Johnsson 2000)
1.4.2 We should not treat the right to culture preservation as a right to cultural stasis, that is, as a right to preserved the cultural as its present (Ozkirimli 2005)
1.The Intrinsic Value Argument
ReplyDelete1.1 the very nature of cultural pluralism is that the world has autonomy if it has a diversity of cultures.
2.supporting arguments/ justification
2.1 McMahan: there should be variety of cultures so that for people to find a sanctuaries or places of refuge.
2.2 Tamir: people can critically construct their culture if there are other cultures to compare with and might burrow to complete the construction of culture.
2.3 McMahan: nation's own culture is worth preserving for its very nature and contribution to cultural diversity to the world.
3 opposing arguments/ problems
3.1 Lichtenberg: intrinsic value argument considered multiculturalism rather than nationalism.
3.2 Waldron: the possibility of the erosion of allegiances should be the key to cultural evaluation
3.3 Levy: cultural preservation must have a strong devotees that is hard to accomplish in a multi culture world.
3.4 Brighouse: there should be a specific meaning of deversity for some cultures cannot coexist together.
3.5 Hurka: nations only preserve their own culture to survive and disregard the cultural diversity for they only value their own culture.
4 conclusion
4.1 the goal of the policy for preservation of cultures must be benefited to the cultural groups to preserve and enrich their culture.
4.2 Benhabib: form of life, that are: cruel, unjsut, authoritarian can somehow help build a good nation, will be destroyed if we preserve the cultural diversity.
GIMAO,JAN PATRICK S.
BRAGA, LARRENCE PAOLO
GONZALEZ, JED NATHANIEL
-2POL2-
--2POL2--
ReplyDeleteARRIOLA, Sim Carlo Jesuel L.
PANGAN, Aljon G.
PEREZ, Mark Josep R.
1. The Public Good Argument
1.1. Miller (1995) identified that shared national identity is a requisite of attaining political goals such as democracy and social justice.
1.2. Different arguments pointed out regarding the “Public Good Argument”
1.2.1. In 1999, Taylor argues that a high degree of patriotism from the citizens is equated to having a democratic state that we mean of possessing a great sense of identification, loyalty, and willingness to give themselves for the state either by means of tax, or war.
1.2.2. A revised version of the argument was offered by Moore arguing that national identity does not alone enable to establish a smooth functioning democratic institution, it should also facilitate the vertical dialogue in the relationship of representatives and constituents.
1.2.3. Miller pointed out that in societies in which economic markets play a central role, social atomization is likely to occur in which people only look out for their own interests and their immediate social networks. The main source of such solidarity is de facto.
1.2.4. Liberal welfare state is predicated on certain "national beliefs." People are better equipped to promote the welfare of the members of their own society and those attempts are given priority (Tamir, 1993).
2. Different problems met by the "Public Good Argument"
2.1. The argument goes in the teeth of the realities on the ground. The evidences for the claim that a strong sense of national identity facilitates redistribution is vague.
2.1.1. Moore observed that the United States, even having strong sense of patriotism, does not possess an effective social justice.
2.1.2. A shared sense of belongingness leads to a redistribution only when it is triggered by a strong social conscience (Parekh, 1999).
2.2. There is a defect in the heart of the public good argument, and the alleged link between social justice and nationhood.
2.2.1. The claim that a shared national identity leads to mutual trust and solidarity would seem to be saying that these desirable "consequences" cannot be produced in its absence.
2.2.2. The claim is to complex and vague to be tested.
2.2.3. Parekh exemplified that in social life, it is not easy to extricate various factors; and there is a little evidence that a strong sense of national identity produces a strong sense of willingness to make sacrifices.
2.3. The last problem with regards to the public good argument is the idea that the nation is the main source of solidarity and mutual trust.
2.3.1. Solidarity and trust, in line to liberal democratic state and its institution, may have many different sources, not to mention the state itself.
3. Conclusion generated from the "Public Good Argument"
3.1. We might oppose Tamir that although nationhood may be an effective way of creating solidarity and mutual trust, it does not necessarily mean that it is the only factor to be considered.
3.2. Parekh claims that a culturally diverse society can produced most of the desirable qualities of a homogeneous society possesses.
3.3. Cultural diversity widely epitomizes all socities, they should either think of ways of coming to terms with and even benefiting from it or by homogenizing themselves by suppression and marginalization.
3.4. Ergo, the only choice open to any society today is to draw and manage on the creative potential of its diversity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIDENTITY ARGUMENT
ReplyDelete1. The idea that national membership is an important and constitutive element of personal identity.
1.1 The individual’s characteristics were based by the social settings of the community he or she belongs to.
2. Factors that account the importance of national identities
2.1 Ability to provide a sense of continuity that enables individuals to transcend the limitations of their own existence.
2.1.1 The nation can provide a conceptual framework that allows us to perceive our existence as belonging within a continuity in time and continuity in space
2.2 Their centrality to human flourishing
2.2.1 Psychological claim that people need to identify with or belonging to some group beyond their immediate family to flourish.
3. Contexts in support of transcending the limitations of their own existence
3.1 MacCormick notes that each human being as an individual has no more than a short life span, and can never be in more than one place at a time
3.1.1 Consciousness of belonging to a nation is one of the things that enable us to transcend the limitations of space, time and mortality in this earthly existence.
3.1.2 Nations can be said to bestow extra merit on social, cultural or political acts and to provide individuals with additional channels for self-fulfilment.
3.2 Nation contributes to self-transcendence
3.2.1 Members of a constitutive community like the nation view their self esteem and well being as affected by success and failures of their individual fellow members and the groups as a whole.
4. Contexts in support of centrality to human flourishing
4.1 MacCormick: “Human beings can only become individuals, that is, acquire a sense of their individuality, as a result of their social experiences within communities.”
4.2 Nielsen: “Human beings have a deeply embedded and ubiquitous interest in self-identification or self-definition
4.3 Margalit and Raz: “Centrality of national membership for human flourishing by pointing to the importance of recognition.
4.3.1 Identity is more secure when it does not depend on accomplishment.
5. Problems of identity argument
5.1 Lichtenberg: “There are questions about the universality of the need to identify with a nation-like entity or about the extent to which such identification contributes to human flourishing.
5.1.1 It depends on psychological claims that are difficult to substantiate and to which no one has definite answers.
5.1.2 There is nothing inevitable or mystical about the need to identify.
5.2 Second problem is one of scale and form of political organization
5.2.1 There is something ‘illiberal' in basing membership on belonging, that is, gin Margalit and Raz’s commitment to liberalism
5.2.2 Why not human race as the object of identification
5.2.2.1 Humankind is too large and too abstract to generate the appropriate feelings.
5.2.3 People do not need a social environment to develop, but rather that it is unclear why the required culture must be a national one.
5.2.3.1 Caney: “This is especially true in an age of increased communication and international interdependence.”
5.2.4 Last point for this problem is that historical record has given further credence
5.2.4.1 For centuries, people identified themselves in terms of shared religion, ethnicity, language, social status and etc.
5.3 Final problem with identity argument
5.3.1 Kirloskar-Steinbach: “From the fact that a person benefits from one’s culture, one can’t jump to the conclusion that the culture in question needs to be protected.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Beiner: “Sheer possession of a given identity confers no normative authority on the kind of politics that goes with identity.
EMETERIO, Ma. Angela
BALDOS, Eunice
ERESE, Jun
SOLIMAN, Ylliza
ReplyDeleteSOTTO, Karel
1. Liberation Argument
1.1 It leads to a moral dilemma because those who are opposing to nationalism are prepared to be tolerated and endorse to the struggle of the oppressed people for autonomy.
1.2 Colonialism and Imperialism are on the basis of more universal principles such as human rights, equality, freedom or simply solidarity with the oppressed peoples.
1.2.2.1 Connor- independence movements have often been conducted in the name of self determination of nations, demands of political independence are not in accord with the geographical distribution of national groups but along with borders that delimited either the sovereignty or the administrative zones.
1.2.2.2 Connovan- animosity between colonizers and colonized was sometimes enough to unify the latter and create a brief illusion of nationhood during the struggle for independence.
1.3 the values it cherishes are often not upheld by nationalist movement themselves, which can turn out to be autocratic and oppressive
2. Identity Argument
2.1 The importance of national identities, namely their ability to provide a sense of continuity that enables individuals to transcend the limitations of their own existence and their centrality to human flourishing
2.2 respect for continuity inherent in national membership enables individuals to place themselves in a continuum of human life and creativity.
2.2.2 the nation contributes to self-transcendence.
2.2.2.1 MacCormick- human being as an individual has no more than a short span of life, and can never be in more than one place at a time.
2.2.2.2 Nielsen- human beings have deeply embedded and ubiquitous interest in self-identification and self-definition
2.2.2.3 Lichtenberg- questions about the universality of the need to identify with a nation-like entity or about the extent to which such identification contributes to a person’s flourishing
2.3 Margalit & Raz- centrality of national membership for human flourishing by pointing the importance of recognition
SOLIMAN, Ylliza
ReplyDeleteSOTTO, Karel
3. Cultural Context argument
3.1 - individuals are capable of making autonomous choices about their goals in life. But their ability to do so depends on the presence of a cultural context which provides the options from which the individual chooses and infuses them with the meaning. It means that individual has options to in making decisions and they are the one who shaping their own fate. But through these choices, they will choose the best basing on the background of their culture so that what happened in the past will not happen again
3.2 According to MacCormick, human beings are not extra-social atoms coming together voluntarily or otherwise to form societies. So in other words, our feelings and attachments, and commitments to other people are part of what makes us human.
3.3.1 First objection is the conceptual. As Lichtenberg points out, nations are cultures are highly problematic for at least three reasons. First, it is not always easy to distinguish one culture from another. Second, cultures are never pure; they contain elements of other cultures. Third, within each culture we find a multiplicity of subcultures whose members have a distinct sense of identity and belonging; the relationship between cultures and subcultures and between the concurrent loyalties of the members may be subtle and complicated.
3.3.2 Second objection, culture and autonomy. On Margalit and Raz’s logic, it would seem that familiarity with more than one culture would extend the boundaries of the imaginable, providing a person with even a braoder range of options. The cultural context argument does not explain why it is important to retain one’s existing culture. If culture in general is a precondition of autonomy, then it should not matter which culture an individual has. In fact, today, meaningful options come to us from a variety of cultural sourcers.
3.3.3 Third argument is the issue of preservation of cultures. If culture is valuable in so far as it contributes to the exercise of autonomy, then rights to the protection of culture should extend only to those cultures that value autonomy. Not surprisingly, cultures do not always value autonomy. According to Parekh, moral and social world have functions that are inseparable and dialectically related. This suggests that we must focus less attention on the value of culture as such than on the origins and workings of particular norms, practices and institutions
3.4 What is important is that an individual be able to belong to a culture, some culture or other, not that he be to belong, indefinitely, to any particular culture.
SOLIMAN, Ylliza
ReplyDeleteSOTTO, Karel
4. THE PUBLIC GOOD ARGUMENT
4.1 This argument takes a shared national identity to be the necessary condition for achieving political goals such as democracy and social justice
4.2 For Taylor, argues that democracies require a relatively strong commitment on the part of their citizens if they are to make the necessary contributions of money and sometimes of blood. The democratic state needs a healthy degree of patriotism. Patriotism helps to increase the economy of the country.
4.2.1 For Miller, claims that democratic government cannot function unless citizens trust one another. Trust is indeed a very important thing to make a one country progress.
4.2.2 For Moore, she argues that if there is a positive, mutually reinforcing relationship between national identity and democracy, then it is not the crude one that equates more nationalism with more and better democracy; but by facilitating the vertical dialogue between representative and constituent
4.2.3 A shared national identity is generates not only the mutual trust needed for the functioning of a stable democracy, but also collective solidarity, a precondition of distributive justice.
4.3 Tamir arguing that the liberal welfare state is predicated on certain national beliefs
4.4 Second problem, goes to the heart of the public good argument, and the alleged link between social justice and nationhood
4.5 Third problem, namely the idea that the nation is the main source of solidarity and mutual trust. Well, national identity, he reminds us, is often used in capitalist democracies to persuade working people that they should moderate their demands