The Amish are often cited as a paradigm illiberal group, mistrustful of and separated from the modern world. But the Amish practice of rumspringa complicates this common image. At age 16, Amish children are released from church strictures and given a year or more to “run around” in violation of Amish norms. Only after the opportunity to taste life with cars, electricity, alcohol, and rock and roll do Amish-raised teens decide whether to be baptized and enter the church. Consent must be express, never tacit: to paraphrase Locke, an Amish youth is born a member of no church. But is rumspringa a meaningful exit option? Are there plausible ways to make it more meaningful? What does this practice suggest about the debate between “toleration” and “autonomy” liberals, who divide over whether illiberal minority cultures ought to be accepted or somehow reformed? This paper brings a potent case study to the cultural rights debate and argues that both sides fundamentally err. While tolerance liberals tend to vastly underestimate what is required of a meaningful right of exit, autonomy liberals fail to appreciate how much intervention would be necessary to provide such a right. The Amish case suggests that the exit option is deeply flawed as the litmus test for whether and how minorities should be accommodated in a liberal polity.Steven V. Mazie is assistant professor of politics at Bard High School Early College in Manhattan and has taught previously at Bard College, New York University, and the University of Michigan (smazie@bard.edu). His articles have appeared recently in Polity, Field Methods, and The Brandywine Review of Faith and International Affairs. His first book, Israel's Higher Law: Religion and Liberal Democracy in the Jewish State, is forthcoming in early 2006. Earlier versions of this article were delivered at annual meetings of the Western Political Science Association (2003) and the Midwestern Political Science Association (2004) and in a Bard High School Early College Faculty Seminar (2005). The author would like to thank anonymous reviewers, the editors of Perspectives on Politics, and particularly Jennifer Hochschild for their valuable suggestions and criticisms. In addition, he is grateful to Herman Bontrager, Harry Chotiner, Andrey Falko, John Hagan, JoAnne Jensen, Donald Kraybill, Chandran Kukathas, Emile Lester, Carol Levy, Renanit Levy, Marc Olshan, Marek Steedman, Conrad Stern-Ascher, Jennifer Sutton, Lucy Walker, David Wiacek, Ed Wingenbach, Joe Wittmer, and Lee Zook.
I n the October 2003 issue of The New York Review of Books, Tony Judt declared the State of Israel an "anachronism." According to Judt, "the very idea of a Jewish state-a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded-is rooted in another time and place." 1 Judt's proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which effectively calls for the end of Israel as we know it, has its heart in a normative conception of the state that rejects any linkage between religion and constitution. Road map or no, Ariel Sharon or no, settlements or no, separation fence or no, Judt thinks Israel is illegitimate as a Jewish state because it is a Jewish state. Israel should abandon its illusory aspiration to be a "Jewish and democratic state" (as its basic legislation declares) and transform itself into a secular, democratic, bi-national state that embraces all the territory and all the people of historic Palestine. According to this political philosophy, the traditional nation-state-based as it is on the ethnic or religious unity of a majority and some degree of discrimination against minoritieshas no rightful place. Emerging in its stead, Judt writes, is cosmopolitan liberal democracy: "a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law." This trend leaves no room for nation-states like Israel-polities that promote a particular national character shaped by a particular religious tradition. Nor does it leave room for the development of other democracies in the Middle East which might entertain forms of religious establishment. Despite its sweeping scope, the kernel of Judt's argument may resonate with an American audience: its logic is the logic of separating church from state. But even a cursory survey of comparative politics reveals a host of states that challenge his view: Costa Rica, Great Britain, Bahrain, and Denmark, for example, all maintain institutional or symbolic connections with a particular religion and yet provide various elements of liberal governance (including religious freedom for religious minorities) to their citizens. Israel is another prime example-a state which regards itself as both Jewish and as liberal-democratic. But is a Jewish and democratic state possible? Can any sort of religious estab
Educational programs for gifted students face both philosophical and practical challenges from egalitarians. Some object that gifted schools inherently undermine a commitment to equality in education, while others observe that schools for talented students cater to privileged youth and effectively discriminate against disadvantaged minorities.This article taps into recent theorizing on equality to explore an illuminating case study: admissions policies at New York City's so-called `specialized' high schools. After dismissing less nuanced proposals on both ends of the spectrum,I draw upon Elizabeth Anderson's theory of `democratic egalitarianism' to argue that, while schools devoted to talented students could be seen as consistent with a commitment to equality, admissions policies for these schools must reach beyond meritocratic principles to ensure diversity in their student bodies. Racial and socioeconomic integration of social institutions, including schools — and elite schools perhaps most of all — should be a priority for those who care about democracy.
Social scientists who engage in qualitative fieldwork typically follow the ethnographic model of the single scholar in the field. We argue that collaboration in on-site participant observation is an underutilized but vital methodological tool, particularly in the case of one common form of communal conflict in the late-modern period: intense, multifocal events. At mass demonstrations, rallies with small groups of opposing forces, and other public events involving multiple actors, sights, sounds, and interactions, collaboration provides multiple perspectives in a given research moment that one researcher cannot, by definition, experience and observe alone. By joining forces, two researchers may exploit variations in their physical vantage points, disciplinary training, range of area knowledge, and personal background (including gender, ethnicity, religion, and class) to produce more accurate and more meaningful studies. We support our claims with evidence from our own impromptu on-site collaboration in the case of a women's prayer session at the Western Wall in Jerusalem in June 2000.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.