From Historical to Enduring Injustice

Spinner‐Halev, Jeff

doi:10.1177/0090591707304585

Cited by 40 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I do not have the space here to say why I think acknowledgement and not responsibility is the appropriate way for nations to treat the past, but this distinction is not important for my argument here. I do argue for this distinction in Spinner‐Halev (2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Democracy, Solidarity and Post-Nationalism

Spinner‐Halev

2008

Political Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly all democratizing states are also nationalizing, but this connection has not been adequately explained. A few scholars argue that nationality supplies democracy with a pre-political identity, while others maintain that nationality is often developed and manipulated by elites. I argue that national identity is a political identity, sustained by political institutions for political purposes, though this identity may contain some ethnic or abstract principles within it. The solidarity that national identity creates is most needed by democracies when they first emerge. Democratizing states need to build up institutions and create a culture of sacrifice, which they can do by creating a sense of solidarity among citizens. This solidarity is not only in the interests of the elites, but also benefits those in the dominant national group. The solidarity created by national identity is crucial to institution building, but it is also a source of inequality, since those not seen as members will often face discrimination or worse. The unfortunate side of nationalism has led some theorists to argue that liberal democracies need to move toward postnationalism if they are to reach the promise of equality and individual rights for all. Doing so, however, means separating identity from the state. I doubt this is possible; and I argue that post-nationalism means forgetting about national memories. Yet to honor rightly the past victims of nationalism we must engage in acts of remembrance. We cannot both bear the legacy of the past and easily move toward postnationalism. I work through these issues partly by way of Habermas who tries, unsuccessfully in my view, to reconcile post-nationalism with the retention of national memory. This is not an accident, but frequently a result of the need of emerging democracies to build up institutions and create a culture of sacrifice, which they can do

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Democracy, Solidarity and Post-Nationalism

Spinner‐Halev

2008

Political Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diversity in a plural society is caused not merely by differences of value. It can also be caused by historical factors—particularly by events that are perceived by some groups as an injustice committed against them (Thompson 2002 ; Spinner Halev 2007 , 2001 ). We have seen that Galston’s theory tries to promote toleration, expressive liberty and mutual interrelation.…”

Section: Justification Of Galston’s Liberal Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justification of Galston’s liberal pluralism

Azam

2016

SpringerPlus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liberal multicultural theories developed in late twenty-first century aims to ensure the rights of the minorities, social justice and harmony in liberal societies. Will Kymlicka is the leading philosopher in this field. He advocates minority rights, their autonomy and the way minority groups can be accommodated in a liberal society with their distinct cultural identity. Besides him, there are other political theorists on the track and Galston is one of them. He disagrees with Kymlicka on some crucial points, particularly regarding the scope of civil rights of the minority groups and the responsibilities of both majority and minority groups for the sake of social harmony and justice. He tries to develop a moral theory of mutualism based on inter-community toleration and constitutionalism. Considering toleration as one of the fundamental liberal virtues he contends that the majority government has the responsibility to make arrangement both for the members of majority and minority groups so that they can build inter personal relation and learn toleration. The paper critically justifies the feasibility of his theory in a liberal society and claims that although Galston’s theory has a higher possibility to be accommodated in liberal societies, it eventually fails.

show abstract

“…2, 1987) and Between Facts and Norms (1998). 1 A few scholarsnotably Robyn Eckersly (2001), Kristian Ekeli (2005;2007) and Robert Goodin (2000Goodin ( , 2003-have begun the important work of incorporating future concerns into deliberative models, yet much more needs to be done to push intergenerational justice issues to the center of our democratic imaginations. According to the theory, democracies achieve consensus through an intersubjective discussion of experience that allows people to "harmonize" worldviews and actions.…”

Section: Missing Generationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It thus looks both forward and backward, considering the political options and providing justification for one's claims and actions. In the backward shift, intergenerational responsibility involves something like Spinner-Halev's arguments about addressing “enduring injustice” (2007). 13 He argues that political communities have a responsibility to address these forms of injustice (although he eschews the language of “taking responsibility for the past”).…”

Section: Contemporary Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Birthrights: Freedom, Responsibility, and Democratic Comportment in Aeschylus'Oresteia

Markovits

2009

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T hrough an examination of Aeschylus' Oresteia, this essay argues for the critical importance of intergenerational justice to democratic theory. It explores the difficulties of democratic responsibility given the tension between necessity and freedom central to questions of intergenerational justice. The essay first details the relevant lacunae in the theories of two major figures of contemporary democratic theory, John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. It then develops an account of democratic responsibility that acknowledges human freedom to make decisions, even given the necessity created by the fact that individuals and communities inherit their own range of potential actions from previous generations. The essay elaborates this claim by examining how each of the central figures in the Oresteia deals first with the dilemmas inherited from the past and then with new situations engendered by his or her own actions. The essay concludes with a consideration of this aspect of democracy in contemporary political life. Every generation, by virtue of being born into a historical continuum, is burdened by the sins of the fathers as it is blessed with the deeds of the ancestors. -Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in JerusalemThus in all these ways we will transmit this City, not only not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.

show abstract

From Historical to Enduring Injustice

Cited by 40 publications

References 14 publications

Democracy, Solidarity and Post-Nationalism

Democracy, Solidarity and Post-Nationalism

Justification of Galston’s liberal pluralism

Birthrights: Freedom, Responsibility, and Democratic Comportment in Aeschylus'Oresteia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About