Liberalni lingvistični obrat: pregled Kymlickovega argumenta svobode

This article revisits the principal argument Will Kymlicka has developed for a marriage between liberalism and multiculturalism: that the liberal value of freedom requires a cultural context of choice. I show that this freedom argument rests on a romantic philosophy of language. Critics of this freedom argument have pointed out that it is not necessarily an individual’s own culture that provides freedom: any culture could do so. I articulate a romantic-Kymlickean response to this critique by showing how individuals’ life choices come to be entwined with the particular culture that provides their context of choice. But while that safeguards existing individuals from assimilation, it does not block future generations from being introduced into the life-world of an additional cultural context. Such slow intergenerational assimilation projects are not necessarily worrisome, however. They can sometimes have the virtue of realizing non-identity values in addition to freedom.Članek ponovno premisli glavni Kymlickin argument zveze med liberalizmom in multikulturalizmom: da liberalno vrednotenje svobode zahteva kulturni kontekst izbire. Hkrati članek pokaže, da ta argument svobode temelji na romantični filozofiji jezika. Kritiki omenjenega argumenta so namreč poudarili, da svobode ne zagotavlja nujno posameznikova lastna kultura, temveč jo lahko omogoči katerakoli kultura. Avtor na omenjene kritike poda romantično-Kymlickijanski odgovor, s katerim pokaže prepletenost posameznikovih življenjskih odločitev s tisto kulturo, ki določa njegov kontekst izbire. Toda medtem ko ta današnje posameznike varuje pred asimilacijo, prihodnjim generacijam ne preprečuje izbire dodatnega kulturnega konteksta. Počasni medgeneracijski asimilacijski projekti niso nujno zaskrbljujoči, saj lahko poleg omogočanja svobode prispevajo k uresničevanju z identiteto nepovezanih vrednot

The British Academy Brian Barry Prize Essay: mandatory citizenship for immigrants

Long-term immigrants often have the option but not the obligation to acquire citizenship in their state of residence. Contrary to the received wisdom, this article defends the idea of mandatory citizenship for immigrants. It suggests that the current asymmetry in the distribution of political obligations between native-born citizens and immigrants is unfair. It also argues that mandatory citizenship is required by the principle that those who persistently affect others should share a democratic setting. Finally, it claims that mandatory citizenship is more compatible with the ideal of democratic equality and more conducive to a stable society

Subordinate language recognition

In this paper, I zoom in on linguistic justice for language groups who do not enjoy either local territorial dominance or equality with other language groups within the state. My question is: is there a separate linguistic justice category for such language groups whose recognition is ‘subordinate’ to that of other language groups? Does subordinate linguistic justice exist? A positive answer would mean that groups who belong to the category would not necessarily want to look at territorial dominance or equality as the proper ideal of linguistic justice: subordinate linguistic justice would not be an oxymoron. The answer I develop is indeed positive; it is possible for language groups to be in such a position of subordination while justice is fulfilled, but only under certain conditions. Nonfulfillment of one of these conditions generates reasons of justice for such groups to emancipate themselves from the position of subordination.status: publishe

Testing for Linguistic Injustice: Territoriality and Pluralism

© 2014, © 2014 Association for the Study of Nationalities. This article develops a linguistic injustice test. Language policy measures passing the test conflict with the normative ideal of equal language recognition. The first part of the test checks for external restrictions – language policies that grant more recognition to one language group than to another. The second part of the test checks for internal restrictions – language policies that grant more recognition to some members of a language group than to other members of the same group. The article then applies the linguistic injustice test to two models of linguistic justice: linguistic territoriality and linguistic pluralism. It is argued that real-life cases of linguistic territoriality tend to pass the test. It is argued that instantiations of linguistic pluralism tend to fail the test.status: publishe

Linguistic justice for non-native speakers of English

status: publishe

The Linguistic Territoriality Principle. A Critique

In this essay, I develop a critique of the linguistic territoriality principle, which states that, for reasons related to the value of language identity, language groups should be territorially accommodated. While I acknowledge the desirability of implementing a linguistic territoriality principle in some specific cases, I claim that this principle is in general inappropriate for the `post-Westphalian' linguistic world in which we live. I identify, analyze and reject two distinct justifications for the linguistic territoriality principle: the Linguistic Context justification and the Language Survival justification. Finally, I argue for different means of giving political recognition to the fact that most people value their language as an importance source of identity. This alternative theory sets out to officially recognize multiple languages in a given territory.status: publishe

Let’s Brusselize the world!

In verschillende artikels, vooral in ’Moet Europa Belgisch zijn?’, heeft Ph. Van Parijs geargumenteerd dat de Europese en globale taalpolitiek op een ’Belgische’ wijze moeten worden georganiseerd. Deze Belgische oplossing bestaat erin dat territoria officieel eentalig zijn, zoals dat ook grotendeels het geval is in de Belgische gewesten Vlaanderen en Wallonie. Maar Belgie heeft een derde gewest, Brussel, met een officieel tweetalig taalbeleid. Philippe argumenteert voor de universalisering van het Vlaanderen/Wallonie-model. Ik argumenteer voor de tegenovergestelde positie: de universalisering van het Brusselse model

Language, Identity and Justice

Introduction 1. Intellectual History and Normative Political Philosophy - a Note on Method INTELLECTUAL HISTORY 2. The Renaissance Tradition: from Dante to Simon Stevin 3. The Roots of the Conflict between the Enlightenment and the Romantic Traditions 4. The Enlightenment Tradition and French Revolutionary Language Politics 5. Herder and the Romantic Tradition NORMATIVE THEORY TODAY 6. The Three Traditions Today 7. Linguistic Neutrality 8. Linguistic Nationalism 9. Linguistic Pluralism IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LARGER DEBATE 10. Nations Beyond Nationalism 11. Federalism as Fairness Conclusion Acknowledgments Referencesnrpages: 312status: publishe

Was and is Zionism Just? On the morality of Jewish self-rule in the land of Israel

status: publishe