Overcoming Incommensurability through Intercultural Dialogue

Is universalism necessarily ethnocentric?  Are there inevitably incommensurable differences between diverse cultures and traditions?  While these questions may appear highly theoretical at first sight, they inevitably have significant practical consequences as witnessed by the prominent contemporary discourse about a "clash of civilizations” , on the one hand, and by the challenges confronting multicultural, on the other.  As these debates attest, the foregoing questions are truly significant because, if there is no genuine possibility of overcoming incommensurability by finding and building on common ground, the future looks bleak for intercultural relations, both internally and externally.  In revisiting pivotal issues at the heart of the Winchean rationality debates, and in drawing some selective comparisons with the Kuhnian incommensurability debates which came to the fore at a similar time, this paper draws on core hermeneutic insights to vindicate the tenability of a dialogical approach to the problem of intercultural communication and understanding, an approach which, it is contended, can give difference its due to the extent of stimulating a genuine and productive process of intercultural learning, in a manner that truly navigates between the Scylla of an ethnocentric universalism and the Charybdis of a self-sealing relativism, and thereby not only averts a destructive cultural stand-off or clash, but facilitates the emergence of  a well-grounded "fusion of horizons”

Situated Cosmopolitanism, and the Conditions of its Possibility: Transformative Dialogue as a Response to the Challenge of Difference

The challenge of accommodating difference has traditionally proved highly problematic for cosmopolitanism proposals, given their inherently universalistic thrust.  Today, however, we are acutely aware that in failing to give difference its due, we stand to perpetrate a significant injustice through negating precisely what differentiates diverse groupings and confers on them their identity.  Moreover, in an increasingly pluralistic and multicultural world it has become clear that doing justice to difference is an essential prerequisite for the internal flourishing as well as peaceable coexistence of diverse cultural and other groupings.  Accordingly, as a corrective for the homogenising presuppositions of highly a universalistic and decontextualised template like the Habermasian, the present paper defends the need for a situated, dialogical approach that can not only accommodate difference but also treat it as a resource for promoting mutual understanding and potentially transformative learning. In thus defending the merits of a situated, dialogical template, the present paper also seeks to shed light on the conditions of its possibility.  To this end, I argue the need to transcend significant structural limitations inherent in the Habermasian discourse model, while aspring to preserve and enhance its distinctive strengths.  Accordingly, I press the case for a thoroughgoing reappropriation of such core Habermasian tenets as the symmetrical reciprocity requirement, the anticipation of consensus as outcome, and a one-sided emphasis on argumentative deliberation as the sole acceptable means of achieving this.  Proceeding thus, I defend the merits of a situated cosmopolitanism grounded in plurivocal transformative dialogue as a counterbalance to an unqualified universalism.  Correlatively, I defend openness to otherness under appropriately structured dialogical conditions as the primary prerequisite for a viable cosmopolitanism capable of meeting the needs of an increasingly pluralistic and globalised world.  In the process, some notable points of contrast with Richard Shapcott's dialogical template are identified

Rationality, Dialogue, and Critical Inquiry: Toward a Viable Postfoundationalist Stance

pGiven the long-standing and deeply rooted intertwinement between reason and philosophy, there is a pressing need to reappraise our operative conceptions of rationality and critical inquiry in the wake of the transition from foundationalism to postfoundationalism.nbsp; For while opening up exciting new vistas, this transition poses perplexing problems regarding how we might go about justifying our knowledge claims without the possibility of recourse to incontrovertible foundations, indubitable starting points, or algorithmic procedures.nbsp; The challenge is all the more acute given that the turn to language and intersubjectivity that characterises this transition has fostered the proliferation of a diversity of competing and allegedly self-validating worldviews, that render the encounter with difference an indispensable feature of the contemporary epistemological landscape while reinforcing the threat of relativism and groundlessness./ppThrough engaging with the work of Juuml;rgen Habermas, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Michel Foucault, three theorists widely recognized as major contributors to the contemporary debate, the present paper responds to these problems by seeking to delineate the constitutive features of a dialogically-oriented conception of rationality and critical inquiry capable of meeting postfoundationalist needs.nbsp; In the process, it reinforces the advantages of the reading these theorists as complementary rather than as oppositional, as has typically been the case./

Georgetown’s First Six MOOCs: Completion, Intention, and Gender Achievement Gaps

This analysis of Georgetown’s first six MOOCs (massive open online courses) comprises three parts, moving from general to specific in scope. I begin with a discussion of demographic factors across all six courses, seeking to answer the following question: “Who takes, and succeeds in these courses?” Next, I discuss the relationship between stated intention and course performance with survey data from a pre-course survey for Georgetown’s very first MOOC, an economics course. I end by examining the gender achievement gap in the same economics course

Schisms of Swami Muktananda’s Siddha Yoga

Although Swami Muktananda’s Siddha Yoga is a relatively new movement it has had a surprising amount of offshoots and schismatic groups claiming connection to its lineage. This paper discusses two schisms of Swami Muktananda’s Siddha Yoga, Nityananda’s Shanti Mandir and Shankarananda’s Shiva Yoga. These are proposed as important schisms from Siddha Yoga because both swamis held senior positions in Muktananda’s original movement. The paper discusses the main episodes that appeared to cause the schism within Swami Muktananda’s Siddha Yoga and the subsequent growth of Shanti Mandir and Shiva Yoga. Nityananda’s Shanti Mandir and Shankarananda’s Shiva Yoga may be considered as schisms developing from a leadership dispute rather than doctrinal differences. These groups may also present a challenge to Gurumayi’s Siddha Yoga as sole holder of the lineage of Swami Muktananda. Because of movements such as Shanti Mandir and Shiva Yoga, Muktananda’s Siddha Yoga Practice continues and grows, although, it is argued in this paper that it now grows through a variety of organisations