Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (5):57-86 (1999)
|Abstract||While theorists of cultural pluralism have generally supported tribal sovereignty to protect threatened Native cultures, they fail to address adequately cultural conflicts between Native and non-Native communities, especially when tribal sovereignty facilitates illiberal or undemocratic practices. In response, I draw on Jürgen Habermas' conceptions of dis-course and the public sphere to develop a universalist approach to cultural pluralism, called the 'intercultural public sphere', which analyzes how cultures can engage in mutual learning and mutual criticism under fair conditions. This framework accommodates cultural diversity within formally universalistic parameters while avoiding four common criticisms of universalist approaches to cultural pluralism. But this framework differs from that of Habermas in two ways. First, it includes 'subaltern' publics, open only to members of cultural subgroups, in order to counter relations of 'cultural power'. Second, it admits 'strong' publics, democratic institutions with decision-making powers. Finally, I show how the subaltern, strong institutions of tribal sovereignty contribute to the fair discursive conditions required for mutual learning and mutual critique in an intercultural public sphere. Key Words: Habermas Kymlicka Native peoples sovereignty tribal.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Hsin-I. Liu (2006). The Impossibility of the Public. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 2:119-124.
Angelique EagleWoman, Strate V. A-1 Contractors: Intrusion Into the Sovereign Domain of Native Nations.
Paul Healy (2000). Self-Other Relations and the Rationality of Cultures. Philosophy and Social Criticism 26 (6):61-83.
Codruţa Cuceu (2011). Milestones in the Critique of the Public Sphere: Dewey and Arendt. Journal for Communication and Culture 1 (2):99-110.
Asaf Bar-Tura (2010). Arendt, Habermas and Facebook: Participation and Discourse in Cyber Public Spheres. Humanities and Technology Review 29:1-25.
Agnes S. Ku (1998). Boundary Politics in the Public Sphere: Openness, Secrecy, and Leak. Sociological Theory 16 (2):172-192.
Clifton Perry (2004). A Reductio Ad Absurdum of Restricted, Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (2):253-262.
John S. Brady (2004). No Contest? Assessing the Agonistic Critiques of Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere. Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (3):331-354.
Agnes S. Ku (2000). Revisiting the Notion of "Public" in Habermas's Theory-Toward a Theory of Politics of Public Credibility. Sociological Theory 18 (2):216-240.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #68,257 of 722,932 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,932 )
How can I increase my downloads?