Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 June 2015
One of the most important and divisive issues facing heterogeneous or culturally diverse states—and most states are culturally diverse—is the relation between these different cultures and the state.
This question was raised initially in contemporary liberal political philosophy in terms of the fruitful debate between liberals and communitarians. Sandel, for example, criticized Rawls’s A Theory of Justice and, by extension, all liberal theories for falsely abstracting from conceptions of the good, abstracting from culturallyspecific conceptions, and grounding his liberal principles in terms of an abstract Kantian individualism. Liberal theorists countered by complaining that communitarians falsely conceived of a single homogeneous community. Although Rawls’s revised defense of liberal justice in his 1993 book Political Liberalism does not refer directly to the liberal-communitarian debate, nevertheless, his new grounding of liberal political principles, as principles which would be acceptable to individuals with diverse conceptions of the good, seems to justify liberal principles in terms of contemporary conditions, and, at the same time, challenges the relevance of those theories which appeal to any notion of a homogeneous ‘community’.
1. Sandel, M Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
2. Kymlicka, W Liberalism, Community, and Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) at 78–79.Google Scholar
3. Rawls, J Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993) at 36.Google Scholar
4. Ibid, at 54-55.
5. Barry, B Theories of Justice (London: Harvester- Wheatsheaf, 1989) at 275.Google Scholar
6. Supra note 3 at 24.
7. Ibid, at 24.
8. Ibid, at 5.
9. Ibid, at 4.
10. Moore, M “Justice for Our Times” (1990) 23:3 Can. J. of Poli. Sci. 459 at 482.Google Scholar
ll. Supra, note 3 at 50-51.
12. Ibid, at 54.
13. Ibid, at 54.
14. Ibid, at 52.
15. Ibid, at 52.
16. Ibid, at 85-86.
17. Connor, W Ethnonationalism: the Quest for Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) at 48–50.Google Scholar
18. Connor, W The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984) at 209209–11, 305.Google Scholar
19. Supra note 3 at 12.
20. Ibid, at 12.
21. Margalit, A & Raz, J “National Self-Determination” (1990) 87 J. of Phil. 440.Google Scholar
22. McGarry, J & O’Leary, B The Future of Northern Ireland (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995).Google Scholar
23. Narveson, J “Rawls, Liberalism and Equality” (Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo, 1994) [unpublished] at 5.Google Scholar
24. lbid. at 5.
25. Supra note 2 at 195-97.
26. Cardinal, H The Unjust Society (Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig, 1969) at 1.Google Scholar
27. Berger, T A Long and Terrible Shadow (Vancouver, BC: Douglas & Mclntyre, 1991) at 107–09.Google Scholar
28. Supra note 3 at 85-86.
29. See supra note 22.
30. Supra note 5; Darwall, S Impartial Reason (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983) at 13–21.Google Scholar
31. Dunn, J Political Theory in the Face of the Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) at 55.Google Scholar
32. Tamir, Y Liberal Nationalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993) at 148.Google Scholar
