Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for :

  • "value pluralism" x
Clear All
Free access

Derek Edyvane and Demetris Tillyris

‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing’. -Archilochus quoted in Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox, 22

The fragment from the Greek poet Archilochus, quoted in Isaiah Berlin’s essay ‘The Hedgehog and the Fox’, serves as a metaphor for the long-standing contrast and rivalry between two radically different approaches to public ethics, each of which is couched in a radically different vision of the structure of moral value. On the one hand, the way of the hedgehog corresponds to the creed of value monism, reflecting a faith in the ultimate unity of the moral universe and belief in the singularity, tidiness and completeness of moral and political purposes. On the other hand, the way of the fox corresponds to the nemesis of monism, the philosophical tradition of value pluralism, to which this collection of essays is devoted. This dissenting countermovement, which emerges most clearly in the writings of Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire, Bernard Williams and John Gray, is fuelled by an appreciation of the perpetuity of plurality and conflict and, correspondingly, by the conviction that visions of moral unity and harmony are incoherent and implausible. In the view of the value pluralists, ‘there is no completeness and no perfection to be found in morality’ (Hampshire 1989a: 177).

Restricted access

'Richly Imaginative Barbarism'

Stuart Hampshire and the Normality of Conflict

Derek Edyvane

By way of an engagement with the thought of Stuart Hampshire and his account of the ‘normality of conflict’, this article articulates a novel distinction between two models of value pluralism. The first model identifies social and political conflict as the consequence of pluralism, whereas the second identifies pluralism as the consequence of social and political conflict. Failure to recognise this distinction leads to confusion about the implications of value pluralism for contemporary public ethics. The article illustrates this by considering the case of toleration. It contends that Hampshire’s model of pluralism offers a new perspective on the problem of toleration and illuminates a new way of thinking about the accommodation of diversity as ‘civility within conflict’.

Restricted access

Demetris Tillyris

Contra the prevalent way of thinking about the dirty-hands problem, this article suggests that dirty hands need not necessarily entail suffering and that a politician who does not suffer for his dirty-handed acts should not be cast as a bad politician. In so doing, the article: (i) argues that the connection between DH and suffering is unsatisfactorily totalising and rests on a contentious conception of conflict as a dysfunction and (ii) develops an alternative account of the good dirty-handed politician, which is associated with what proponents of the prevalent view of the problem find impossible: calm acceptance of – even indulgence in – one’s dirt. This recognition has important implications for our contemporary culture of contrition and for the way we evaluate the characters of our politicians.

Restricted access

From a Transcendental-Semiotic Point of View, by Karl-Otto Apel (edited by Marianna Papastephanou). Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998. Reviewed by Iain MacKenzie

Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed, by William E. Connolly. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002. Reviewed by Duncan S.A. Bell

Liberalism and Value Pluralism, by George Crowder. London: Continuum Publishers, 2002. Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice, by William Galston. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Reviewed by Shaun Young

Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society, by Stephan Fuchs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001 Reviewed by Roger Deacon

The Liberal Model and Africa: Elites against Democracy, by Kenneth Good. Basingstoke. Palgrave, 2002. Reviewed by Raymond Suttner

Life Support: The Environment and Human Health, (edited by Michael McNally). Boston: MIT Press, 2002. Reviewed by Julia de Kadt

Revolt, She Said, by Julia Kristeva (translated by Brian O’Keeffe). Cambridge, Mass.: Semiotext(e), 2002. Reviewed by Clayton Crockett

Frantz Fanon: A life, by David Macey. London: Granta, 2001. Reviewed by Derek Hook

On Belief, by Slavoj Zizek. London: Routledge, 2001. Revolution at the Gates: Selected Writings of Lenin from 1917, edited and with a commentary by Slavoj Zizek. New York: Verso, 2002. Welcome to the Desert of the Real, by Slavoj Zizek. New York: Verso, 2002. Reviewed by Derek Hook

Restricted access

Michael Saward

How can we theorize about democracy? We can identify the major topics that form the focus of democratic theorists (and others traversing the field), such as democracy’s meaning and value. This article focuses on the methodological lenses through which the topics have been and can be viewed. Different lenses bring into focus different phenomena, questions, and problems of democracy. It is argued that the lenses that bring conventional democratic theory approaches into view can provide an unnecessarily narrow and restrictive perspective. Donning different methodological lenses can introduce alternative perspectives, such as renewed attention to value pluralism and the “everyday.” The article sketches four “circles” that capture different potential types of and sources for theoretical work, some of them radically unconventional. It concludes by discussing the specific example of how methods and assumptions of design theory can prompt promising new approaches to theorizing about democracy.

Restricted access

Adrian Albano, Els van Dongen and Shinya Takeda

The Philippines is one of the many countries that currently acknowledge the presence of indigenous peoples (IPs) within their territories. This acknowledgment often comes with a formal recognition of the rights of IPs, including the right to practice their customary laws. Because of the equal existence of overarching state laws, this formally leads to a situation of legal pluralism for IPs. For many forest conservation advocates, legal pluralism for IPs, particularly with regard to land ownership and forest management, is expected to help conserve forests. This expectation, however, is founded on the erroneous assumption that the traditional land use of IPs is nondestructive and that traditional land ownership is communal. Using a relatively long historical perspective, this article demonstrates that these assumptions do not apply to the Kalanguya of Tinoc, the Philippines. In contrast to the notion of IPs being market-averse, this article further demonstrates that many Kalanguya have been and remain “capitalists”. The article favors the inclusion of a market-based forest conservation policy, which is arguably consistent with the reality of value pluralism.