Krytycznie o „wyjściu”

M. Dudek
{"title":"Krytycznie o „wyjściu”","authors":"M. Dudek","doi":"10.14746/FPED.2014.3.1.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In multiculturalism, “exit”, or to be more precise, “right to exit” is very often thought of in terms of a condition of state’s non-interference in the minority groups. However popular, this account seems to be flawed with a number of controversial assumptions, questionable theoretical and practical implications and can lead to significant paradoxes. First of all, treating “exit” as a state’s non-interventionism condition also means that in fact representatives of minority groups should actually leave their communities in order to obtain all of the civil rights and liberties – be treated as “full”, not “partial” citizens. Various other problems connected with this account (i.a. the issue of general function of “right to exit” and civil rights and liberties or mutual relations between these two categories) presented and discussed in the paper justify a proposal of change of approach towards concept of “exit”. Either one should take really seriously the assumed normative character of it and construct a whole separate theory of “right to exit” from scratch, or maybe one should simply stop treating leaving one’s oppressive culture in terms of “right” or “freedom” and understand it only in descriptive manner.","PeriodicalId":52700,"journal":{"name":"Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filozofia Publiczna i Edukacja Demokratyczna","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/FPED.2014.3.1.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In multiculturalism, “exit”, or to be more precise, “right to exit” is very often thought of in terms of a condition of state’s non-interference in the minority groups. However popular, this account seems to be flawed with a number of controversial assumptions, questionable theoretical and practical implications and can lead to significant paradoxes. First of all, treating “exit” as a state’s non-interventionism condition also means that in fact representatives of minority groups should actually leave their communities in order to obtain all of the civil rights and liberties – be treated as “full”, not “partial” citizens. Various other problems connected with this account (i.a. the issue of general function of “right to exit” and civil rights and liberties or mutual relations between these two categories) presented and discussed in the paper justify a proposal of change of approach towards concept of “exit”. Either one should take really seriously the assumed normative character of it and construct a whole separate theory of “right to exit” from scratch, or maybe one should simply stop treating leaving one’s oppressive culture in terms of “right” or “freedom” and understand it only in descriptive manner.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在多元文化主义中,“退出”,或者更准确地说,“退出权”通常被认为是国家不干涉少数群体的一种条件。无论多么受欢迎,这种说法似乎存在一些有争议的假设,可疑的理论和实践含义,并可能导致重大的悖论。首先,将“退出”作为一个国家的不干涉主义条件,也意味着实际上少数群体的代表应该真正离开他们的社区,以获得所有的公民权利和自由——被视为“完全”公民,而不是“部分”公民。文件中提出和讨论的与这一说明有关的其他各种问题(即“退出权”的一般功能和公民权利和自由或这两类之间的相互关系的问题)有理由建议改变对“退出”概念的看法。要么我们应该认真对待它的规范性特征,从头开始构建一个完整的“退出权”理论,要么我们应该停止从“权利”或“自由”的角度来看待离开压迫性文化,而只是以描述性的方式来理解它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Revolutions as disasters of misconceived political projects of social mutations Does the Nobel Prize reflect current scientific and academic values? Development and Validation of the General Learning Motivation Regulation Scale for Chinese High Middle School Students Księga Arystotelesa o dyspozycjach dianoetycznych (intelektualnych) „Etyka nikomachejska” VI Lügenbegriffe und Lügenpraxis in der Moderne
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1