No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Reconciliation Through the Public Use of Reason
Abstract
L'A. critique la conception de la justice de J. Rawls qui, fondee sur des principes deontologiques, ne fait pas de distinction entre les questions de justification et les questions d'acceptation, d'une part, et l'autonomie privee et l'autonomie publique, d'autre part. Dans l'article suivant intitule «Reply to Habermas» («The Journal of Philosophy», vol. 42, n°3, mars 1995, pp. 132-180), J. Rawls explique la signification de son liberalisme politique
... Before accepting any principles, people might want to deliberate about the form they wish to give to their social, political, and economic institutions. Disrespecting the primacy of a dialogical approach (Habermas, 1995) is inconsistent with the idea of democratic sovereignty, it demotes democratic processes to a lower status and it is also a way to encourage a technocratic administrative form of politics (Forrester, 2021, p. 235). ...
Despite the accusation of developing an abstract theory, detached from real conditions, depoliticizing, and ultimately inclined towards the status quo, Rawls did not fail to analyze, since 1971, the political-economic conditions in which his theory could become viable. The analysis of this topic concludes with the statement that the principles and ideals of his theory could not be satisfied under capitalism in any of its forms. This article discusses the possibilities of making justice as fairness compatible under a capitalist welfare state and shows that the reasons Rawls presented for denying this possibility remain perfectly valid. The difficulties of a welfare state to curb the tendencies of capitalism towards undemocratic inequality make it unviable. The article defends that, although it is a noble ideal to avoid that no one should fall below a certain social minimum, the requirements of the principles of justice are much more demanding. The article concludes by defending Rawls's methodology and main arguments and showing that far from having depoliticizing effects, justice as fairness allows us to broaden the political imagination both to denounce the high oligopolistic character of capitalist economies and to combat the omnipresent inclination of neoliberalism towards economic efficiency.
... In light of such unapologetically dogmatic pronouncements, even authors strongly in favor of his "political liberalism" (see Nussbaum, 2007, p. 6), became chary (cf. the apologetic view of Weithman, 2016). With good reason: Rejecting the direct implementation of certain moral and metaphysical convictions as raison d'état is one thing (Larmore, 1997), excluding all such worldviews as participants from the public discourse quite another (Habermas, 1995). ...
Business ethicists disagree on whether John Rawls's political philosophy can be applied to their questions and concerns. They concur, however, that, if warranted, such an application of his theory would be highly instructive for the field. This article scrutinizes that assumption. The paper examines to what extent a normative import of Rawls's philosophy into business ethics would indeed render adequate results. Highlighting shortcomings of Rawls in regard to several pressing concerns of contemporary business ethics, the paper ponders whether, for purposes of normative guidance and conceptual orientation, Rawls's theory can meet the expectations that its adherents foster.
... Prostorom koji je omeđen ustavom bi trebalo da vladaju konstitucionalno uspostavljene norme i procedure, to jest, svi oblici političkih i ekonomskih ispoljavanja treba da se nadovezuju na konstitucionalne i pozadinske "meta-norme". 125 Bez sumnje, konstitucionalnoj ravni se mora dodati i demokratski momenat u znaku "ekviprimordijalnosti" po kojoj uopšte figurira "konstitucionalna demokratija". ...
Evolution of political parties has been significantly influenced by media development. Parties used media for different purposes during their history. Media influence changed the internal party organization and party communication with voters. Parties were pressured to found press and information offices, to name spokespersons, to deal with public opinion surveys, and to hire consultants and experts agencies. Professionalization of electoral campaigns is reflected by party media orientation, personalization of politics, decreased level of party program importance and introduction of permanent campaigns. Media influence on political parties change party typology by introducing electoral-professional party which is lead by professionals dealing with specialized tasks. These parties do not relay on constituency opinion, they are dominated by incumbents, most of their finances are public (state budget finances) in opposition to membership fees (e. g. trade unions), their ideologies and programs has less relevance, while electoral success counts as primary goal. Party programs and political contents are not only presented and disseminated, but also shaped and created by media. Parties are trying to shape and to follow public opinion at the same time. They lost battle against media when it comes to agenda setting. Development and usage of internet produced „network parties“ and „Cyber parties“, while web sites, social networks and mailing list become unavoidable in modern political party. Contemporary media party is lead by professional management of political communication, subjection of persons and content to logic of media, domination of party center in decision making, increased flexibility of political position and decreased importance of role and importance of mass membership for electoral campaigns.
According to deliberative democracy theories, decisions taken by citizens through deliberation have greater legitimacy for those concerned. It may therefore be worth examining to what extent and at what level the decisions and recommendations of deliberative bodies are taken into account in the decision-making process of a given country. The paper presents a metric which, based on the analysis of specific aspects – the embeddedness of already implemented practices in decision-making, their deliberative level and the scope of the practices – indicates the extent to which a given country applies the results of deliberative bodies’ deliberations to the decision-making process. The metric was tested on a sample of 27 EU Member States and four groups were identified in terms of the embeddedness of deliberative practices in decision-making: Laggards, Emergers, Aspirers and Exemplaries.
The volume includes a series of reflections – with a marked interdisciplinary character – on the current legal status of the principle of solidarity. In each of the contributions included in the book the authors investigate, based on different perspectives, whether the principle of solidarity today influences the relations occurring among the members of the different human communities, and, consequently, whether and to what extent the relevant legal orders give concrete realization to the value of solidarity. The theme of solidarity is in particular addressed under the perspectives of its interconnection with the social contract, of the fiscal aspect, as well as of international law, with a special focus on human rights.
If Sister Helen Prejean’s anti-death penalty book Dead Man Walking (1993) suggests the return of the scapegoat in a narratively light manner, then The Executioner’s Song (1979) does so with nothing less than bloody vengeance; as Norman Mailer made clear on multiple occasions the sordid tragedy of Gary Gilmore constitutes nothing less than the wholesale refutation of the secularist conceits of liberal America. Gilmore presents us with a remainder so indivisible, an accursed share so unassimilable, a lacuna so perfectly empty, that the legal system lacked the vocabulary to successfully name him: an accused sentenced to death who wages all-out legal warfare against those who were trying to stop his execution. By so adamantly, and so publicly, calling for his death at the hands of the State of Utah out of his own free will, Gilmore had improbably seized for himself the mantle of sacrificial victim within a post-theistic world. Even more noxious to the liberal pluralist was Gilmore’s motivation for doing so: religious belief. Mailer accepts in toto Gilmore’s professed belief in reincarnation; so compelling was Gilmore that Mailer himself converted to the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Even more interesting from a Girardian perspective is the astonishing account provided by Gary’s brother Mikal in Shot in the Heart (1994): Gilmore’s seemingly pre-destined pilgrimage toward his mimetic enactment of Mormon blood atonement as a skandalon to public reason. On the issue of sacrifice Mikal Gilmore’s text vastly supersedes Mailer’s otherwise excellent The Executioner’s Song; with the latter we move into the domain of the uncanny, Gary Gilmore having been literally marked at birth as a sacrificial offering of spilt blood—death by firing squad.
Realist thinkers in political philosophy often criticize ideal theorists for neglecting or eliminating the fact of politics in their work. This is supposed to be problematic because we should never expect to overcome politics. Any theory that attempts to do so is said to be unrealistic, naïve, and impractical. Although much has been said in the dispute between realists and ideal theorists in recent years, this particular line of criticism, which should be distinguished from other criticisms of ideal theory, has not been clearly or explicitly addressed by ideal theorists in the literature. I deal with this issue by examining the ideal theory of John Rawls, which has been a prominent target of realist criticisms. My aim is to see where politics exists, or might exist, in Rawls’s theory, and whether this politics satisfactorily answers to the various aspects of the realist’s critique. My analysis suggests that there may be no inherent or necessary conflict between ideal theory and real politics, after all.
This chapter explores how trauma, such as forced displacement, is manifested in the children and grandchildren of refugees. After a brief discussion of what generational trauma is, the chapter focuses on what teachers and school leaders can do when they are working with students whose families have been displaced. A framework is provided.
Al resultar en peligro la «estructura fundamental política y constitucional» de un Estado, un número creciente de Tribunales constitucionales nacionales plantea «argumentos identitarios» en oposición a la «primacía» del derecho de la Unión. Este trabajo quiere averiguar en qué medida estos argumentos sean «aceptables» a la luz de la evolución de los criterios interpretativos del Derecho que el proceso de integración europea ha provocado. Resulta que la fuerza de persuasión de dichos argumentos es máxima si se presentan como «derechos de resistencia» capaces de proteger y restaurar el equilibrio constitucional general que la Unión ha alcanzado: a este arreglo, cada violación de derechos e intereses sustanciales debe ponerse en relación con la respectiva infracción formal a la soberanía nacional. Mientras ambos estos elementos estén involucrados, los argumentos identitarios, pese a prevenir la aplicación uniforme del derecho de la Unión, no impiden el camino de la integración sino guardan su correspondencia con la constitucionalización de la Unión, y por ello han de considerarse compatibles con el derecho del espacio jurídico-político europeo.
In a well-functioning democracy, must citizens regard one another as political equals, despite ongoing disagreements about normatively significant questions of public policy. A conception of civility is needed to supply citizens with a common sense of the rules of political engagement. By adhering to the norms of civility, deeply divided citizens can still assure one another of their investment in democratic politics. Noting well-established difficulties with the very idea of civility, this essay raises a more fundamental problem. Any conception of civility faces the problem of semantic descent, the phenomenon by which second-order norms devolve into tools for conducting first-order disputes. The problem of incivility in politics thus is not simply that of designing a suitably inclusive view of what civility demands. It might be that political civility can be cultivated only by way of interactions that are themselves not at all political.
How to deepen the connections between culture, Nature and society is a pressing issue confronting human communities in the modern Anthropocene. These connections are explored using frameworks from the debates between philosophical internalism and externalism. The aim of the framework is to make it a democratic and moral endeavour beyond the constraints of a narrow economic focus, for the betterment of all democratic citizens in environmental and social crises.
Se presenta aquí brevemente la teoría de la justicia elaborada por Rawls, primeramente sobre una base moral, y luego (en el llamado segundo Rawls) la teoría de justicia desde una perspectiva política, con la que Rawls intenta justificar también la existencia del Estado, mediante un contrato social. Se analizan después las primeras críticas realizadas a su teoría. Se sostiene la tesis de que la conveniencia se convierte, sin desearlo, en utilidad, en Rawls, y ésta se convierte en sinónimo de justicia. Se critica esta concepción dado que la elección hecha por la mayoría, para la conveniencia de la mayoría, no hace a una ley justa. Se advierte, además, que la idea de la igualdad considerada, sin más, sinónimo de justicia social, requiere una profunda reflexión. Se realiza, pues, un análisis de los presupuestos de la idea de justicia rawlsiana en cuanto parece identificarse con la idea de utilidad general y distorsionándose la misma idea de justicia.
The subject of research is social relations in the field of legitimacy of positive law in the modern state. Methodology. The methodological basis of the study is the methods of induction and deduction, dialectical-materialistic method, method of analysis and synthesis, historical method, which allowed to objectively comprehend the content and essence of the issues under study. The purpose of the article is a theoretical and legal study of the legitimacy of law as its justification and recognition. The results of the study are: the legitimacy of law from the point of view of the theory of communicative rationality is investigated; the historical and theoretical process of development of interaction between subjects and the process of recognition, legitimation of norms in society as a social evolution is investigated; the development of the ideas of legitimacy and moral consciousness in the modern legal order is investigated; the tendencies of legitimization of positive law in the modern state on the basis of morality are determined; the peculiarities of ensuring the legitimacy of power through the legitimacy of law are highlighted. Conclusions. Law and modern morality stem from traditional relations, and they are interconnected. Legal norms are not just orders, they are fulfilled not only out of fear of coercion, but also out of respect for the law. However, for this, the legal order must be legitimate, enjoy the authority of citizens, and this is possible only if the positive law does not contradict the moral norms shared by a given society. The legitimacy of law lies, first of all, in the development of the legal basis of state and social life. But the meaning of the legitimacy of law in a society that calls itself democratic is seen not in the mere fact of existence and strict implementation of even legally perfect legislation, but in the extent to which it comprehensively embodies universally recognized humanistic goals, ideals, and values. Among them are the recognition of the people as the exclusive source of power and law, the rule of law, separation of powers, inadmissibility of usurpation and unlimited power, equality of all before the law and the court, inviolability of justice, etc. Of course, it is about fundamental human rights and freedoms with the legislative consolidation of the state's obligations to ensure and protect them. The legitimacy of law is the idea, requirement and system of real expression of law in the laws of the state, in lawmaking itself, in subordinate lawmaking with the steady recognition and perception by the population of the state.
Society as it is: Legitimization and genealogy after Rawls
As a result of a static conception of politics and society, John Rawls’s political philosophy justifies a current form of society. By neglecting the historical formation of social institutions, Rawls fails to acknowledge the historical changes and the political struggles that attempt to highlight the endless new forms of alienation. By contrast, a genealogical approach could develop a strong conception of ideology better suited to make sense of social history and its injustices, and thus produce a thorough criticism of the presuppositions of social institutions.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. A burgeoning human rights movement followed, yielding many treaties and new international institutions and shaping the constitutions and laws of many states. Yet human rights continue to be contested politically and legally and there is substantial philosophical and theoretical debate over their foundations and implications. In this volume, distinguished philosophers, political scientists, international lawyers, environmentalists and anthropologists discuss some of the most difficult questions of human rights theory and practice: what do human rights require of the global economy? Does it make sense to secure them by force? What do they require in jus post bello contexts of transitional justice? Is global climate change a human rights issue? Is there a human right to democracy? Does the human rights movement constitute moral progress? For students of political philosophy, human rights, peace studies and international relations.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. A burgeoning human rights movement followed, yielding many treaties and new international institutions and shaping the constitutions and laws of many states. Yet human rights continue to be contested politically and legally and there is substantial philosophical and theoretical debate over their foundations and implications. In this volume, distinguished philosophers, political scientists, international lawyers, environmentalists and anthropologists discuss some of the most difficult questions of human rights theory and practice: what do human rights require of the global economy? Does it make sense to secure them by force? What do they require in jus post bello contexts of transitional justice? Is global climate change a human rights issue? Is there a human right to democracy? Does the human rights movement constitute moral progress? For students of political philosophy, human rights, peace studies and international relations.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. A burgeoning human rights movement followed, yielding many treaties and new international institutions and shaping the constitutions and laws of many states. Yet human rights continue to be contested politically and legally and there is substantial philosophical and theoretical debate over their foundations and implications. In this volume, distinguished philosophers, political scientists, international lawyers, environmentalists and anthropologists discuss some of the most difficult questions of human rights theory and practice: what do human rights require of the global economy? Does it make sense to secure them by force? What do they require in jus post bello contexts of transitional justice? Is global climate change a human rights issue? Is there a human right to democracy? Does the human rights movement constitute moral progress? For students of political philosophy, human rights, peace studies and international relations.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. A burgeoning human rights movement followed, yielding many treaties and new international institutions and shaping the constitutions and laws of many states. Yet human rights continue to be contested politically and legally and there is substantial philosophical and theoretical debate over their foundations and implications. In this volume, distinguished philosophers, political scientists, international lawyers, environmentalists and anthropologists discuss some of the most difficult questions of human rights theory and practice: what do human rights require of the global economy? Does it make sense to secure them by force? What do they require in jus post bello contexts of transitional justice? Is global climate change a human rights issue? Is there a human right to democracy? Does the human rights movement constitute moral progress? For students of political philosophy, human rights, peace studies and international relations.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. A burgeoning human rights movement followed, yielding many treaties and new international institutions and shaping the constitutions and laws of many states. Yet human rights continue to be contested politically and legally and there is substantial philosophical and theoretical debate over their foundations and implications. In this volume, distinguished philosophers, political scientists, international lawyers, environmentalists and anthropologists discuss some of the most difficult questions of human rights theory and practice: what do human rights require of the global economy? Does it make sense to secure them by force? What do they require in jus post bello contexts of transitional justice? Is global climate change a human rights issue? Is there a human right to democracy? Does the human rights movement constitute moral progress? For students of political philosophy, human rights, peace studies and international relations.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. A burgeoning human rights movement followed, yielding many treaties and new international institutions and shaping the constitutions and laws of many states. Yet human rights continue to be contested politically and legally and there is substantial philosophical and theoretical debate over their foundations and implications. In this volume, distinguished philosophers, political scientists, international lawyers, environmentalists and anthropologists discuss some of the most difficult questions of human rights theory and practice: what do human rights require of the global economy? Does it make sense to secure them by force? What do they require in jus post bello contexts of transitional justice? Is global climate change a human rights issue? Is there a human right to democracy? Does the human rights movement constitute moral progress? For students of political philosophy, human rights, peace studies and international relations.
The return of religion to the public sphere raises various dilemmas. Rights and values, pluralism and identity, justice and efficacy, autonomy and tradition, and integration and toleration cannot always be balanced without the loss of something valuable. This volume of essays tackles such dilemmas from two perspectives. To begin, major contemporary theorists rethink the place of religion in the public sphere from republican, liberal and critical-theoretical viewpoints. Contributors then bring together theory and practice to better conceptualize and assess the latest developments in European jurisprudence with respect to religion.
O objetivo central deste artigo é tematizar sobre a ontologia social holista que é pressuposta na teoria da justiça como equidade de Rawls como forma de aproximar seu liberalismo das teses centrais dos comunitaristas, em especial de Charles Taylor. Também, pretendemos esclarecer o significado do termo “razoabilidade” e o papel especial que esta categoria exerce na teoria rawlsiana, como forma de responder às críticas da pretensa fraqueza epistemológica do “razoável”.
Contextualização: O processo de dissolução do ethos, em que se sustentava a racionalidade moderna, põe a questão da reconstrução do consenso democrático numa sociedade secularizada e inserida na aldeia global, cujas expectativas de estabilização e integração contam com a regulamentação jurídica. Nessa seara, almeja-se repensar o paradigma do Estado Democrático de Direito, a fim de se (re)legitimar a cooperação democrática e social em um contexto de crescente complexidade. Objetivo: Objetiva-se apontar caminhos a serem trilhados, em termos de viabilização da práxis da reiteração democrática, como via de revitalização do legado normativo constitucional, que conte com uma adequada hermenêutica que atualize princípios constitucionais, nos quais se condensam os valores fundantes da comunidade político-jurídica. Isso ensejando um movimento circular hermenêutico que reative o “nós” político-jurídico, qual fonte legitimadora do convívio estatal que apela ao vetor emancipatório da dignidade humana. Metodologia: Utilizou-se o método histórico-hermenêutico. Resultado: Como resultado, traz-se uma maior adequação do aparelho conceitual do discurso político-jurídico ao estágio atual de desenvolvimento do Estado Democrático de Direito.
In recent years, leading public reason liberals have argued that publicly justifying coercive laws and policies requires that citizens offer both adequate secular justificatory reasons and adequate secular motivating reasons for these laws and policies. In this paper, I provide a critical assessment of these two requirements and argue for two main claims concerning such requirements. First, only some qualified versions of the requirement that citizens offer adequate secular justificatory reasons for coercive laws and policies may be justifiably regarded as plausible liberal principles of public justification. And second, the requirement that citizens offer adequate secular motivating reasons for coercive laws and policies is untenable on multiple grounds. Public reason liberals should focus on assessing the justificatory reasons offered for and against coercive laws and policies rather than requiring citizens to offer adequate secular motivating reasons for such laws and policies.
This article will attempt to show how Habermas turns away from a critical-phenomenological perspective and towards an analytic and pragmatic understanding of language and society. I want to point out that there is minimal phenomenology in Habermas’ appropriation of the concept of Lebenswelt. I concede that Habermas provides us with a fascinating re-assessment of some classical elements in the philosophy of Edmund Husserl, but in his “Critique of Functionalist Reason,” he seems to abandon most of the methodological elements that would allow us to call his own method “phenomenological.”
Weaponized in support of deregulation and self-regulation, “ethics” is increasingly identified with technology companies' self-regulatory efforts and with shallow appearances of ethical behavior. So-called “ethics washing” by tech companies is on the rise, prompting criticism and scrutiny from scholars and the tech community. The author defines “ethics bashing” as the parallel tendency to trivialize ethics and moral philosophy. Underlying these two attitudes are a few misunderstandings: (1) philosophy is understood in opposition and as alternative to law, political representation, and social organizing; (2) philosophy and “ethics” are perceived as formalistic, vulnerable to instrumentalization, and ontologically flawed; and (3) moral reasoning is portrayed as mere “ivory tower” intellectualization of complex problems that need to be dealt with through other methodologies. This article argues that the rhetoric of ethics and morality should not be reductively instrumentalized, either by the industry in the form of “ethics washing”, or by scholars and policy-makers in the form of “ethics bashing”. Grappling with the role of philosophy and ethics requires moving beyond simplification and seeing ethics as a mode of inquiry that facilitates the evaluation of competing tech policy strategies. We must resist reducing moral philosophy's role and instead must celebrate its special worth as a mode of knowledge-seeking and inquiry. Far from mandating self-regulation, moral philosophy facilitates the scrutiny of various modes of regulation, situating them in legal, political, and economic contexts. Moral philosophy indeed can explainin the relationship between technology and other worthy goals and can situate technology within the human, the social, and the political.
Social inclusion is often used as an ideal aim in many policy statements at all levels. The ideal is nevertheless very imprecise and is interpreted in different ways. Here we attempt to define linguistic inclusion from its negation, by identifying moments of felt linguistic exclusion. When just over 50 members of the Russian-speaking population in the province of Tarragona, Spain, were asked if they had felt excluded because of language or culture, a surprising 53% of them said they had. In order to portray the background and motivations for those feelings, we explore the cases of six interviewees from this community. The interviewees were selected to represent different lengths of intended stay in Spain and thus different reasons for mobility. The results show that linguistic exclusion is certainly felt in official situations where Spanish or Catalan are required and no mediation services are available, but also in more general situations set up by the policy-based promotion of Catalan and, in one instance, because of the low levels of English spoken in the region. The instances of exclusion help motivate immigrants to learn the dominant language, Spanish, but they to nevertheless express little interest in the territory’s traditional language of inclusion, Catalan.
The notion of deliberative democracy has been a subject of scholarly attention since Joseph Bessette first coined the term some 40 years ago. Generally understood as ‘the idea that legitimate lawmaking issues from the public deliberation of citizens’, the theory of deliberative democracy seeks to provide answers to questions that have haunted political theory since the dawn of modern democracy.
THE PALGRAVE HANDBOOK OF TOLERATION aims to provide a comprehensive presentation of toleration as the foundational idea associated with engagement with diversity. This handbook is intended to provide an authoritative exposition of contemporary accounts of toleration, the central justifications used to advance it, a presentation of the different concepts most commonly associated with it (e.g. respect, recognition) as well as the discussion of the many problems dominating the controversies on toleration at both the theoretical or practical level. The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration is aimed as a resource for a global scholarly audience looking for either a detailed presentation of major accounts of toleration, the most important conceptual issues associated with toleration and the many problems dividing either scholars, policy-makers or practitione
A concern with social justice is at the centre of social theory and is one of the key factors behind the development of theory-driven approaches to understanding society. Implied conceptions of justice can be found across the theoretical spectrum, but there have been more explicit interventions that aim to develop comprehensive theories of justice. This chapter provides an outline of each of these, including two theories that aim to measure justice—John Rawl’s notion of justice as fairness and Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s justice as capability approach. Also included is the debate over recognition and redistribution between Axel Honneth and Nancy Fraser, the place of solidarity in debates over justice and a discussion of care ethics as an alternative to justice theory.
Stakeholder participation is a requirement for environmental decision-making in the European Union. Despite this, numerous instances can be seen in water governance in which stakeholders feel undervalued and unheard, thereby creating unfavourable procedural outcomes, resistance and conflict. In this article, we propose that a process of early-stage deliberation constructed around the values of the stakeholders involved can reduce, and even prevent such conflicts. We suggest that if values that stakeholders perceive as relevant can be identified and discussed as part of the deliberation process then (1) stakeholder preferences can change, and (2) participants can develop a mutual understanding of each other’s values and perspectives. To explore these propositions, facilitated workshops were conducted at two Dutch water institutes, based around the topics of land subsidence and the pharmaceutical contamination of water systems. Participants deliberated on values that they considered relevant. The results suggest that mutual understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives increases as a result of value-based deliberation.
Segregation—which is sustained and reinforced by practices and structures of exclusivity—has been, and continues to be, a noticeable characteristic not only of US-American society but also of US-American sociology. Indeed, ‘at least until the 1960, […] two distinct institutionally organized traditions of sociological thought—one black and one white’—have shaped Anglo-American discourse. Yet, the latter has largely eclipsed—if not systematically effaced—the former, almost to such an extent that one may get the misleading impression that non-white US sociology has never really existed in the first place. Challenging this misconception, it is essential to recognize that sociology—in the USA and beyond—has been significantly shaped by numerous black scholars, such as W. E. B. Du Bois, E. Franklin Frazier, and Oliver Cromwell Cox—to mention only three prominent examples. These—and, arguably, many other—‘African American Pioneers of Sociology’ have been systematically excluded from the US sociological canon, as if they were unworthy of being treated as fully fledged members of the Anglo-American community of social-scientific researchers.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.