Between “us” and “others”: From identity traps to mobilization

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
L. Re
{"title":"Between “us” and “others”: From identity traps to mobilization","authors":"L. Re","doi":"10.4013/RECHTD.2020.121.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars and analysts stated that multiculturalism failed and blamed it for fostering radicalization in pluralist societies. Such analyses seem however to be simplistic. Other dynamics, such as social acceleration and the erosion of social securities are in fact at work. The article discusses the meaning of radicalization and the process of the “ideologization of cultures”, highlighting that an “identity trap” can be found in both simplified versions of multiculturalism and even interculturalism and in new nationalist ideologies. It then discusses the idea of localizing and proceduralizing conflicts, matching such a legal approach to pluralism with a necessary political one. The value of pluralism can in fact only be affirmed by mediating and ‘taking seriously’ the demands of social actors. To articulate such claims in terms of “politics of difference” is a losing move. At the same time, this approach has succeeded in revealing the limits of modern universalism. On the theoretical level, our efforts should build on the longstanding work carried out by critical theories in general and feminist theory in particular to seek to render universalism more inclusive. Indeed, such a conception of universalism, which takes shape and content from the multiplicity of struggles and is conceived as constantly forming can inspire not only the struggle for rights but also political action which, instead of breaking apart into multiple identity-based demands, identifies the common objectives to be pursued.","PeriodicalId":53186,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, Hermeneutica e Teoria do Direito","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, Hermeneutica e Teoria do Direito","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4013/RECHTD.2020.121.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many scholars and analysts stated that multiculturalism failed and blamed it for fostering radicalization in pluralist societies. Such analyses seem however to be simplistic. Other dynamics, such as social acceleration and the erosion of social securities are in fact at work. The article discusses the meaning of radicalization and the process of the “ideologization of cultures”, highlighting that an “identity trap” can be found in both simplified versions of multiculturalism and even interculturalism and in new nationalist ideologies. It then discusses the idea of localizing and proceduralizing conflicts, matching such a legal approach to pluralism with a necessary political one. The value of pluralism can in fact only be affirmed by mediating and ‘taking seriously’ the demands of social actors. To articulate such claims in terms of “politics of difference” is a losing move. At the same time, this approach has succeeded in revealing the limits of modern universalism. On the theoretical level, our efforts should build on the longstanding work carried out by critical theories in general and feminist theory in particular to seek to render universalism more inclusive. Indeed, such a conception of universalism, which takes shape and content from the multiplicity of struggles and is conceived as constantly forming can inspire not only the struggle for rights but also political action which, instead of breaking apart into multiple identity-based demands, identifies the common objectives to be pursued.
在“我们”和“他人”之间:从身份陷阱到动员
许多学者和分析人士表示,多元文化主义失败了,并指责它助长了多元社会的激进化。然而,这种分析似乎过于简单。其他动力,如社会加速和社会保障的侵蚀,实际上也在起作用。文章讨论了激进化的含义和“文化意识形态化”的过程,强调在多元文化主义甚至跨文化主义的简化版本和新的民族主义意识形态中都可以发现“身份陷阱”。然后,它讨论了将冲突本地化和程序化的想法,将这种多元化的法律方法与必要的政治方法相匹配。事实上,多元化的价值只有通过调解和“认真对待”社会行动者的要求才能得到肯定。从“差异政治”的角度阐述这些主张是一个失败的举动。同时,这种方法成功地揭示了现代普遍主义的局限性。在理论层面,我们的努力应该建立在批判理论,特别是女权主义理论长期以来所做的工作之上,以寻求使普遍主义更加包容。事实上,这种普遍主义的概念是从多种斗争中形成和内容的,并被认为是不断形成的,它不仅可以激励权利斗争,而且可以激励政治行动,而不是分裂成多种基于身份的要求,从而确定要追求的共同目标。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, Hermenêutica e Teoria do Direito (RECHTD) is published by UNISINOS three times a year and it aims to publish original research papers, articles for discussion and book reviews in the following areas: Hermeneutics, Constitution and Realization of Rights; Society, New Rights and Transnationalization. The articles or unpublished papers will be published in the language they were submitted and will be evaluated by at least two reviewers using the double blind review system. In other words, during the evaluation process the author’s name will not be revealed to the referees and neither the referees’ names will be revealed to the author.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信