In recent years there has been much debate over whether recognition has displaced, or should displace, redistribution as the pre‐eminent concern of contemporary politics. That debate is not about whether we should continue to pursue an egalitarian ideal, since equality is as much a goal for the politics of recognition as it is for the politics of redistribution. In this essay, I address only issues of recognition and ask what kind of equal recognition we can reasonably demand or pursue. I (...) argue that we can expect to secure equal recognition of difference or particularity only if that recognition is mediated by more general forms of recognition. Certainly that approach is implied if we hold that difference should be recognised because that difference matters to the recognised rather than to the recogniser. Thus, I challenge the prevailing view that the politics of difference should replace the politics of universalism; rather, the politics of difference presupposes a form of universalism. I also use a distinction between status and merit recognition to indicate the difficulties that confront the goal of equal recognition if we insist that particularity or difference should be the object of unmediated recognition. I use cultural and religious identities as the main foci for my argument, but I also consider how far that argument translates to issues of sexuality and gender. (shrink)

As he recognizes, Taylor's view of practical reasoning commits him to the existence of incommensurable world-views. However, he holds that it is in principle possible to overcome these incommensurabilities. He has two major arguments for this conclusion, which I label the argument from the human condition, and the transition argument. I show that the first argument, though perhaps successful in the case Taylor takes as an example, cannot be generalized. The second argument is even less successful, since all the evidence (...) it produces is compatible with a thoroughgoing relativism. I point out, moreover, that even if Taylor's arguments were successful, they would not demonstrate that someone who chose to continue to reject the practice that had been vindicated would be irrational to do so. I conclude that there seems no way to circumvent the relativism to which Taylor's picture of practical reasoning leads. Key Words: incommensurability • practical reason • relativism • Charles Taylor. (shrink)

[The title in English: "Genealogy as Historical Ontology: On Foucault's Relationship to Nietzsche and Hermeneutics."] Foucault’n genealogiaa voidaan luonnehtia olemistamme konstituoivien valta–tieto-verkostojen määrittämien käytäntöjen historiallisen polveutumisen analyysiksi. Kysyn artikkelissani, miten Foucault’n genealogia määrittyy suhteessa Friedrich Nietzschen (1844–1900) ajatteluun ja hermeneuttiseen käsitykseen tulkinnasta. Tähän vastatakseni aloitan tarkastelemalla genealogian perusteita suhteessa Nietzschen perintöön, ja tässä yhteydessä nostan esiin myös ”perinteisen” historiankirjoituksen kritiikin. Tämän jälkeen käsittelen genealogian suhdetta tulkinnan teemaan, jolloin suhde Martin Heideggerin (1889–1976) jälkeiseen hermeneuttiseen tieteenfilosofiaan nousee keskeiseen asemaan. Samalla täsmentyy genealoginen (...) käsitys historiantutkimuksen luonteesta. Tavoitteenani on siis muotoilla sellainen Nietzscheen ja hermeneutiikkaan suhteutettu tulkinta genealogiasta, jossa toisinaan hajanaisilta vaikuttavat teemat ainakin suurimmaksi osaksi löytäisivät paikkansa. Tätä kautta avautuu myös myöhäisen Foucault’n ajatus genealogiasta filosofian ja historiantutkimuksen välimaastossa sijaitsevana ”historiallisena ontologiana”. (shrink)

In this paper I will argue that liberal multiculturalism is neither a necessary nor a convincing extension of liberalism. In evaluating the two main strands of liberal multiculturalism, I will first analyse the approaches of Charles Taylor and Bhikhu Parekh as the main proponents of the version that focuses on the cultures themselves and raises the issue of the value of cultures in connection with public discourse. I will then turn to Amy Gutmann and Will Kymlicka as liberal multiculturalists who (...) use the liberal norm of individual equality as a starting point. I will show that the arguments adduced in favour of liberal multiculturalism fail, due to the following shortcomings. Taylor’s approach is underspecified with respect to the relationship between the process of evaluating cultures and its outcome. Gutmann’s theory fails to bridge the gaps between the individual, cultural belonging and positive duties of the state. Parekh’s and Kymlicka’s theories lead back to liberalism. I conclude that the idea of cultural difference has little of substance to add to the liberal view of social justice. (shrink)

This dissertation addresses the question of marginalization in cross-cultural communication from the perspectives of hermeneutic philosophy and postcolonial theory. Specifically, it focuses on European colonialism‘s effect on language and communicative practices in Latin America. I argue colonialism creates a deeply sedimented but unacknowledged background of inherited cultural prejudices against which social and political problems of oppression, violence and marginalization, especially towards women, emerge—but whose roots in colonial and imperial frameworks have lost transparency. This makes it especially difficult for postcolonial subjects (...) to meaningfully express their own experiences of psychic dislocation and fragmentation because the discursive background used to communicate these experiences is made up of multiple, sometimes conflicting traditions. To address this problem, I turn to a strategic use of Nietzsche‘s conceptions of subjectivity and language as metaphor to engage the unique difficulties that arise in giving voice to the subaltern experience. Thus, I argue that while colonialism introduces an added layer of complexity to philosophical discussions of language, the concrete particularities and political emergencies of Latin American history necessitate an account of language that can speak to these concrete particularities. To this end, I develop a conception of, what I call, ―hydric life,‖ a postcolonial feminist hermeneutics that better accommodates these cultural specificities. (shrink)

Gadamer and Habermas both argue that some earlier theorists of interpretation in the human sciences, despite recognizing the meaningful character of social reality, still succumb to objectivism because they fail to conceive the relation of interpreters to their subjects in terms of cross-cultural normative “dialogue.” In particular, Gadamer and Habermas claim that the most prominent nineteenth-century philosopher of the human sciences, Wilhelm Dilthey, fell prey to a misleading Cartesian outlook which sought to ground the objectivity of interpretation on complete transcendence (...) of the interpreter’s present cultural and historical situation. This article challenges Gadamer’s and Habermas’s claim by arguing that new research on nineteenth-century hermeneutic thought reveals Dilthey to be much more aware of the reflexive, present-centered nature of historical research than they maintain and further that their own “dialogical” model of interpretation suffers from notable obscurities which Dilthey’s work itself helps expose. (shrink)

Like all great thinkers, Charles Taylor was able with his oeuvre to challenge and often change the vocabulary, habits and theoretical imaginary of his readers. In this sense, he deserves to be celebrated as a teacher in the broadest sense of the word. Especially remarkable is his mastery in making the complexity of our experience as modern men and women accessible. Now, the first thing that can be learned from his sane attitude towards modern epistemology is the resolve to embrace (...) what he once called "a hazy picture of history" , in which order and chaos coexist in the same picture as a warning for the purity seekers. Our view of history must remain somewhat hazy because, if we want to understand long-term change without resorting to an old-style philosophy of history, we have to do justice both to historical discontinuity and to historical continuity. Thus, understanding deep historical change means being able to combine a fair dose of theoretical recklessness and a good eye for the details. (shrink)