Multiculturalism, Turkish Cultural Diversity, Theories of John Rawls - Research Proposal Example

? Table of Contents Chapter Introduction 2 1 Multiculturalism 3 2 Turkish Cultural Diversity 4 3 Theories of John Rawls……………………………………………………………………………………………………6 1.3.1 Justice as Fairness…………………………………………………………………………………7 Chapter 2. Research 9 2.1 Literature Review 10 Chapter 3. Findings 14 Chapter 4. Conclusion 15 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………………………....16 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………… Chapter 1. Introduction Conflict has always existed in society and it always will. It is an instance which is not directly a result or victim of any social phenomenon or occurrence, but rather a combination of factors over time. Theorists have come to believe that contributions to an engaged, politically aware form of multicultural theorizing may cast some light on political debate and public policy making. Not surprisingly, classical liberals such as Hayek (1976) insist that the contemporary liberal fixation on ‘the mirage of social justice’ leads them to ignore the way that freedom depends on a decentralized market based on private property, the overall results of which are unpredictable. Similarly, Robert Nozick (1974: 160ff) famously argued that attempts to ensure that market transactions conform to a specific pattern of holdings will involve constant interferences with individual freedom. No idealistic policy will address all of the needs of everyone, but instead will institute the greater good for society. A utopian society is the society that accepts this fact. A nation whose people are in riotous turmoil, such as Turkey, challenges this truth; declaring human nature and human imperfections as unjust. Not only can human rights be violated, but also used to exploit or institute other agendas. John Rawls views human rights as being constructed by reasonable people living together in a society. Rawls presents a more compassionate view of human rights, one with the greatest degrees of individual liberty and equality, while maintaining these rights for all. The state should distribute everything, including benefits, equally; unless an unequal distribution would benefit the poorer classes. The work of John Rawls is absolutely central in terms of the nature of reason, equality, justice or pluralism. It inspired us to consider how his principles might actually enlighten political issues arising in contemporary liberal democratic societies. The values of a governing agency can contrast with the personal values of the people. In many instances, only the outcome can determine whether the decisions were the right ones. In some instances, none of the choices seem appropriate. Regardless of the size or impact of the conflict, ethical decisions challenge the best of us, and ‘the right thing to do’ may elude common logic. This paper will address cultural diversity in the Turkish society and the view of John Rawls’ view of justice as a political conception. 1.1 Multiculturalism Multiculturalism is one of the most controversial issues of social justice in liberal democracies. Government and financial entities consist of culture, environment, strategies, and traits. The level of Values are reflected in a country’s culture. The most changing attributes are culture and traits. Cultures, traits and environments deviate from time to time, but not so far as to lose their original attributes. According to Cheeseman, the following standards should be implemented at all times (Cheeseman, 2010): Keep the peace and shape moral standards Promote social justice and maintain status quo Facilitate planning and orderly change Provide basis for compromise 90% Maximize individual freedom Minorities increasingly demand recognition and in some cases special rights and these demands are demands of justice. The line of distinction between the human beings and animals is not a human being’s ability to reason, no matter how great a capacity it may be. It is our ability to worship; to spiritually connect with things that are infinitely greater than ourselves. To surrender grandiose perceptions of self and of our surroundings; neither of which did we create. Liberalism, Liberty, and Freedom Liberalism is toleration of the differences in people. Freedom is the basic ingredient of liberalism. It is an ambiguous ingredient because, in reference to political and social justice, the concept of freedom is relative, not universal. Neither liberty, democracy, nor freedom have the same meaning across cultures. Liberty is a state of mind, not a state of being. Our thought processes are determinants of our state of being. Hence, Liberty cannot be given, taken away, or stolen, or bought. But rather, it must be relinquished voluntarily or abandoned by the thinker. This is because Liberty in any fashion, is a concept. 1.2 Turkish Cultural Diversity Since its inception as an independent nation, Turkey has experienced a continuous trail of human traffic, as people travelled in constant commute between Europe and Asia. The Ottoman, the Safavid and the Mughal Empires formed, respectively, between the 1400s and 1800s with autocratic rule. The Turkish Ottoman Empire made a considerable mark on the world during its era. Foreign invasions and attempts to occupy were rampant all over the world. Take-overs, as well as plays for power and expansion, were the tone of European leaders. Imperialism was the driving force. As the countries invaded, occupied, and expanded, some allowed the territories to retain their cultures. The Roman Catholic Church dominated religious theory. However, as the aggressor, Europe adopted different aspects of different cultures and political strategies. The religion of Islam was accepted in different parts of Europe. The Turks, Persia and India were farmers and believed in Islam. During this period Hindu and Christian ideas existed in small groups. As a result, the new cultures began to blend in with the Empire’s culture. From art to technology, cohabitation forced the integration of beliefs, governance and technology. However, politically, they were not driven to fellowship with other lands or adopt new ideas. After WWII, Turkey joined allegiance with the United States. The formation of the National Security Council in 1980 was a turning point for Turkey’s government, military strategies, and the Turkish people. Reform finally came through Ozal’s leadership. Political form Today, Turkey is considered a democratic nation. President Ozal was an economist by trade before entering office. Helped Turkey to become stable in many areas. Minorities and identities in the country such as religious communities, predominately ethnic communities and linguistic communities. Current languages of Turkey include the following (See Appendix A): Turkish Kurdish Zaza Arabic Circassian 1.3 Theories of John Rawls Any political or philosophical theory will be considered hypocritical by someone who is limited by it. Philosopher John Rawls acknowledged the necessity of government and the belief that justice ‘is the virtue of social institutions’ (Rawls, 192). John Rawls is considered an American Liberal; however, his political philosophies do not exclude the need for a governing body. In his writing Justice as Fairness (1921), Rawls speculates on the Ideal Society to include ‘justice with fairness’ (Rawls, 1921). Until now, we have assumed that justice is fairness. If it were not, we would not demand it. The real issue that lies beneath liberal passivity is the concept of opportunity cost. The most effective strategy to preserve the right to as one pleases is to grant others that same liberty. In order for liberty to exist, there must first be justice, otherwise, there would be no standard to measure liberty, or the lack of it. Rawls also states: “To employ the coercive apparatus of the state in order to maintain manifestly unjust institutions is itself a form of illegitimate force that men in due course have a right to resist” (Rawls, 1921). The only limitation to this thinking is that justice is imperfect and virtue is not. Justice in its highest form may only mediate and minimize. The perfection of Virtue must be defined by man, an imperfect creature. The motive for consent or at best, tolerance, is reciprocity. For Rawls, the default is representative of an equal distribution of income and wealth; only inequalities that best enhance the long-term prospects of the least advantaged are just. According to Rawls, the difference principle constitutes a public recognition of the principle of reciprocity: the basic structure is to be arranged such that no social group advances at the cost of another. Many have focused less on the ideal of reciprocity than the commitment to equality (Dworkin, 2000). An example of this can be found in gay marriages. In Rawls and Hobbs’ time, homosexual relationships were denounced, except in cultures of male dominance such as Greece. From the end of the 17th century to today, perspectives of same sex relationships have completely inverted from secrecy to demands for rights of legal, public marriage. It is here that society holds esteem for government intervention. The government must force society to accept a philosophy foreign to their own religious cultures. Rawls became increasingly preoccupied with the problem of pluralism: the question of how individuals of different moral beliefs could be persuaded to believe in and affirm the basic principles of justice in a constitutional regime. Rawls’s focus on the limits of pluralism is imagined principally in terms of political reconciliation of opposed religious views of the world, seeking a publicly recognised ‘overlapping consensus’ of common principles that would enable a workable framework of political decision making. 1.3.1 Justice as Fairness Emotion is the culprit behind many of life’s extremities. Even a terroristic movement starts with some degree of emotional conflict. Freedom of speech and self-expression do not have to deteriorate with a decline in society’s moral fiber. Rawls' theory of justice as fairness involves a central contention that principles of justice essential to the structure of a constitutional democracy must be viewed as political in contrast to more comprehensive moral, philosophical or religious doctrines. His concept of ‘overlapping consensus’ is an optimistic theory of different political cultures entering in agreement on political form despite different cultural and legislative backgrounds. Generally, people can agree to agree. In this fashion, a ‘modus vivendi’ would be instituted to reach mediation before the effects of a conflict escalate to greater consequences. According to Rawls (1921) the two principles of Justice are: 1) Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty of others. This principles causes speculation to review the perspectives of both parties, something that rarely happens in instances of protest. Rawls’ principle has been overlooked by those who have not looked past the basic liberty of freedom of expression. The second principle states: 2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they a) are reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to everyone (Rawls, 1921). This may occur when political issues are up for debate, however when policies have already been instituted, there is no opportunity to debate which is one reason why people protest. What is reasonable comprehensive doctrine? Chapter 2. Research Statement of the Problem Test out the possibility of J. Rawls’ doctrine “overlapping consensus” which refers to how supporters of different comprehensive doctrines can agree on a specific form of political organization, in Turkey. These doctrines can include religion, political ideology or morals. Significance of the Problem Turkey is a mosaic of different identities including religious, ethnic and linguistic. Therefore, many such multicultural dilemmas have indeed risen on the public political agenda of Turkey such as the opposition between anti-religious versus and more religion friendly secularism, Kurdish minority group. Scope and Limitations The study researches approximately 200 years of philosophy from several Traditional and Contemporary theorists in the areas of Classical Liberalism, Political and Social Liberty, Religion and Cultures, Justice, Law and Human Conscientiousness. Method The subject will be explored by a critical review of the literature. At first glance, this can be a beneficial approach to take in terms of clearly understand the main issues. 2.1 Literature Review Theories on human ideals, actions, and intellectual deficits reflect the times in which the theorists lived, religious culture, and political affiliation. According to Merriam-Webster, a welfare state is defined as: A social government structure ‘based upon the state’s assumption of responsibility for the welfare of its citizens’ (Merriam-Webster, 2013). Indeed, what was previously called ‘welfare state’ liberalism is now often described as ‘egalitarian’ liberalism” (Gaus & Courtland, 2011). The world is constantly in a state of change and its population has increased exponentially from 1886 to 2013. Therefore needs of society are much more intricate today, presenting greater challenges to achieve and maintain order. Although basic rights of self-expression, methods of worship, and social affiliations are important, so is the need for order. Incidents of riots and terrorism reflect the inability of mankind to self-govern. When the self-expression of a person or people imposes on the rights of others, the need for government is paramount. The perceptions of political and social liberty that conflict with order are not real. To believe that intervention suppresses liberty is naive. According to Isaiah Berlin (1969): “I am normally said to be free to the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with my activity. Political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. If I am prevented by others from doing what I could otherwise do, I am to that degree unfree; and if this area is contracted by other men beyond a certain minimum, I can be described as being coerced, or, it may be, enslaved.” This thought process is not rational. If the act is detrimental to the wellbeing of himself or others, it should be obstructed. A free person still has social responsibility. We can be bound by our thinking which causes us to do things that bring negative repercussions. Freedom is a state of the mind. Conflict is inevitable wherever the values of a culture contrast with the values of the legislative establishment. When conflict is on-going, decision making becomes complex, and the right thing to do is not so obvious. Sometimes, only the outcome will reveal whether the decision was a good one. Sometimes, there really is no correct choice. The decision-making process includes different perspectives of what is right, what is good and what is profitable to us. The perspective depends upon the source of the wisdom. According to Nickels, McHugh & McHugh (2010) the following is a rational decision-making model: 1) Define the situation 2) Describe and collect needed information 3) Define alternatives 4) Develop agreement where possible among those involved 5) Decide upon the best alternative 6) Do what is indicated (begin implementation) 7) Determine whether the decision was a good one Many associate constant conflict around the world as evidence of the absence of a God or Higher Power. According to Karl Marx, ‘religion is the opium of the people’ (Marx, 1843). Today, religion is the opium of some of the people. The remainder act at will. While government intervention is scrutinized by Western Liberalists, it is a part of maintaining World Order that should not ever become obsolete. According to Marx (1843): “Liberty lies in the realization of our ‘species-being’ or true human nature. Achieving liberty means ending alienation. Liberty is not a sphere of non-interference, but something we find in our connection to other people”. This is one of the only philosophies that does not attack intervention. Thomas Hobbs attempts to compensate for the lack of integrity involved in people’s choices: “For besides sense, and thoughts, and the train of thoughts, the mind of man has no other motion; though by the help of speech, and method, the same faculties may be improved to such a height as to distinguish men from all other living creatures” (Hobbs, 1651). His pessimism at such an early period in history assures us that the moral fiber of society as he knew must have been constantly challenged. Henry Thoreau expressed disdain for government in his writing, Civil Disobedience. According to Thoreau, “That government is best which governs not at all” (Thoreau, 1849). In 1894, the notion that society could govern itself without a government entity was plausible. Today, we know by the complexities of modern society that society with government is challenging and that society without government would be impossible. Philosopher John Rawls acknowledged the necessity of government and the belief Contemporary philosophers of politics and religion such as Adam Swift and Roger Scruton, theorize based upon the lack of dimension of tradition models. Philosopher Adam Swift (2006 ) comprised three distinctions between theories of liberty in his writing Political Philosophy: (1) effective freedom versus formal freedom (2) freedom as autonomy versus freedom to do what one desires to do (3) freedom of political participation versus freedom beginning where politics exclusive of politics. According to Swift (2006): “The core idea of negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people, including regulation and interference by the state”. His three points of positive freedom reject the ideals of negative freedom: 1) Formal v. effective freedom: formal freedom is the absence of interference; effective freedom involves the power to act. 2) Doing what one wants v. autonomy: someone can do what they want without being autonomous, if they are not in control of their desires. 3) Freedom as freedom from political interference v. freedom as political participation His ideals carry the same denotations of intervention; however, he labels it ‘interference’. Swift also criticizes political views of social justice, liberty, democracy, and equality for the community. Conversely, Roger Scruton (2006) advocates nationalism as well as the upholding of social customs and traditions in his theory of political philosophies. In his writing On Liberty, John Mill states: “Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion” (Mills, 1963). Mill (1964) felt government was necessary to accomplish ‘improvement of barbarians’ in society. However, he also viewed liberty and law as two points on opposite ends of the spectrum. He states; ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’ (Mills, On Liberty, p. 68). Chapter 3. Findings Is it possible to find any common ground between different identities in Turkey via Rawls’ theories? According to John Rawls’ concept of overlapping consensus, it is. Based upon his concepts, the Turkish identities can agree to agree despite differences in cultural and political beliefs. Chapter 4. Conclusion Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death” (Henry, 1775). We all have to die. However, freedom of speech and self- expression is not dead; however it requires adherences to a degree of etiquette which is defined by the nation’s culture. The motive for the London Riots could be noble, if they were centered upon the shooting of Mark Duggan. However, the motives for destroying parts of the cities and injuring others were mixed. It has been speculated that the participants of the riot were likely from low income areas in London which is consistent with the degree of looting that ensued. It is worth noting that the gun sting operation was directed towards a low income part of the population. It is here that Rawls (1971) ‘difference principle’ has failed in London’s structure of socio economic classes. According to wise King Solomon, ‘There is a time and a place for everything under the sun” (KJV). An altar is generally a place for repentance and sacrificial offerings in any religion, not a place of profane protest of government policies. The resolution of conflict is a tall order for the world to fill. From Adolf Hitler to Osama Bin Laden, the security of every corner of the world has been threaten by senseless violence. We can only hope that legislation, prayer or a combination of them will take us back to the time when boundaries existed in the minds and hearts of people, regardless of the perceived urgency of their agendas. Works Cited Cheeseman, H. (2010) Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues. 7 Ed. ISBN: 9780136085546 © Pearson Education Gaus, G. Courtland, S. (2011). "Liberalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Hayek, F. (1976). Law, Legislation, and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy, New pbk. Ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982. Hayworth, A. (1998). Free Speech (Problems of Philosophy). Routledge. ISBN 978-0415148047 Henry, P. (1775). Patrick Henry: Liberty or Death. Virginia Convention. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Social Contract Theory. Khan, U. (2013) Cover Page Photo: Turkish Woman. Turkish Government detains 13 in deadly car bombing. Retrieved from http://www.thenewstribe.com/2013/05/14/turkish-government-detains-13-over-deadly-car-bombing-attacks/ Kymlicka, W. (2001) Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780198782742 Lifo. (2013). Languages of Turkey Map. Retrieved from http://lifo.comcastbiz.net/25/language-of-turkey Lomasky, L. (1987). Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. New York: Oxford. University Press Mill, John Stuart. (1963). On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com. www.bartleby.com/130/. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia. Basil Blackwell. ISBN 978-0465097203. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Social Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Rawls, J. (2005). Justice as Fairness. Columbia Classics in Philosophy Series. Columbia University Press, 2005. Schmitt, C. (1927). Concept of the Political. University of Chicago Press. ISBN-13: 978-0226738925 Stringer, D. Satter, R. Culp, S. Selva, M., Wilson, S. (2011). London Riots 2011: ‘Worst Violence in Memory’ AP/The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/london-riots-2011-police_n_922328.html Swift, A. (2006). Political Philosophy. Balliol College, Oxford. ISBN 9780745635316 Thoreau, H. (1849). Civil Disobedience.1950 Civil Disobedience. Saugatuck, Conn.: The 5 x 8 Press. >First published in the Aesthetic Papers as “Resistance to Civil Government.” Appendix A Different Languages of Turkey, (lifo, 2013) http://lifo.comcastbiz.net/25/language-of-turkey Read More