Political Thoughts For Behalf Of Subaltern Groups

The concept of dignity

Discuss about the Political Thoughts for Behalf of Subaltern Groups.

Among various strands existing in contemporary policies, Taylor focuses upon three basics agendas such as “turn on the need, for recognition and sometimes the demand”.  The need can be identified as one among the influencing forces which govern the national movement in regards of politics. The demand comes into existence in multiple ways in era of today’s politics i.e. on the behalf of subaltern groups, in the face of feminism, also what is remarked as multiculturalism (Taylor, 1997). However, the demand for recognition is realized by the supposed interlinks in between identity and acknowledgment.

This involves designating an individual’s understanding of who they are and relative fundamental characteristics associated within. In the event of non-recognition it can lead to amount of real distortion and harm.  It can also result in an outcome of oppression, imprisonment, dissortment in addition to the minimized mode of human being. In this context, feminists argue that in patriarchal societal areas females are enforced to predict a depreciatory picture of their existence (Abbey, 2014).There is a generous serene of inferiority which restricts the famine even to grap the new opportunities instead provosts the fall of low self-esteem. In the limelight of aforesaid, there has been an analogous point made in the relative aspects of black: the white individuals have been forecasting the uncertified image of the former. The self-depreciationinfant gave rise to the persuasive problems of subjugation. The misrecognition is an outcome of lack of due respect present (Taylor, 1994).

The ancestors of centuries ago stared on impassively note on the account of the current use of former terms. The distinguistion can be made on the preoccupied nature of recognition and identity. Firstly, the mixture of social hierarchical levels which was previously the basis for honor. The honor is used in regime sense which therefore is related to inequalities (Fenton & Mitchell, 2002).  The aforesaid sense has been used in the conceptual framework of portrayal of dominion. Honor intrinsically is subjected as a matter of preferences. Against the conception of honor, the modernized impression of dignity is now used in an egalitarian and Universalist way. The underlying concept governing is that everyone shares it on the whole. Also, it is obvious that the idea of dignity is companionable within the democratic society in addition to the superseded activity of old concept. This also signifies that varied forms of even recognition have been an important concern to democratic culture. The frames of democracy have escorted the demand for equality of status.

Theory of recognition

Moreover, the essence of recognition has been transformed and intensified through the new developed understanding of people’s identity. In the era of eighteen century, this has been particular to the discovery of ME and I discover in myself. Therefore, it states of being true to one’s own existence. This also notifies of the ideal which brings the philosophy of being true to oneself and a selective way of being in existence. The human beings are capable with the intuitive feeling of what is right and what is wrong (Thompson, 2006). The matter arises is of the consequences which is fretful with the divine recompense as well as castigation. The resultant is an outcome of anchored feelings rather than dry calculation. The concept of authenticity brings out the factor of displacement in the moral accent of the idea. Although, being in close relation with the moral feelings comes as a resultant means towards the end of right activity. In order to analyses the new being, the analogy of prior moral values needs to be scrutinized.  The subjective turn in this area is in the form of realization of inner peace in depths (Kant, H. (2016).The very first initials of the new view were on the grounds of theistic in nature and not pantheistic.  In the same direction, the writer who did his phenomenal contribution towards the theory of change was named as Jean Jacques Rousseau. The popularity is the outcome of something which was articulating in the culture.

There are basically two forms of recognition as per the Taylor’s theory; firstly it is connected with the movement from honor to the end of dignity. This form of politics emphasizes the uniform level dignity within the preface of first and second class citizens. The focus is directed on the treatment which is equal and unvarying. Secondly, with advent of development of identity “politics of difference” states that there shall be a unique recognition of each individual within a group (Coulthard, 2007).

 The arguments have been made in the light of “theory of difference blind politics” by Rawl’s and others. The aforesaid have been come into existence on the basis of dignity associated. In order to justify the same, these arguments should be well versed in regards of the claim that assenting action policy has been initiated by African Americans.  This temporary reaction will eventually surpass the level of playing field in addition to the allowance of “old blind rules” which are expected to be advantage for everyone (Tully, 2000). The politics of dignity is driven by the ideology of all humans are worthy of equal respect because of the indeed capacity which each individual share. The status as rational agents has been pointed out as single. The politics of difference is assessed as the potential for defining and forming the respective identity which departs the former significantly. At the end, it concludes that whatsoever the cultural produces, it needs to be in accordance with the equal value.

Arguments against the proposed theory of Taylor

The dialectic nature in between the two run ways are on the following grounds of: the politics of dignity entails it is thought of dealing people in the difference blind manner. It is desired to opt for the recognition and foster of particularity. The previous approaches violate the belief of nondiscrimination. In contrast, the latter reprimands not only by demanding that it negates the original identity but it also claims the allegedly uniform set of differences of blind principles (Anderson,  Rungtusanatham & Schroeder, 1994). In short, it reflects out as one of the prominent factor of hegemonic culture. Apparently, it custodies the politics of dignity along with the imposing nature of false homogeneity.

There is also an argument of the existence of link in between the membership of the cultural group and the formation of an identity which can be expanded. In clear, this also entails that an individual can become a member of the diverse cultural groups at the same point of time.

This agenda have shown existence in the events of Yugoslavia about the pointing of the multiculturalism. The detail includes the wisdom of solitary sex schools as well as about the fairness of affirmative action. Taylor’s argument favors the wide range of existing social struggle regarding feminism to cover the earlier colonized people. The resultant can be found in Canada over the Quebec status in the area of district province. It can be also addresses as the demand to analyze the distinctive characteristics of particular group acknowledged (Fraser, 2009). The demand comes in the confiscatory nature with the grownup traditions of liberalism which have been based upon the notions of rights among human beings. The Taylor’s approach forecast the reconfiguration of tolerance which can moderately respond in comparison to the follow ups of previous traditions.

The strain realized by the rivalry actioners configures the central and key determinant issues of identity at the generalizable value across the midst of various social group as well as contexts. In this regard, Susan Wolf pointed the question on the applicability of certain claims on feminism. In justification of the claim raised the former identifies that is merely a symptom of larger issues governing the policies underlying. The gap lies in the thinking mechanism of contemporary commentators in regards of the identity differentiations (Voice, 2005). Certainly, all those who are agrumenating against the Taylor’s predefined theory are the one who have the acknowledgments of the particular group in the public life which leads towards the factors of social fragmentation and hostility. For example in the above case- the opponents are believed to have something in common with the nationalist Serbs. At the same phase, Taylor favors to defend the notion of public life with the more inclusion of community specific goals.

The identity of recognition: to be or not to be

Conclusion

Therefore, it can be concluded that Taylor surely highlighted the cultural membership as one of the crucial factor in defining of identity. However, it also takes into account that culture so adopted gets wholly recognized. Significantly, the nonappearance of social recognition is expected to have strong adverse impact on the self-esteem within the members of a particular group. The demand for the acclimatization is not feasible because of the fact it ignores the linkage in between of the cultural membership and formation of the respective identity needs (Lash & Featherstone, 2001). It is based on the strong ratio of commitment on the side of individuals towards the respective cultures. The work of Taylor also admits that gateways of attaining the cultural survival are believed to be at odds in context of liberal values. Moreover, the conflict is sustained on the platform of intimate and social recognition. As per Taylor’s thesis the former are necessities in the formulation of an identity.

The relative practices of collective goals for the cultural survival can prove harmful to the women. But in this concern, the solution lies in the defining of the identities in dialogue with the significant contribution of others. In case of lop siding of the dialogue proposed due to the set of cultural practices, the instinct ability to acquire the intimate recognition is expected to be muffled. The survival of practices is accompanied with the cultural survival which generates the prologues of tension between intimate and social recognition.  Both of them are in the confiscatory nature with each other. Previously, due the burden which the cultural survival brings on future generations and also it is not neutral on the vacationers. Secondly, the demand for recognition takes the notion of what it considers to the cultural groups to be more rigid in form. This notion restricts the cultural members to deviate from the path and find the new doorways. The recognized problems can be alleviated by the increase in criteria’s of politics of difference. This kind of expansion also promotes the membership with the differentiated cultural groups. Meaningfully, it also generates less monolithic and exclusive stance towards the cultural dealings.  It also regulates the perceivance of conflict in between two diverse cultural groups’ members in addition to the movement within. As a result, it alleviates the existence of tension between cultural survival and liberal values. With the presumption of an individual that choices need not be absolute, the former have the option which is liberal in nature as far as it is need in aspect of resolvance. In the same manner, factors governing women harm can be lessen by the selection of less patriarchal option. A politics of difference is must in order to secure the cultural survival.

References 

Abbey, R. (2014). Charles Taylor. Routledge.

Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method. Academy of management Review, 19(3), 472-509.

Coulthard, G. S. (2007). Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’in Canada. Contemporary political theory, 6(4), 437-460.

Fenton, E., & Mitchell, T. (2002). Growing old with dignity: a concept analysis. Nursing Older People (through 2013), 14(4), 19.

Fraser, N. (2009). Social justice in the age of identity politics. Geographic thought: A praxis perspective, 72-91.

Lash, S. & Featherstone, M. (2001). Recognition and difference. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/02632760122051751?journalCode=tcsa

Kant,   H. (2016). Charles Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition”. Retrieved from https://politicalnotmetaphysical.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/charles-taylor-the-politics-of-recognition/

Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism. Princeton University Press.

Taylor, C. (1997). The politics of recognition. New contexts of Canadian criticism, 98, 25-73.

Thompson, S. (2006). The political theory of recognition: A critical introduction. Polity.

Tully, J. (2000). Struggles over recognition and distribution. Constellations, 7(4), 469-482.

Voice, P. (2005). Book Review: Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange.