Journals / Amme İdaresi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 2

A Critical Analysis of David Miller's Liberal Nationalism

David Miller'ın Liberal Milliyetçilik Savunusuna Eleştirel Bir Bakış

Pages
25–50
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Second, there exists a fundamental tension between liberalism's contractarian vision of political obligations and Miller's associative vision.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Although it is generally thought that liberalism and nationalism are two ideologies that do not get on well with each other, since 1990s there have been some efforts to reconcile them and to find a solid philosophical foundation in favor of a liberal nationalist position.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This paper focuses on the thought of David Miller, who has been of the most influential adherents of such a position.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Second, there exists a fundamental tension between liberalism's contractarian vision of political obligations and Miller's associative vision.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Although it is generally thought that liberalism and nationalism are two ideologies that do not get on well with each other, since 1990s there have been some efforts to reconcile them and to find a solid philosophical foundation in favor of a liberal nationalist position. This paper focuses on the thought of David Miller, who has been of the most influential adherents of such a position. In this paper, the main tenant of Miller's liberal nationalism, which is the proposition that 'we have special obligations to our co-nationals' will be criticized and it is going to be argued that this proposition violates some of liberalism's basic values in at least two ways. One, from a liberal perspective that is committed to universalist ethics and impartiality, it is quite difficult to justify the notion of a nationalist partiality. Second, there exists a fundamental tension between liberalism's contractarian vision of political obligations and Miller's associative vision.

Özet

Liberalizm ve milliyetçilik genelde birbiriyle pek iyi geçinemeyen ideolojiler olarak görülmesine rağmen, özellikle 1990'lardan itibaren bu iki ideolojinin birbiriyle harmanlanabileceği ve liberal milliyetçi bir pozisyonun sağlam felsefi temellere oturtulabileceği bazı düşünürlerce savunulmuştur. Bu yönde önemli bir çaba ortaya koyan David Miller'ın fikirleri bu makalenin odağını oluşturuyor. Makalede, Miller'ın liberal milliyetçi yaklaşımının temel önermelerinden olan 'aynı milliyete sahip insanların birbirine karşı özel yükümlülükler taşıdığı' tezi eleştirilecek ve bu önermenin en azından iki yönüyle liberalizmin temel değerleriyle çatıştığı savunulacaktır. Birincisi, liberalizmin benimsediği evrensel etik ve tarafsızlık perspektifinden milliyetçi bir tarafgirliğin temellendirilmesi oldukça zordur. İkincisi, siyasal yükümlülüklerle ilgili olarak liberalizmin benimsediği sözleşmeci pozisyonla, Miller'ın benimsediği ilişkiselci pozisyon arasında önemli bir gerilim vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YUMLU, O. (2017). A Critical Analysis of David Miller's Liberal Nationalism. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 2, 25–50. https://ajindex.com/articles/146064

References (24)

  1. .Baron, M. (1991), "Impartiality and Friendship", Ethics, Vol.101, No: 4, July, s.836- 857. Barry, B. (1995),
  2. Justice as Impartiality, Clarendon Press,
  3. Oxford. Bell, D. (1993), Communitarianism and its Critics,Clarendon Press,
  4. Oxford. Brighouse, H. (1998), "Against Nationalism", Couture J. ve Nielsen K. (Eds.), Rethinking Nationalism, University of Calgary Press, Alberta, s. 365-405.
  5. Caney, S. (2001), "International Distributive Justice", Political Studies, Vol. 49, No: 5, December, s.974-997.
  6. Caney, S. (2002), "A Reply to Miller", Political Studies, Vol.50. No: 5, December, s.978-983.
  7. Dworkin, R. (1986),
  8. Law's Empire, Fontana Press,
  9. London. Dworkin, R. (1975), "The Original Position", Daniels, N. (ed), Reading Rawls, Blackwell Publishers,
  10. Oxford. Gewirth, A. (1988), "Ethical Universalism and Particularism", The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 85, No. 6, June, s. 283-302.
  11. Godwin, W. (1793), An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, and its Influence on General Virtue and Happiness, Vol.1, G.GJ. and J. Robinson, London, http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/90 (28.03.2017)
  12. Hampton, J. (1998), "Contract and Consent", Goodin R. E. ve Pettit P. (eds), A Companion to Political Philosophy, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, s.379-393.
  13. Heywood, A. (1997),
  14. Politics, Macmillan, London. Hill, T. E. (1987), "The Importance of Autonomy", Kittay E. ve Meyers D. (eds), Women and Moral Theory, Rowman and Allenheld, Totowa, s.129-138.
  15. Hurka, T. (2001), "The Justification of National Partiality", MacMahan J. ve McKim R. (eds), The Morality of Nationalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, s. 139-157.
  16. Hutchins, K. (2010), "Global Justice", Hay, C. (ed), New Directions in Political Science, Palgrave Macmillan, London, s. 231-249.
  17. Jollimore, T. (2017), "Impartiality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed), URL = _____https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/impartiality/>. (07.04.2017)
  18. Knowles, D. (2010),
  19. Political Obligation, Routledge, Oxon. Kymlicka, W. (1998), "Community", Goodin R. E. ve Pettit. P. (eds), A Companion to Political Philosophy, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, s. 366-378.
  20. Kymlicka, W. (2001),
  21. Politics in the Vernacular, Oxford University Press,
  22. Oxford. Laitin, D. (2001), "Political Science", Motyl, A. J. (ed), Encylopedia of Nationalism, Academic Press, San Diago, s. 575-588.
  23. Mason, A. (2000), "Communitarianism and its Legacy", O'Sullivan, N. (ed), Political Theory in Transition, Routledge, London, s. 19-32.
  24. McMahan, J. (1997), "The Limits