Dergiler / Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 3

TOLERANCE, MIGRATION AND HYBRID IDENTITIES: NORMATIVE REASONING OF INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE IN A BLURRING STRUCTURE

Sayfa
10–22
Yayın Tarihi
2016-12-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The authors of this study hope that their endeavours may contribute somewhat towards that.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The aim of this study is to proof the argument – i.e. ‘there are significant linkages amongst tolerance, hybrid identities and migration.’ These linkages can be comprehended by means of conceptualising extensions of hybrid identities in aggregate trans/inter-migration processes.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:So far, normative arguments and soft law approaches are very much well integrated with social aspects of migration, tolerance, identity and culture.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The authors of this study hope that their endeavours may contribute somewhat towards that.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Tolerance · Migration · Hybrid Identities

Özet

The aim of this study is to proof the argument – i.e. ‘there are significant linkages amongst tolerance, hybrid identities and migration.’ These linkages can be comprehended by means of conceptualising extensions of hybrid identities in aggregate trans/inter-migration processes. It can be put forward that arising hybrid identities are embedded in a blurring structure of thoughts, beliefs, states of affairs, facts, belongings and so forth. From multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism viewpoints, it is argued that tolerance and migration ought to be analysed in frame of sociology of law, human rights, international migration law, and of course the European Union law. So far, normative arguments and soft law approaches are very much well integrated with social aspects of migration, tolerance, identity and culture. In this context, the study examines to what extent cultural and human components are protected by law in multiple levels from an interdisciplinary perspective. In this framework, it is crucial to raise the research enquiries: What are possible criteria for the limits of tolerance? To what extent tolerance is related to human rights and morality? What ought to be the limit of tolerance towards hybrid identities in multicultural and cosmopolitan societies? In a consistent manner, the criteria and standards developed by some leading scholars were reconstructed and discussed throughout this paper. These criteria and standards are both moral (part of a universal system of morality) and legal (international, supranational, or national – i.e. constitutional). In order to apply such standards their validity was discussed (i.e. the respective normative power has the norms at the various levels). In the case of morals, their difference to particular ethnic systems was established (i.e. criteria by which the two can be distinguished). Then the research argument was elaborated on whether and how the legal standards comply with the moral standards, how national standards comply with supranational or international standards. Likewise, the study highlights the crucial contributions of “World Society and World System Paradigms” that are associated with social space, global civil society, cosmopolitanism, ethnic diversity, cultural hybridity, human rights activism and public sphere. Recent debates in Refugee Studies (e.g. Syrian Refugee Crisis, Dual and Multiple Citizenship Issues and so forth) highlight the fact that the European Union needs to consider new aspects of tolerance for hybrid identities and tolerate cultural rights of hybrid identities, create cohesion in communities and establish intercultural dialogue amongst home-states and host-states. Sanguinely, the efforts of hybrid identities are strengthening the relations between home-host states and these ought to attract some considerable attention. The authors of this study hope that their endeavours may contribute somewhat towards that.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ALİU, A., ÖZTÜRK, İ., ALİU, D., ÖZKAN, Ö. (2016). TOLERANCE, MIGRATION AND HYBRID IDENTITIES: NORMATIVE REASONING OF INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE IN A BLURRING STRUCTURE. Uluslararası Politik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 3, 10–22. https://ajindex.com/articles/221086

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Aliu, Armando (2011), “Tolerance and Law: How the European Union Respects Minorities’ Rights in the Member States”, Unpublished Research Report, University of Hamburg, Hamburg. Aliu, Armando (2012), “International Migration and the European Union Relations in the Context of a Comparison of Western Balkans and North African Countries: Controlling Migration and Hybrid Model”, MPRA Paper No. 41102, Ludwig Maximilians Universität München, 05 June 2016, Retrieved from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41102/1/MPRA_paper_41102.pdf
  2. Aliu, Armando (2013), “The Theory of Interhybridity: Socio-political Dimensions and Migration Experiences of Post-communist Western Balkan States”, Journal of Advanced Research in Organizational Psychology, Vol.2, No.2, pp.5–54.
  3. Apel, Karl-Otto (1997), “Plurality of the Good? The Problem of Affirmative Tolerance in a Multicultural Society from an Ethical Point of View”, Ratio Juris, Vol.10, No.2, pp.199–212.
  4. Barnard, L. E. (1855), Moral Sayings of Confucius: A Chinese Philosopher, A. B. & CO, Cleveland. Baumann, G. (1999), The Multicultural Riddle: Rethinking National, Ethnic and Religious Identities, Routledge, London. Beck, Ulrich (2000), “The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity”, British Journal of Sociology, Vol.51, No.1, pp.79–105.
  5. Beck, Ulrich (2003), “Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent”, Constellations, Vol.10, No.4, pp.453–468.
  6. Beck, Ulrich (2004a), “Cosmopolitical Realism: On the Distinction between Cosmopolitanism in Philosophy and the Social Science”, Global Networks, Vol.4, No.2, pp.131–156.
  7. Beck, Ulrich (2004b), “The Truth of Others: A Cosmopolitan Approach”, Common Knowledge, Vol.10, No.3, pp.430–449.
  8. Beck, Ulrich (2005), “The Cosmopolitan State: Redefining Power in the Global Age”, International Journal of Politics, Culture & Society, Vol.18, No.3, pp.143–159.
  9. Beck, Ulrich and Natan Sznaider (2006), “Unpacking Cosmopolitanism for the Social Sciences: A Research Agenda”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol.57, No.1, pp.1–23.
  10. Beck, Ulrich and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim (2009), “Global Generations and the Trap of Methodological Nationalism for a Cosmopolitan Turn in the Sociology of Youth and Generations”, European Sociological Review, Vol.25, No.1, pp.25–36.
  11. Beck, Ulrich and Edgar Grande (2010), “Varieties of Second Modernity: The Cosmopolitan Turn in Social and Political Theory and Research”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol.61, No.3, pp.409–443.
  12. Beck, Ulrich (2011a),