This paper takes issue with Colin Tyler's critique of Bhikhu Parekh's work on liberalism and cultural pluralism in his ‘The Implications of Parekh's Cultural Pluralism’, Politics 16(3). I argue that Tyler subscribes to an overly monolithic view of cultural identity, that democracy can be a procedural or practical ideal not a cultural understanding, and that in any case the existence of deep-seated cultural pluralism is a good reason for rethinking democratic values and endorsing a republican, rather than liberal, conception of democracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HabermasJ. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
2.
HabermasJ. (1994) ‘Three Models of Democracy’Constellations1(1), pp.1–10.
3.
ParekhB. (1993) ‘The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy’, in HeldD. (ed.), Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East, West. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.156–75.
4.
ParekhB. (1994) ‘Cultural Diversity and Liberal Democracy’, in BeethamD. (ed.), Defining and Measuring Democracy, London: Sage Publications, pp.199–221.
5.
RawlsJ. (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia.
6.
TaylorC. (1989) Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
TaylorC. (1991) The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
8.
TaylorC. (1994) (2nd edition) ‘The Politics of Recognition’ in GutmannA, (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining The Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.25–73.
9.
TylerC. (1996) ‘The Implications of Parekh's Cultural Pluralism’, Politics16(3), pp.151–7.
10.
YoungI. M. (1990) ‘The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference’, in NicholsonL. (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. London: Routledge, pp.300–23.
