Abstract
Culture and its preservation frequently motivate political action, yet whether this attribution of normative value is actually justified is highly contested. We outline three positions in this debate with regard to the concept of culture at play as well to as the dimension of normative value that is assigned to its preservation: monolithic preservationism, Heraclitean preservationism, and Heraclitean instrumental preservationism. Proceeding from his ‘Heraclitean’ concept of culture, Joseph Carens claims to argue for normative legitimacy of cultural preservation. However, the normative basis for his claim remains unstated: does he attribute intrinsic or instrumental value to cultural preservation? To justify certain policies that protect particular cultural institutions his arguments draw on the values of individual wellbeing and economic egalitarianism. We want to argue that the application of Carens’s view on further constellations requires him to clarify which kind of value cultural preservation is based upon.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The paper had initially been published in: University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Vol. 25, No. 3 & 4 (Spring/Summer 1992): 547–631. According to Carens, it had been prompted by Jeremy Waldron’s paper “Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative”, published in the same volume of the journal, that took a firm stance against communitarian attempts to consider ‘culture’ as a morally relevant category.
- 2.
The term “Heraclitean” in regard to concepts of culture was coined by Samuel Scheffler in reference to the phrase “πάντα ῥεῖ (panta rhei)” by Heraclitus of Ephesus (Scheffler 2007).
- 3.
In accordance with our identification of Carens as Heraclitean preservationist, Samuel Scheffler as proponent of Heraclitean instrumental preservationism articulates objections to what he perceives as Carens’s theoretical concepts regarding the preservation of culture: “Nor, as Joe Carens has persuaded me, would I wish to reject all of the policies that have been implemented in Canada under the heading of “multiculturalism” or “cultural rights,” even though I am skeptical about the way those policies have been conceptualized and justified” (Scheffler 2007, 118).
References
Basic Laws of Israel. (1958, February 20). The Knesset § 7A. Sefer Ha-Chukkim No, 244 of the 30th Shevat. 5718.
Carens, Joseph H. 2000. Culture, Citizenship, and Community. A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness. (= CCC).
———. 2015. The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (= EoI).
Kymlicka, Will. 2014. The Essentialist Critique of Multiculturalism: Theories, Policies, Ethos. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2014/59.
Orgad, Liav. 2015. The Cultural Defense of Nations. In A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Scheffler, Samuel. 2007. Immigration and the Significance of culture. Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (2): 93–125.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1995. Minority Rights and the Cosmopolitan Alternative. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 25 (4).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jeggle, L., Vogt-Reimuth, N. (2020). Preserving Culture? On the Moral Foundations of a Contested Political Aim. In: Hoesch, M., Mooren, N. (eds) Joseph Carens: Between Aliens and Citizens. Münster Lectures in Philosophy, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44476-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44476-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44475-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44476-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)