For Love of Country

Political Theory

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 379-397

  Bader, Veit ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84998075541     PISSN: 00905917     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0090591799027003004     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. See Veit Bader, “The Cultural Conditions of Transnational Citizenship,” Political Theory 25, no. 6 (1997): 783–89. Viroli, strangely enough, eventually seems to adhere to what Joe Carens has aptly called the “hands-off” approach to cultural fairness.
2. See Michael Lind, The Next American Nation (New York: Free Press, 1995);
3. David Hollinger, Post-Ethnic America (New York: Basic Books, 1995);
4. Herman van Gunsteren, Organizing Plurality: Citizenship in Post 1989 Democracies (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998).
5. See Veit Bader, “Egalitarian Multiculturalism: Institutional Separation and Cultural Pluralism.” In Blurred Boundaries, eds. R. Bauböck and R. Rundell (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1998), 185–220. Indicative is Viroli's criticism of Walzer's pluralism, which is treated as just another version of the liberty of the moderns (pp. 10f).
6. See Bader, “The Cultural Conditions,” 786.
7. See Veit Bader, “Conclusion.” In Citizenship and Exclusion, ed. Veit Bader (Houndsmills, UK: Macmillan, 1997), 182–84.
8. See Veit Bader, “Conclusion,” 176f, with Habermas and Raz. See Beitz in BR for the distinction between moral and ethical arguments.
9. See the examples of this dogmatic logic of “first-second,” “part-whole,” which automatically gives priority, primacy to the “most fundamental” obligations toward intimates. This automatically seems to stretch to “strangers” within state boundaries treated as “compatriots” and automatically excludes or de-emphasizes strangers beyond borders: Barber, pp. 34f; Bok, p. 43 (only God's love not from part to whole); Glazer, pp. 63f; McConnel, pp. 79ff; and Walzer, p. 126 (“start with the center,” “begin by,” “to open the inner one's out,” “then we extend,” “ultimately to all,” and “commitments and obligations are diminished as they are extended”). Excellent criticism of the metaphor itself and, particularly, of the inconsistent treatment of strangers inside and outside the modern state is articulated by Henry Shue, “Mediating Duties,” Ethics 98 (1998): 687–704.
10. See Nussbaum, p. 135, asking for “tough thinking”;
11. Appiah, Butler, and Taylor, p. 121;
12. Sen, pp. 113f.
13. See my treatment of the problem: Veit Bader, “Fairly Open Borders.” In Citizenship and Exclusion, ed. Veit Bader (Houndsmill, UK: Macmillan, 1997), 28–60.
14. See my “Citizenship of the European Union: Human Rights, Rights of Citizens of the Union and of Member-States,” Ratio Juris, forthcoming, 1999.
15. See Bader, “Conclusion,” 184. See Charles Beitz in BR. See Falk's second proposal “to disengage the practice of democracy from its traditional state/society nexus” (p. 59).
16. Sociological, liberal, and republican dogmas of “unity” are criticized by Richard Sennett (in BR) as “errors” and “exercises in nostalgia” diverting from the contemporary questions “how to live in difference, not how to transcend difference.” See my more extensive treatment in Bader, “Unity and Stability in Modern Societies and Recent Political Philosophy.” In Individualism, Civil Society, and Civil Religion, eds. A. V. Harskamp and A. W. Musschenga (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1999).