Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Let’s Brusselize the world!Helder De SchutterAbstract (in Dutch)In verschillende artikels, vooral in ‘Moet Europa Belgisch zijn?’, heeft Ph. VanParijs geargumenteerd dat de Europese en globale taalpolitiek op een ‘Belgische’wijze moeten worden georganiseerd. Deze Belgische oplossing bestaat erin datterritoria officieel eentalig zijn, zoals dat ook grotendeels het geval is in de Belgischegewesten Vlaanderen en Wallonië. Maar België heeft een derde gewest, Brussel, meteen officieel tweetalig taalbeleid. Philippe argumenteert voor de universalisering vanhet Vlaanderen/Wallonië-model. Ik argumenteer voor de tegenovergestelde positie:de universalisering van het Brusselse model.In the past decade, Philippe Van Parijs has developed a brilliant theory oflinguistic justice, recently published as Linguistic Justice for Europe and for theWorld (Van Parijs 2011). I admire Philippe’s project, but I disagree with onepillar of it. Philippe defends ‘linguistic territoriality’, arguing that nativelanguage groups should, if they desire so, be able to ‘grab a territory’ onwhich their language will be the only official language of that territory (VanParijs 2009). That language then becomes the only admissible one withinthat territory as regards public administration, political life, judiciaryprocedures and public education. Philippe portrays this territoriality view ascentral to the ideal of linguistic justice for our current world. I disagree. Ithink we need to globally advertise the very opposite: linguistic pluralism,to be explained below.Two Models of Linguistic JusticeTo make this discussion palpable, let me sketch a stylized picture of thelanguage issue in Belgium, the linguistically diverse state of which Philippeand I are citizens. Belgium has two major official languages: Dutch andFrench. 1 These two language groups get equal status, but this equality isexpressed in two different ways, depending on where you are locatedwithin Belgium. I’ll call the first way the Brussels model, and the second the1It also has a third official language, German, spoken by only 70.000 Belgians. Languagerecognition also extends to the German-speakers, who are sometimes called the ‘bestprotected language minority’ in the world.199
200A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c eROB (Rest of Belgium) model. The capital region, Brussels, with about 10% ofthe Belgian population, is officially bilingual. Inhabitants have freedom ofchoice between French and Dutch with regard to public institutions andservices, such as the school for their children (there are schools in eachlanguage), their voting ballot, the city council (officials will approach themin the language of their choice), public hospitals, or state museums.Individuals are not required to make a language package choice; theychoose on a case-by-case basis: they can send their children to a Dutchmediumschool, attend subsidized theatre in French today and in Dutch nextweek, vote for Dutch speaking politicians, and go to a French speakingdoctor. On Brussels territory, then, both language groups get full linguisticrecognition: Brussels has an officially bilingual status.This is the first model of linguistic justice, the Brussels model. Puttheoretically, the Brussels model stipulates that linguistic justice entailsequal recognition. Within certain practical limits, all native language groupswithin a region should receive equal status, so that individuals with therespective identities get language recognition. When I argue for linguisticpluralism as the hallmark for linguistic justice in the world today, this is themodel I have in mind, hence the title of this contribution: if we want torealize global linguistic justice, we should globally advertize a version of theBrussels model.The second model is the ROB model. The ROB model embraces linguisticterritoriality: each territory only has one official language. In Belgium, theROB model applies to the rest of the Belgian territory, essentially to Flanders(minus Brussels and some exceptions) and Wallonia (minus the Germanspeakingmunicipalities and some exceptions). Both Flanders and Walloniahave only one official language: in Flanders the official language is Dutch; inWallonia it is French. In both regions, then, it is only in the language of theregion that one can find schools, get city council services or find statemuseums. To be sure, Belgium internally has open borders: French speakersare welcome to move to Flanders and Dutch speakers can opt to live and/orwork in Wallonia. But they will have to adapt linguistically as far as publiclanguage use is concerned. In theoretical terms, the ROB model stipulatesthat linguistic justice requires assigning to language groups territories onwhich their language will be the only official language. The people can ofcourse be very multilingual, but the territory reserves official status to onlyone language. 22In its literal meaning, ‘territoriality’ as a way of naming the ROB model (common inpublic discourse in Belgium and Canada) is a misnomer, since of course Brussels is also aterritorial unit, just one on which two languages get official recognition. Brussels is notless ‘territorial’ than the ROB.
Page 5 and 6:
© Presses universitaires de Louvai
Page 7 and 8:
6A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 50 and 51:
Marriages as assets?Real freedom an
Page 52 and 53:
A l s t o t t - M a r r i a g e s a
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
The guaranteed income as an equalop
Page 64 and 65:
A r n s p e r g e r & J o h n s o n
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 80 and 81:
Reflections on the limits of argume
Page 82 and 83:
B a k e r - R e f l e c t i o n s o
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Taxation, fees and social justiceFr
Page 90 and 91:
B l a i s - T a x a t i o n , f e e
Page 92 and 93:
B l a i s - T a x a t i o n , f e e
Page 94 and 95:
Real freedomfor all turtles in Suga
Page 96 and 97:
B o u l a n g e r - R e a l f r e e
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Linguistic diversityand economic se
Page 108 and 109:
B o w l e s - L i n g u i s t i c d
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Legitimate partiality, parents and
Page 118 and 119:
B r i g h o u s e & S w i f t - L e
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124:
Page 127 and 128:
126A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 136 and 137:
Distributing freedom over whole liv
Page 138 and 139:
C a r t e r - D i s t r i b u t i n
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150: 148A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 158 and 159: Why do we blame survivors?Jean-Mich
Page 160 and 161: C h a u m o n t - W h y d o w e b l
Page 166: C h a u m o n t - W h y d o w e b l
Page 199: 198A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 230 and 231: English or Esperanto:a case for lev
Page 232 and 233: F l e u r b a e y - E n g l i s h o
Page 234 and 235: F l e u r b a e y - E n g l i s h o
Page 236: F l e u r b a e y - E n g l i s h o
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 262 and 263:
Should a Marxistbelieve in human ri
Page 264 and 265:
L a c r o i x - S h o u l d a M a r
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 284 and 285:
A universal duty to careIngrid Robe
Page 286 and 287:
R o b e yn s - A u n i v e r s a l
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
The ideological roots of inequality
Page 294 and 295:
R o e m e r - T h e i d e o l o g i
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Philosophers andtaboo trade-offs in
Page 306 and 307:
S c h o k k a e r t - P h i l o s o
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 322 and 323:
On genetic inequalityHillel Steiner
Page 324 and 325:
S t e i n e r - O n g e n e t i c i
Page 326 and 327:
S t e i n e r - O n g e n e t i c i
Page 328 and 329:
A federal electoral district for Be
Page 330 and 331:
S t o j a n o v i c - A f e d e r a
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 368 and 369:
Lamentationin the face of historica
Page 370 and 371:
V r o u s a l i s - L a m e n t a t
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 388 and 389:
Why we demand anunconditional basic
Page 390 and 391:
W i d e r q u i s t - T h e E C S O
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Linguistic protectionismand wealth
Page 398 and 399:
W i l l i a m s - L i n g u i s t i
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
In defense of genderlessnessErik Ol
Page 406 and 407:
W r i g h t - I n d e f e n s e o f
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423:
show all

Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?